|
|
I think Day9 is a bit of here by arguing that it's fear that are causing player to not attack. In this way he is trying to make it appear as if it's just irrationalty, and that a "psychological" fix that reduces the absolutel values of the rewards and the risks will incentivize more action.
So let's say that without the respawn mechanic, the reward for attacking = 100, the cost of attacking = 20. Ratio = 0.2 Now with the respawn mechanic, the ratio of 0.2 will be maintained, but the values will be reduced to 50 and 10.
So the incentivize itself hasn't actually been changed, but the volatility of the gameplay has been, which makes it less likely that it will be one battle and gg.
However, from my experience, you only wanna change the absolute values of risk and rewards based on the phase of the game. For instance, you want low values in the early games of SC2 as players are very vulnernable in this phase of the game.
As game progresses, the "one battle and GG" is much more likely to be attributed to:
1) Snowball-based unit designs. For instance medivac healing can easily snowball.
2) But punishment for small misclikcs (EMP/ Psy Storm/clumping up slightly vs collosus).
3) Assymetrical productio nmechanics, that makes one race rebuild a ton easier.
4) Lack of defenders advantage to fall back on
So I don't agree that you actually need to make artifical rewards to get rid of one-battle and GG syndrome. I believe it can be fixed in much cleaner ways.
However, that wasn't the argument Day9 brought up. Rather, he stated that he believe it will create more action, but the whole psychologicla phenoemna is just nosnense once the game gets figured out. Instead, you have to A) Give players the incentivize to attack. B) Give them the tools to start engagements. C) Create escape-mechanics that allows palyers that are about to lose the battle, to live and fight another day.
With these changes, the "reward"-value will be unchanged, but the "risk" will be significantly reduced, and thus my suggested approach is a fundamental incentivize to reward more battles, while Day9's approach can only "fix" it if players act irratioanlly.
So I want to precise what I mean by tools, because there are multiple approaches you can take here. But one element is how the Collosus in Sc2 is a "tool"-killer as bio-play can't really engage against a Collosus-compostion without fully commiting due to the range of the Collosus. It can't make small pokes as it can vs Zealot/HT or Zerg, which stales the game quite a bit.
|
Ok, I think I just figured out the counter-argument to my post above.
If we assume that there can be certain strategical/tactical advantages of winning a fight, but no (or lower) tactical disadvantages of losing the fight, and that the value of the tactical advantage is unrelated to the respawn-mechanic, the risk/reward ratio can actually change.
Let me show an example to demonstrate why that's the case.
Assumptions:
- Defenders advantage exists
- Aggressor stronger army
--> Probability of winning battle vs losing losing = 50/50
Without respawn
- Average cost unit efficiency after winning a battle = +10
- Average cost unit efficiency after losing a battle = -20
- Tactical advantage of winning battle = 7.5
Average outcome of engaging = -20*0.5 + 10 * 0.5 + 7.5*0.5 = -1.25
With respawn (of 50% for simplicity here)
- Average cost unit efficiency after winning a battle = +5
- Average cost unit efficiency after losing a battle = -10
- Tactical advantage of winning battle = 7.5
Average outcome of engaging = -10*0.5 + 5 * 0.5 + 7.5*0.5 = 1.25
Thus, the respawn mechanic can actually incentivize engagements. Nevertheless, I am curious to see whether Day9 repsonds to my inital comment that I posted to his blog. If he can figure it out as well, he definitely has my trust as a game-designer going forward.
|
I'm just worried that it will be viable to kill off your own units so that you can better counter your opponent's army (which mind you can be created instantly due to instant build times). Or that you're supposed to kill off army surpluses after the fight so that you can invest into tech or economy for a long-term advantage.
|
Haven't heard any news about this game? Could someone confirm that the game is not dead and it's not going to be discounted???
|
It's still alive, I know people still working on it but no other information right now
|
No idea whether or not this is news, but apparently beta testing is supposed to start december 2015:
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
WHEN WILL IT BE RELEASED?
