|
|
On September 15 2015 01:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 22:45 Grumbels wrote: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.htmlalso, if u signed up for the beta for this game you need to sign up again.
Haha, I will love to read JimmyJRaynor's special kind of negative posting on this topic. Unlike Grey Goo and Act of Aggression I don't expect anything good from this game.
RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo showed and AoA can still show) successfully and basing trust on one youtube celebrity whose whole game making skill is he was a middling progamer in BW for few years and a caster in SC2 is not really smart or a good bet.
So this I hope JimmyJRaynor you are not a true Day9 fanboy and you will be just as objective in this topic as you were in other two
|
This game sounds so good. Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance.
The only thing I kind of dislike from what we know so far is the team-focus. I hope that there will be a good way to play it 1v1 as well.
God damn it I would love to have beta for this. Like, play it day and night if it is anything like described.
|
On October 02 2015 06:18 Big J wrote:
This game sounds so good. Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance.
The only thing I kind of dislike from what we know so far is the team-focus. I hope that there will be a good way to play it 1v1 as well.
The focus on team games is important because most of the people who buy RTS games do not play 1v1.
|
The team focus also reduces the multitasking every single person has to do without dumbing down the general game objectives.
I think this is really smart and i have no doubt that there will be 1vs1 maps as well.
|
While I completely agree that RTS are extremely hard to make and that healthy skepticism is warranted at this point, your statement
whose whole game making skill is he was a middling progamer in BW
misses that Sean spent several years getting his MFA from USC's Interactive Media program with a focus on making games and we have over 20 people here working on Atlas.
Also stay tuned to the blog in a few weeks when we make some business announcements  . It's not going to show gameplay footage or anything, but it should help give some external validation.
|
Yeah, obviously team games seem to be the way to go. I just hope that there is an equivalent 1v1 mode, for example in any game each side can pick exactly 9 unique units. And so in 3v3 you pick 3 and control one squad, while in 1v1 you pick all 9 and control 3 squads.
It's just a personal thing, but the last thing I want is to be reliant on some dumbass 14year old's judgement when it comes to strategy. And I have no interest on making my gaming time depending on a fixed team partner either at the moment.
|
On October 02 2015 06:34 WHiT3R4bBiT wrote:While I completely agree that RTS are extremely hard to make and that healthy skepticism is warranted at this point, your statement misses that Sean spent several years getting his MFA from USC's Interactive Media program with a focus on making games and we have over 20 people here working on Atlas. Also stay tuned to the blog in a few weeks when we make some business announcements . It's not going to show gameplay footage or anything, but it should help give some external validation.
Means not much. Grey Goo was made by people that came from Westwood and some other Rts, AoA from Eugene that made like 4-5 RTS games. They both failed to make half the total game SC2 is.
I am sorry if I am skeptical but I am just being realistic. Making a good RTS is not easy, it is probably one of the hardest game genre to do right.
Also there are two RTS being produced and published by Stardock, I even trust them more to do it right as they also got real references and an exciting new engine.
|
On October 02 2015 06:47 Big J wrote:
Yeah, obviously team games seem to be the way to go. I just hope that there is an equivalent 1v1 mode, for example in any game each side can pick exactly 9 unique units. And so in 3v3 you pick 3 and control one squad, while in 1v1 you pick all 9 and control 3 squads.
It's just a personal thing, but the last thing I want is to be reliant on some dumbass 14year old's judgement when it comes to strategy. And I have no interest on making my gaming time depending on a fixed team partner either at the moment.
Well i guess it really depends on how much influence the ability of one player will have on the outcome of the game tbh.
If it is pretty much only about the teamplay then it might be frustrating to play, when you alone can have big impact on the outcome of the game then you will soon climb the ladder and get other people who are just as good as you.
But yeah, in the end i prefer 1vs1 gameplay too, even though playing csgo changed that opinion quite a bit, hehe
|
I think it's a bit of a shame that it won't be 1v1 focused. I am actually more interested in knowing why they decided to go away from it (at the very beginning, which is when i followed it a bit, it seemed like it was very much going to go 1v1). Like if they just don't think the format is popular (the more i see other rts not become super popular, the more i think everybody blaming blizz for making sc2 suck is wrong.... it just seems that people prefer blaming their team for losing...  ), or what other reasons made them decide on going team based.
