On June 09 2024 02:11 NonY wrote: And I don’t know how new unit releases could possibly be as exciting.
This is an interesting point. If we look at new units in SC2 added in HotS/LotV expansions, almost all of them had active or semi-active abilities.
Terrans - Hellbats with transforming into hellions, Widow mines with burrow, Cyclone with Lock-on, Liberator with siege mode. Zerg - Swarm Hosts with locusts, Viper with a bunch of spells, Lurker with burrow, Ravagers with biles. Protoss - Adepts with Psionic Transfer, Disruptors with novas, Oracles with a few spells. Even Tempest had an active ability at one point.
There were almost no "just a bunch of stats" A-move units. Hellbats are A-move-friendly and only after you transformed them, but that's it. Even Tempests are not very A-move-friendly.
I don't want to be negative as I'm overall excited about the game but the monetization they're going with seems like it would create a lot of issues.
How will players pay for Battle Aces?
Battle Aces is a free-to-play game, where players will be able to earn in-game currency to unlock new units simply by playing the game, or choose to use real money to unlock units and cosmetics more quickly.
On June 09 2024 05:14 nforce wrote: I don't want to be negative as I'm overall excited about the game but the monetization they're going with seems like it would create a lot of issues.
Battle Aces is a free-to-play game, where players will be able to earn in-game currency to unlock new units simply by playing the game, or choose to use real money to unlock units and cosmetics more quickly.
The League of Legends p2w model, which is argued not to be p2w.
On June 09 2024 02:11 NonY wrote: Ah yes I forgot overcharge but that changes almost nothing. It’s still a unit that can only either move or attack. But sometimes its stats are buffed. I honestly can’t believe that this isn’t what everyone is discussing.
I definitely understand that there’s a lot to do tactically with basic units. Figuring out the correct ratios to build them and where to send them and position them is enough to fill your plate. I fully expect to be challenged and engaged for 100+ hours if I choose to play it that much. I’m not shocked at all that sc2/BW pros got hooked and had a lot of fun. But it just seems a bit bizarre to me to simplify even this component of RTS. And I don’t know how new unit releases could possibly be as exciting.
When you release a new card or a new hero in a moba, you can go back and look at every existing card and hero to find synergies and bring new life to old things. Bring back old metas etc. Technically that can still happen with basic units but it just seems like such low hanging fruit for a game like this, to make it an objectively better game. A lot more work, definitely, but I get the people calling this game a UMS map and it’s the fact that they seem to have taken the simplification too far.
I could also play devil’s advocate and argue for simplicity. But I personally would prefer more to the units. Either give them more complexity by default or have upgrades be another tactical choice between expand/tech/army.
The way I see it, it works same way as ling banelings roach hydra muta ZvZ or early to mid game TvT. But now your strategy rotates around your wild card deck which can be more tier 2 or tier 3.
I don't really have much issue with it being simplified, plenty of genre started as a UMS map, Moba, tower defence, auto battle etc.
They have 17 more units to reveal before their first season remember. Fundamentally having units being shipped every season is just a wild difference. For people familiar with Magic the Gathering or Hearthstone you are basically looking at the RTS equivalent of things that are 1/1, 1/2, 2/2, 3/3 like you see in every first set for a new card game. There aren't many 'keywords' or ability types yet, but I can't imagine you won't see equivalents to psi storms/blizzards even in the first set.
Both by adding units and eliminating them they could give drastically different feels to each season.
You could have also different custom competitive modes where the entire collection of your units across every season is available versus what is seasonal. Basically any MtG equivalent like constructed (use every unit ever), standard (use a rotating unit base from the last three seasons), or draft (we take turns picking from a subset of units) could work.
Very nice presentation by David Kim. One thing though: he did not define what "RTS" means at the start of his presentation. Some attendants might not know what he is talking about.
The gameplay presentation looked dull and uninteresting af. This game oozes modern game design principles of cutting out as many aspects of a game that would allow players to distinguish themselves and shape their identity.
Sad state of affairs that we now need to cater towards social media zombies with crippled attention spans, but yeah I'm sure there's some whales to be milked.
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
It's the counterpart to Spartak being negative here.
I really don't want to but then I tune in to an interview with David Kim and hear him talking about how a game franchise that sold more than 20m copies could never be enjoyed by "normal gamers": https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2167225638?t=02h15m19s He is just repeating all the bullshit that has been said about RTS games that created a ton of misconceptions about the genre over the years. I am more annoyed about the philosophy they are pushing than their game. I don't think their game is going to amount to much but I wouldn't care about it if they didn't also use their platform and all the money they got from Tencent to spread this nonsense.
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
It's the counterpart to Spartak being negative here.