Atlas will begin public beta testing in December of 2015.
https://www.artillery.com/atlas
I personally really really want this to be a success. Blizzard needs some competition/inspiration! And if its good and Blizzard changes nothing, I got a new game to play.
|
Why they need so much time lol. I hope the size and quality of the game is worth it.
|
Well if they release in 2016 they'd still be in the 3-year development cycle wouldn't they? Seems pretty standard considering they are also building publically available development tools and are using a new technology on top of that!
|
Early in this thread there was some back-and-forth debate about the value of setting a game within a browser.
It appears Artillery are wavering somewhat on their previous mission to put a game in a browser.
"WILL IT RUN IN THE BROWSER?
It's highly likely that Atlas will be able to run in the browser without plugins. However, should browsers be unable to deliver a rich enough experience, Atlas will be distributed as a standalone desktop application."
https://www.artillery.com/atlas
i wonder if its the floating point math differences between browsers and machines that is causing desyncs 
if they get this puppy out the door without dropping a compiled EXE on your machine i'll be pleasantly surprised.
|
On March 30 2015 19:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Early in this thread there was some back-and-forth debate about the value of setting a game within a browser. It appears Artillery are wavering somewhat on their previous mission to put a game in a browser. "WILL IT RUN IN THE BROWSER? It's highly likely that Atlas will be able to run in the browser without plugins. However, should browsers be unable to deliver a rich enough experience, Atlas will be distributed as a standalone desktop application." https://www.artillery.com/atlasi wonder if its the floating point math differences between browsers and machines that is causing desyncs if they get this puppy out the door without dropping a compiled EXE on your machine i'll be pleasantly surprised.
Is that new information? The game is currently playable-ish on at least several browsers, and being browser-only is the main concept behind the game, so I don't know why they would consider wavering on it.
|
The video says beta in 2013
|
On March 30 2015 22:45 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 19:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Early in this thread there was some back-and-forth debate about the value of setting a game within a browser. It appears Artillery are wavering somewhat on their previous mission to put a game in a browser. "WILL IT RUN IN THE BROWSER? It's highly likely that Atlas will be able to run in the browser without plugins. However, should browsers be unable to deliver a rich enough experience, Atlas will be distributed as a standalone desktop application." https://www.artillery.com/atlasi wonder if its the floating point math differences between browsers and machines that is causing desyncs if they get this puppy out the door without dropping a compiled EXE on your machine i'll be pleasantly surprised. Is that new information? The game is currently playable-ish on at least several browsers, and being browser-only is the main concept behind the game, so I don't know why they would consider wavering on it.
ya, so much for their game working on a browser.
i'm not the type of guy to say i told you so... but .. ummm .. i ummm. told you so.
http://blog.artillery.com/2015/09/artillery-native-game-client.html
also, if u signed up for the beta for this game you need to sign up again.
|
I actually have more faith in this game than in LOTV, funny how this works isn't it
|
Thanks for the notification, I think I'll sign up now that I realise there's a chance to again. I thought I'd simply missed out previously.
That original promo video seems pretty embarrassing to me though.
"Basic animations, basic animations WHOA GUYS LOOK AT THE ONE FANCY THING basic animations show a bit of the editor, whhOOAO ROTATE CAMERA AROUND THE ONE FANCY THING GUYS LOOK IT'S A SINGLE FANCY THING PLEASE BE IMPRESSED!!!"
^__^"
|
Day9 posted a blog about a few of their design choices on the official Atlas webpage.
http://blog.artillery.com/2015/10/atlas-design-update.html
Interestingly enough we just had a discussion about Day9's game design qualifications in a LotV Feedback thread. There are some interesting ideas in the article. Some things remind me of Total War Arena but I think I'm just imagining them wrong. It's definitely worth reading.
