EPTBattle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
nforce
Bulgaria116 Posts
| ||
|
[sc1f]eonzerg
Belgium6590 Posts
| ||
|
nforce
Bulgaria116 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
On June 08 2024 07:28 nforce wrote: Tasteless and Artosis casting a game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bla0Qax2BU I am gonna take on a slightly different angle than I suspect most people will (I guess most people will dislike it for being arena game as opposed to more normal RTS type of map). However, my problem with the gameplay shown is that it doesn't actually contain battle micro. It appears that neither army at any point throughout the game wanted to take a fight and instead always ran away. That's a huge problem. Good RTS fundamentals create incentives in which both players are incentivized to actually fight each other instead of infinitive kiting/running away. It's possibly something that can be fixed but it worries me that David Kim hasn't yet realized its importance and ensured that it happened in their gameplay demo. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
On June 08 2024 07:37 Hider wrote: I am gonna take on a slightly different angle than I suspect most people will (I guess most people will dislike it for being arena game as opposed to more normal RTS type of map). However, my problem with the gameplay shown is that it doesn't actually contain battle micro. It appears that neither army at any point throughout the game wanted to take a fight and instead always ran away. That's a huge problem. Good RTS fundamentals create incentives in which both players are incentivized to actually fight each other instead of infinitive kiting/running away. It's possibly something that can be fixed but it worries me that David Kim hasn't yet realized its importance and ensured that it happened in their gameplay demo. That was just the strategy david kim went for. He went for tactical play rather than a straight up confrontational army. If you are constantly trading it is not likely you can save up for 3,000 / 3,000 Kraken. I think that is one of the big selling points of this game. With the deck design you can really make an army that plays the way you want to play. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
| ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey397 Posts
On March 09 2024 00:32 _Spartak_ wrote: Based on what little they said, I am guessing it will be a game with SC-like combat but Dawn of War style economy/base management. So where is the innovation that both Uncapped Games and SC2 content creators were talking about? Everything from automatic resource gathering to removing base-building and to customizing armies through a pool of units have been done before. This is the same idea that base building/resource gathering part of the RTS is unfun that has been repeated over and over since mid 2000s. Only turned up to eleven. I guess this can be fun for a few hours (which would explain the positive reception of some SC2 content creators who went to the event) but I don't see how it will remain fun for hundreds. | ||
Waxangel
United States33389 Posts
Such a wild choice to strip away 99% of the basebuilding and macro optimization from Blizz RTS and just make it about army movements, harass, multitask, fighting. There was definitely a failed version of this where it was just 'Ling-Bane Knife Fight Simulator 2024,' but the aspects of macro they retained + map layout/defenders advantage make it way more complex and fun. I don't really care about the deckbuilding aspect personally and I'll just end up netdecking whatever is meta. On June 08 2024 07:56 _Spartak_ wrote: Welp, it wasn't that hard to guess what type of game it was even back when they only said a few sentences about it: So where is the innovation that both Uncapped Games and SC2 content creators were talking about? Everything from automatic resource gathering to removing base-building and to customizing armies through a pool of units have been done before. This is the same idea that base building/resource gathering part of the RTS is unfun that has been repeated over and over since mid 2000s. Only turned up to eleven. I guess this can be fun for a few hours (which would explain the positive reception of some SC2 content creators who went to the event) but I don't see how it will remain fun for hundreds. I suppose there's nothing truly new under the sun, but I don't think there's been this kind of macro streamlining/simplification combined with the specific unit/map feel of Blizzard games. The kinds of HP/damage ratios, the relative speed of units to the map size, just the way you feel like you're supposed to traverse the map, etc. I think they've initially succeeded at distilling a very specific aspect of SC2's fun (and it 'handles' very much like SC2) and making an entire game out of it that doesn't feel shallow. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
On June 08 2024 07:56 _Spartak_ wrote: Welp, it wasn't that hard to guess what type of game it was even back when they only said a few sentences about it: So where is the innovation that both Uncapped Games and SC2 content creators were talking about? Everything from automatic resource gathering to removing base-building and to customizing armies through a pool of units have been done before. Maybe they have, but if you consider StarCraft as the standard of RTS, this is definitely deviation from that formula. Personally I think deck building is a fantastic idea and I don't even hate the idea of a pick/ban system being implemented. You can see what type of deck your opponent is trying to build and ban a key unit they might want to play, or take it from them. I don't know. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
On June 08 2024 07:57 Waxangel wrote: Game's pretty fun from my playtest experience. Such a wild choice to strip away 99% of the basebuilding and macro optimization from Blizz RTS and just make it about army movements, harass, multitask, fighting. There was definitely a failed version of this where it was just 'Ling-Bane Knife Fight Simulator 2024,' but the aspects of macro they retained + map layout/defenders advantage make it way more complex and fun. I don't really care about the deckbuilding aspect personally and I'll just end up netdecking whatever is meta. netdecking pro builds will probably be a lot different than what is the pleb meta. I imagine pro will incorporate a lot of harassment units and plebians will like to deathball. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