I really don't want to but then I tune in to an interview with David Kim and hear him talking about how a game franchise that sold more than 20m copies could never be enjoyed by "normal gamers": https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2167225638?t=02h15m19s He is just repeating all the bullshit that has been said about RTS games that created a ton of misconceptions about the genre over the years. I am more annoyed about the philosophy they are pushing than their game. I don't think their game is going to amount to much but I wouldn't care about it if they didn't also use their platform and all the money they got from Tencent to spread this nonsense.
Proof will be in the pudding as they say.
It depends on how they implement their model, I feel they’re substituting things many players may find frustrating or a barrier, but introducing new ones potentially.
If I’m trying to learn the game but with a bare bones set of units, I run into a player with a wider set or w/e and get wrecked due to unfamiliarity.
Or, on the flipside I find a bunch of matches where I have a lot of success with the tactics I’m using, but only because my opponents are lacking the requisite unit decks. So then when I play those with more options I hit a brick wall and what was working for me just stops working.
Sure other F2P games do unlocks, but many of those you’re only utilising one character at a particular time, can compete (generally) evenly and have a full experience in any particular set.
I’m sure they’ll try to avoid it being P2W if they have any sense, but RTS, even stripped down is hard enough to balance when players have the exact same tools.
On June 09 2024 13:21 RogerChillingworth wrote: Oh look it's MegaBuster being positive. I get it now.
I feel like you crawl around your apartment on your belly and eat a mostly sugar-based diet.
The insinuation this cross-eyed reptilian is trying to hiss out is that people only are making appraisals of these games based on a kind of politicization. That's not the case for me but I'm glad you can divulge exactly what your striping pattern means.
If you want to talk principles, some of the contrasts you could draw between Battle Aces and Stormgate is that the former made a couple off-hand comments about their through-line to SC2 and never overstressed it while the latter has built a completely activated NFT-bro community believing in their rightful spiritual lineage of SC2.
This stuff has resulted already in a distinct difference between their communities where Battle Aces feels normal and professional, has a clear scope and communication about their game, and only expects people to hang out and have fun. Compare this to Frost Giant which has fostered this haunted atmosphere that consists of endless nebulous promises about the game, shady ass fundraising, and a fanbase who think they should mobilize and attack people who lay any criticism. You won't see any of that with Uncapped Games and you should think about why.
Its not zero sum for these games and there's more than a holding capacity of 1 for good RTS. From the outset its a lot more fun to think about Battle Aces due to its novelty and clear promises about what you are going to play and when.
On June 09 2024 20:33 WombaT wrote: I’m sure they’ll try to avoid it being P2W if they have any sense, but RTS, even stripped down is hard enough to balance when players have the exact same tools.
What i see going on in Helldivers2 and Planetside2 are weapons that are P2W, but only in the hands of a player with 100+ hours of practice time using them. You can't just pick up the weapon and 10 seconds later start mowing down every enemy. You really need to learn the weapon and you need to learn the perfect environment for its specific usage. This camouflages the P2W aspect enough.. and creates enough debate and uncertainty that these things never get a universal "pay 2 win cheating" label.
I highly suspect that is what will happen with this game with new units.
I was fine with it in Planetside2 and Helldivers2. I prolly won't care about it ... if its judiciously used in Battle Aces.
On June 09 2024 20:33 WombaT wrote: I’m sure they’ll try to avoid it being P2W if they have any sense, but RTS, even stripped down is hard enough to balance when players have the exact same tools.
What i see going on in Helldivers2 and Planetside2 are weapons that are P2W, but only in the hands of a player with 100+ hours of practice time using them. You can't just pick up the weapon and 10 seconds later start mowing down every enemy. You really need to learn the weapon and you need to learn the perfect environment for its specific usage. This camouflages the P2W aspect enough.. and creates enough debate and uncertainty that these things never get a universal "pay 2 win cheating" label.
I highly suspect that is what will happen with this game with new units.
I was fine with it in Planetside2 and Helldivers2. I prolly won't care about it ... if it’s judiciously used in Battle Aces.
I don’t personally give a shit about unlocking stuff if it’s a PvE kind of scenario, as Helldivers is at least, unfamiliar with Planetside
If I’m looking my next RTS fix I don’t want to be losing games because I don’t have x unit or whatever. Or have my stylistic options overly limited.
P2W can be crazy lucrative and ‘work’ in PvP games, I’m not sure if RTS is the neatest fit. I don’t personally like it in FIFA but it’s huge, but there you have the whole fans of football collecting their favourite players angle. To take one example.
Perhaps the skin angle is where they wanna generate revenue, and I think that may have more legs than in other more traditional RTS games. Without distinct factions to give that bit of identity and shared unit stacks, then a bit more customisation to compensate and really give your armies flavour might work very well.
EPT