In the blog he mentions he frequently talks about Atlas in his shows. Anyone know specific VODs? I don't follow Day9 anymore so no idea where I should look.
|
On October 02 2015 02:10 KeksX wrote:Day9 posted a blog about a few of their design choices on the official Atlas webpage. http://blog.artillery.com/2015/10/atlas-design-update.htmlInterestingly enough we just had a discussion about Day9's game design qualifications in a LotV Feedback thread. There are some interesting ideas in the article. Some things remind me of Total War Arena but I think I'm just imagining them wrong. It's definitely worth reading. In the blog he mentions he frequently talks about Atlas in his shows. Anyone know specific VODs? I don't follow Day9 anymore so no idea where I should look.
He talks about it quite frequently, but tbh i think this blog covers most things which are known iirc (i don't watch every single stream though tbh)
|
On October 02 2015 02:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 02:10 KeksX wrote:Day9 posted a blog about a few of their design choices on the official Atlas webpage. http://blog.artillery.com/2015/10/atlas-design-update.htmlInterestingly enough we just had a discussion about Day9's game design qualifications in a LotV Feedback thread. There are some interesting ideas in the article. Some things remind me of Total War Arena but I think I'm just imagining them wrong. It's definitely worth reading. In the blog he mentions he frequently talks about Atlas in his shows. Anyone know specific VODs? I don't follow Day9 anymore so no idea where I should look. He talks about it quite frequently, but tbh i think this blog covers most things which are known iirc (i don't watch every single stream though tbh)
I see. Well I'm looking forward to seeing more, it definitely sounds interesting what they came up with(and the fact that people like qxc/sasquatch are playtesters is great, too).
|
On October 02 2015 02:22 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 02:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 02 2015 02:10 KeksX wrote:Day9 posted a blog about a few of their design choices on the official Atlas webpage. http://blog.artillery.com/2015/10/atlas-design-update.htmlInterestingly enough we just had a discussion about Day9's game design qualifications in a LotV Feedback thread. There are some interesting ideas in the article. Some things remind me of Total War Arena but I think I'm just imagining them wrong. It's definitely worth reading. In the blog he mentions he frequently talks about Atlas in his shows. Anyone know specific VODs? I don't follow Day9 anymore so no idea where I should look. He talks about it quite frequently, but tbh i think this blog covers most things which are known iirc (i don't watch every single stream though tbh) I see. Well I'm looking forward to seeing more, it definitely sounds interesting what they came up with(and the fact that people like qxc/sasquatch are playtesters is great, too).
I hope i get into the december beta test haha.
While i prefer sc2 style gameplay, i think this might be a lot of fun as well if the implementation of these ideas is good enough.
|
On October 02 2015 02:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 02:22 KeksX wrote:On October 02 2015 02:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 02 2015 02:10 KeksX wrote:Day9 posted a blog about a few of their design choices on the official Atlas webpage. http://blog.artillery.com/2015/10/atlas-design-update.htmlInterestingly enough we just had a discussion about Day9's game design qualifications in a LotV Feedback thread. There are some interesting ideas in the article. Some things remind me of Total War Arena but I think I'm just imagining them wrong. It's definitely worth reading. In the blog he mentions he frequently talks about Atlas in his shows. Anyone know specific VODs? I don't follow Day9 anymore so no idea where I should look. He talks about it quite frequently, but tbh i think this blog covers most things which are known iirc (i don't watch every single stream though tbh) I see. Well I'm looking forward to seeing more, it definitely sounds interesting what they came up with(and the fact that people like qxc/sasquatch are playtesters is great, too). I hope i get into the december beta test haha. While i prefer sc2 style gameplay, i think this might be a lot of fun as well if the implementation of these ideas is good enough.
Yup I hope I get in too, I remember I signed up for it really early so I hope that helps.
I'm really skeptical about the game as I said in that feedback thread, but those are some very interesting concepts and if they can pull it off it might actually be solid competition and innovation in the RTS market.
I'm just wondering how strong their focus on competetiveness is. A fun RTS is not necessarily a competetive one( see C&C).
|
Well the concept of objective based gameplay alone makes it pretty competetive imo. At least if the balance is good enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