Also (sorry if I'm being stupid here) has there been any information on the pricing of the game? Probably am going to check it out, but with me getting into indie stuff a lot recently full priced games seem so expensive... :X
|
Atlas/Day[9] aside...
At this point, is Artillery basically a bad version of Unity since they dropped browser as the primary use-case?
|
This game sounds so good. Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance.
But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units +1 hero connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly.
RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo
Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting.
I remember spending 5-10 minutes reading about the game before being convinced that it was gonna fail (sure you can find my comment in the thread).
However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset.
|
On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly. Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting. It didn't take me more than 2 minutes to asses that Grey Goo was gonna fail big time a year before it was released (sure you can find my comment in the thread). However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset.
Wait, how do you know what atlas will be like (the pace of the game specifically) ? I NEED THIS INFORMATION!! :D .
While I agree that Grey Goo is much to slow (but i prefer fast paced games, f.e I don't think sc2 is too fast), I wouldn't sign that slow games make the skillcap uninsteresting. The pace being slow is ok for micro, it even let's you micro a lot better in big fights. The problem is that the units are "too realistic"/ too unresponsive. It takes time to stop attacking, to turn and to start moving. This makes them hard to micro and often also inefficient to do so.
A game can still have very interesting micro interactions even if it is slow paced (hell, even if units aren't super responsive). I would consider warcraft III to be a slow paced game, but it still managed to have cool micro interactions (In my opinion).
I still think the main thing that hurt GG was that the units were way too similar and I hope that the unit squads you make in Atlas will be more diverse, so that you can actually create squads that play very differently from each other.
|
On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly.
Oh fuck I reread, you are right. 
|
On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly. Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting. It didn't take me more than 2 minutes to asses that Grey Goo was gonna fail big time a year before it was released (sure you can find my comment in the thread). However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset.
By your logic Starbow should have done much better. It is not a simple as that, that is what I am saying.
|
Ah after reading the blog it seems this game will be some kind of Moba/RTS hybrid. Will it even have any kind of resource gathering?
If I wanted to play a MOBA I would play Dota 2 with my friends. Also the hero + units reminds me too much of WC3, I never liked that game in MP, I prefered to play Dota 1 instead.
I cannot say I am very interested anymore but maybe if it will have some free to play model or open beta I might try it to see if it can change my mind.
|
On October 02 2015 21:52 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly. RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting. It didn't take me more than 2 minutes to asses that Grey Goo was gonna fail big time a year before it was released (sure you can find my comment in the thread). However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset. By your logic Starbow should have done much better. It is not a simple as that, that is what I am saying.
Shots fired.
I agree with the concept that "more micro" isn't inherently better, and the term 'out play' is vague. Micro is just one of the many tools a developer has to add dept to the game. But if you look at other games like Dota(and brood war) sometimes hard land, fight changing abilities with long cool downs are also a valuable tool. No one will claim Black Hole is hard to execute, but landing one that won't be canceled or countered is hard.
|
On October 02 2015 18:42 scares wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly. RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting. It didn't take me more than 2 minutes to asses that Grey Goo was gonna fail big time a year before it was released (sure you can find my comment in the thread). However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset. Wait, how do you know what atlas will be like (the pace of the game specifically) ? I NEED THIS INFORMATION!! :D .
It's in the article.
In Atlas, rather than pick a full race of 10-15 units, you pick a squad consisting of one hero unit and three unit types. During a game, you may only build among those three unit types. For instance, you might choose a squad with fighters, rangers, and tanks, intending to shoot for a composition of many fighters, a few tanks, and one ranger.
|
On October 02 2015 21:52 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly. RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting. It didn't take me more than 2 minutes to asses that Grey Goo was gonna fail big time a year before it was released (sure you can find my comment in the thread). However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset. By your logic Starbow should have done much better. It is not a simple as that, that is what I am saying.
Eh what? Starbow has a trillion flaws with it and "my logic" didn't imply the contary.
There's a list of things you need to get right in a game to be succesful. I don't think you can just be right on 60%.
