On March 06 2015 09:54 Corgi wrote: This game had serious problems on release. Worse than Starcraft 2 by far in my opinion. As much as I want to see new RTS, this is just not going to be something that lasts. It's already considered dead I believe.
It would have just benefited so much from a 6 month beta. They could iron out all of this performance stuff and get units to a place where they don't feel the need to remove two thirds of their damage in a single update~ Version 1.0 is a big phycological thing too. If a beta has a lot of issues, that's kinda fine. If 1.0 ships with imbalances to the scale that you feel the need to correct them with those kinds of cataclysmic unit nerfs and the client runs really badly on low and high end systems alike, that's a big issue i feel
The thing is though, the balance is really not too bad. I don't really understand the need for this many changes. Maybe they just want to test a bunch of things out at once in a beta version?
The fact that they didn't delay the release by 6 months is a clear indication that they didn't have the money to do so.
I'm just shocked at the extremity of the changes. Some stuff is being nerfed 4 or 5 times when even just 1 or 2 of the nerfs is more than enough to cripple the thing in question
Beta test the patch? It already takes 20 minutes to find a game on the normal patch... seems pointless, just patch the game, not like you are interfering with some big tournament or something. :D
Most of these changes are pretty unnecessary. The game is well-balanced for a recently released game.
I interpret this as more of a gameplay-adjustment patch than a balance patch. The game is shockingly balanced overall, with goo just vanishing for a bit near the top due to pressure builds.
Beta test the patch? It already takes 20 minutes to find a game on the normal patch... seems pointless, just patch the game, not like you are interfering with some big tournament or something. :D
Yeah... well, seems a little delusional to think there will be lots of games on that server, but maybe a handful of good players will hammer out some games and help refine things. I might try it. No use getting more used to vanilla if its going to change this much I guess.
I think people missed something here. I believe this patch should be considered as not a formal balance patch, rather a major adjustment patch to make the game more enjoyable overall, rather than tweak the win rates of the races. Most of the stuff they adjusted are very annoying gameplay mechanics(Wallz) and rather intended/unintended mechanics(air-gnd fights, artillery counters everything, static defense imba teleport etc..) that are toned toned eventually. They might gone a little bit overboard but it'll settle out eventually. I think GG, from a pure balance standpoint, launched as a very balanced game.
Yea this is not a balance patch but game changing patch to make it more fun. This the what Blizzard does in their alpha and beta phases. But GG didn't have beta so they need to do it with full release.
And I agree that the beta server is a bad idea, the community is super small and some of the things from the patch (walls, artillery changes) were needed 3 weeks ago. They are still shooting themselves in the foot.
Holy cow. i`ve reconsidered my attemp to play random on ladder. I even can`t beat the ai T.T
But that`s for sure not the game his fault. Haven`t played much at all.
But... the micro is real, isn`t it? To get beaten up by the a.i "1 base vs. 3 base" really forces you to micro as hard as you can :D ... and it would have helped me out, if i only would have known how to transition out of it
Have read things about that topic and somehow got that feel that there is `no micro involved` in the game... that`s not true!
Once I swallowed my Starcraft pride and started using autobuild, this game started playing a whole lot differently.
Macro is really easy in this game. That means you have as much time as you need for good micro, and for taking ground. That's what this game is really about.
However they're demoing it on 5960x's (8 core Haswell at ~3-3.5ghz) and fx9590's (piledriver 8-thread CPU at 4.7-5ghz) and they're only getting about 25-40fps with some frames dipping to ~15-20 while demoing that. That's with 5.5k units though and lots of fancy effects. With the Star Swarm demo (earlier version of the same engine) you could turn off a motion blur effect and you got like 4x FPS from that alone, yet everyone demo'd it with the "hey this looks fancy" version :D
Also they're making themselves GPU bound by demoing it at 4k. It's very hard to say how well it would perform if you just run it at a resolution that your GPU can handle at a good FPS, and maybe see which settings you can turn down to improve performance.
Also, you linked the AMD propaganda vid god the bias
On March 12 2015 05:59 Cyro wrote: It's pretty cool (:
However they're demoing it on 5960x's (8 core Haswell at ~3-3.5ghz) and fx9590's (piledriver 8-thread CPU at 4.7-5ghz) and they're only getting about 25-40fps with some frames dipping to ~15-20 while demoing that. That's with 5.5k units though and lots of fancy effects. With the Star Swarm demo (earlier version of the same engine) you could turn off a motion blur effect and you got like 4x FPS from that alone, yet everyone demo'd it with the "hey this looks fancy" version :D
Also they're making themselves GPU bound by demoing it at 4k. It's very hard to say how well it would perform if you just run it at a resolution that your GPU can handle at a good FPS, and maybe see which settings you can turn down to improve performance.
Also, you linked the AMD propaganda vid god the bias
I haven't listened to what they said since I'm at work and have no audio, but many games these days have performance problems not because of graphical effects, but because of AI, path finding, physics calculations and such which often end up being CPU bound. The game might be pretty, but until they have the full AI implemented and actual gameplay done, it doesn't say anything, because those actually kill performance more than 5500 "dumb" units constantly shooting without any actual decision making behind it.
It is a tech demo, have to see what kind of actual playable game they bring this year though. If they actually pull off a decent RTS engine it would be awesome
Hows the game doing atm? I haven't played it in weeks, how has the last update been? Player count currently? Hope they put on a Steam sale soon .... ~_~
The balance update after the performance patch (with artillery, air, walls changes etc) hasn't hit yet and is still a few weeks out i think. Player count still dropping and hitting 40 people having the game loaded during the american night
On March 13 2015 14:14 GGzerG wrote: Hows the game doing atm? I haven't played it in weeks, how has the last update been? Player count currently? Hope they put on a Steam sale soon .... ~_~
The player numbers are unexplainable bad. I been comparing them to some less known games from other genre with MP like Grim Dawn and GG has pathetic numbers.
Only a big steam sale together with a good marketing push can revive it. But I think devs given up on the game and are making something else by now. Good thing I didn't waste 50$ on it.
EPT