Unit Trailer ^ . Gameplay Trailer ^ . | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey397 Posts
On June 08 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote: Maybe they have, but if you consider StarCraft as the standard of RTS, this is definitely deviation from that formula. Personally I think deck building is a fantastic idea and I don't even hate the idea of a pick/ban system being implemented. You can see what type of deck your opponent is trying to build and ban a key unit they might want to play, or take it from them. I don't know. The problem with this type of deck building is that it removes another big factor that made Blizzard RTS stand out: asymmetrical factions. Since you can pick any unit, you can't build coherent factions with certain gameplay and visual themes. It looks like all units are some type of robot, except for the Kraken which looks wildly out of place. Removing basebuilding and making the game all about extremely fast-paced combat also limits the type of units that can be viable. All units have to be at least somewhat fast and agile. That will become a problem when they go pass like 20 units, so not sure unit pools have infinite possibilities either. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
Nothing wrong with the style of game at all, those maps are fun. But I'm not sure if they're actually bringing anything to the table | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1717 Posts
new video from arty separate from the cast he did with tasteless. IN-DEPTH review of the gameplay and everything you need to know. | ||
|
Topin
Peru10078 Posts
| ||
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
The game is really competent visually. The units are great looking and the whole thing is very easy and pleasing to look at. Check out what they've done with the fog of war to make things feel lighter and to reduce the feeling that units are popping out of nowhere. DotA2 is top of the line visually but man can the dark fantasy look lower your mood after a long time. Battle Aces has a more joyful look but the amount of detail and quality is going to insulate them from the cartoon-y tag. I'm sure they have or will have more environments than the verdant plain+cloudscape but right now they seem to be deliberately stressing ease of read and a happy mood. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
The way autobattlers became super popular a few years ago after big developers backing them, despite them being in Warcraft and StarCraft custom maps forever, this game could do the same. There's nothing bad I can say about the game so far except you can get the same thing already in WC3 or SC2, and probably in SG once the editor comes out. If it's paid deck building however then it's an absolute nope from me. | ||
|
Kitalpha
10 Posts
The video watched really odd to me. As an RTS veteran, I had a hard time following. It seems that the commentary was completely scripted. But maybe the game was spontaneous and then copy & pasted together with Tasteless & Artosis. I had a really hard time understanding what the bases were and where the units came from. Those platform structures, are they a base or not? Couldn't tell. They also didn't explain resource gathering. So Apparently, there are 'worker, but those are just things that automatically spawn, and 'killing' them just times out a RoT increase. Also a bit confused about unit decks. So if you before the game have to limit your number of units. Like holding a hand of playing cards during a card game, how does this increase strategies during RTS? Wouldn't you always have more strategies in an RTS if you never limit the number of units a player can select from? Yes, limiting things can lead to deeper gameplay. It might potentially lead to more diverse gameplay though because you may not be able to build your ideal unit given that game. Imagine it as playing a matchup, but removing the best unit for each race. By removing the very best unit, you force players to use the other units. Even if they are bad. But that then will be some rock paper scizzors before the game starts? And where one player picks wrong and is on the defensive? As if they were playing black in a game of chess? I think this can actually work. With quite short games, you have a Bo5 or something. And you just get a few bad unit card decks, and you have to play an inferior strategy because you can't use your best unit. But the next game, maybe you will guess right and your opponent will be the one without the ideal unit. In this game, it seemed both tried to avoid a lot. So the thing is that game theory-wise it would usually be correct for one of the players to not fight. There could be mechanics introduced to make it so that both units are encouraged to fight. Where avoiding a fight is worse than losing a fight. But if you force players to never avoid fights, you are also limiting strategy. The question is how and why you would get gameplay where both are viable. People say that in SC BW, everything just worked out. That you don't need to fine tune your game. But that your game also doesn't need to be just lucky. And that players and maps will make any mature game rich and interesting. But ZvZ proves that is simply not true. For example, ZvZ would be much better if you could just ban the mutalisk from only that specific matchup. Now, some people really like the very narrow strategy range of ZvZ. Fine. But clearly ZvZ in SC BW is what to avoid in making a new RTS. I just don't see this go viral and become popular at all. The name as well seems like something a few RTS veterans would drop a buck on in Steam, and play for fun for 2 or 3 weekends. Maybe that is a viable business model. Also, by really limiting the game, they could actually fine tune some things. If they actually have good ideas on how to make strategy both diverse and fun. I have doubts, but in a tiny well-functioning sandbox, you have the room to innovate properly. | ||
|
Kitalpha
10 Posts
| ||
| ||