And there are some "flaws" that are so significant that are absolute neccsary. In an RTS I think a high micro-skillcap is one of those neccesities.
I agree with the concept that "more micro" isn't inherently better, and the term 'out play' is vague. Micro is just one of the many tools a developer has to add dept to the game. But if you look at other games like Dota(and brood war) sometimes hard land, fight changing abilities with long cool downs are also a valuable tool.
Yeh hard to land abilities are in my definition of micro (and outplay if you land them well) as well. But what I mean is that its important Atlas is not a game where you a-move some units and/or where each ability feel unimpactful or overly easy to use optimally.
The game seems to have a very low skill floor (which is good), but it also needs an "interesting" skill ceiling as well. I think that if it accomplishes that, it could be really succesful.
|
On October 02 2015 22:06 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2015 21:52 -Archangel- wrote:On October 02 2015 18:16 Hider wrote:Like, 90% of what is written in the blog matches my own ideas for a nex-gen RTS game. The system in which you choose a bunch of units you can play from a huge pool of units especially is what allows for fundamentally different gameplay each game, assuming a somewhat existant unit balance. But you only choose between some different squads which each have 3 units connected to them. I don't think that adds a lot of diversity (unless Atlas is going to develop 100+ units). But it definitely will add the game more noob friendly. RTS are hard to make (as Grey Goo Come on, be real man. Grey Goo was destined to fail. You had developers who didn't know what macro/micro was, and they made a game in slow motion. When games are in slow motion it makes movement-based micro interactions impossible, and thus makes the skillcap of the game uninteresting. It didn't take me more than 2 minutes to asses that Grey Goo was gonna fail big time a year before it was released (sure you can find my comment in the thread). However, Atlas is different. This game does a lot of things right, but micro interactions still need to be awesome with opportunites to outplay their opponents in order for players to be interested to further improve their skillset. By your logic Starbow should have done much better. It is not a simple as that, that is what I am saying. What? How do you make up that? Starbow has a trillion flaws with it. There's a list of things you need to get right in a game to be succesful. I don't think you can just be right on 60-80%.
Starbow is pretty awesome as base game. It even made Blizzard do some economy changes to LotV, even the larva stacking is kind of like what Starbow did. Now Starbow is going to test removing macro boosters (I will go back to playing it if that becomes part of main game :D).
But it has problems with being part of SC2 arcade system, being part of Starcraft 2 at all (people start sc2 and click ladder or play casual arcade games), and having no access to easy matchmaking.
Every RTS has 1 000 000 hills to climb. And you have to climb most of them and more importantly the right ones to succeed.
Proclaiming Artillery as a success before it has shown anything is naive.
But it does not matter anymore to me since I found out it is a MOBA hybrid and not a classic RTS. I don't play MOBAs or MOBA hybrids.
|
But it has problems with being part of SC2 arcade system, being part of Starcraft 2 at all (people start sc2 and click ladder or play casual arcade games), and having no access to easy matchmaking.
Sure, but the learning curve of Starbow is also super high There are so many timings you need to understand to get into "interesting" micro situations (I am not making this up btw, I read this from a ton of playtester and talked to many as well who tried the game).
I see the below 3 critieria that you need to satisfy for the game to be succesful:
- Low learning barrier
- High skillcap (and a high skillcap comes when you feel further improvements make a noticeable difference, unlike Heroes of the Storm)
- Business Model and game-client (I love what Valve does here).
So obviously Starbow fails on 2 of them, and with regards to the skillcap, I honestly don't think its that high. Yeh I get all of the BW-fans will hate me now, but bioplay in Sc2 just tops any composition in Starbow by miles.
I felt that I had to perform some type of "overly aggressive" style to challenge myself mechanically whenever I played starbow and that often time wasn't effective.
Since its a MOBA/RTS hybrid where you control few different units at once and each unit have an ability, I think its very important the design of the abilities are well-done. I love how Riot designs abilities as they seem to tweak all of the numbers to get the most interesting interactions (while maintaining the low learning barrier).
On the other hand, Blizzard with Starcraft doesn't spend as much time refining numbers during the design-proces. Rather numbers is more of a balance-thing for them. For instance I don't understand why the Ravagers skillshot is only a zoning tool and not something that you semi-reliably can hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
