On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
I agree that LoL is a really bad example when card games are RIGHT THERE as the more appropriate comparison. Anyway, here's how it's phrased on their website:
"There will always be a path to unlock units through earned in-game currency. Players will also be able to choose their next unit unlock, instead of unlocking them in a predetermined order. With approximately 50 units planned at launch, and multiple viable and balanced play styles, we aim to make Battle Aces competitive and fun for all types of players."
You have to wonder how fast the unlock progress will be considering they do need people to spend. For instance, I think the RTS community would balk at what HearthStone ppl would consider a 'normal' per-season spend.
50units at launch is a lot.
In a way this reminds me more of marvel snap, games can still get quite intense but also short enough to keep it fun to grind.
I just hope they improve on some of the unit designs, the splash damage units are more or less the same.
On June 10 2024 07:58 Fleetfeet wrote: I would accept an argument that skins are pay to win. The way League has implemented hero purchasing, it is absolutely not pay to win.
I agree with your post (all of it, only snipped it for brevity). Spending money is no shortcut to victory in League of Legends and winrate differences are not gigantic and monitored quite thoroughly by the balance team.
However, is there not a pattern of most new champion releases being overtuned, and spending some time at the top before they get knocked down? For people who are long-established in the game, many feel it's a bit P2W that the new champion comes out and they can choose to buy it or not and part of that calculus won't just be how much it fits their playstyle, it'll be how loaded the kit is (this has trended upwards over time) and how the champion is tuned (typically a bit high initially). So I can see at least where some calls of "P2W" are coming from.
I agree that LoL is a really bad example when card games are RIGHT THERE as the more appropriate comparison. Anyway, here's how it's phrased on their website:
"There will always be a path to unlock units through earned in-game currency. Players will also be able to choose their next unit unlock, instead of unlocking them in a predetermined order. With approximately 50 units planned at launch, and multiple viable and balanced play styles, we aim to make Battle Aces competitive and fun for all types of players."
You have to wonder how fast the unlock progress will be considering they do need people to spend. For instance, I think the RTS community would balk at what HearthStone ppl would consider a 'normal' per-season spend.
50units at launch is a lot.
In a way this reminds me more of marvel snap, games can still get quite intense but also short enough to keep it fun to grind.
I just hope they improve on some of the unit designs, the splash damage units are more or less the same.
they changed it to 45 units btw, in the most recent game fest interview today david kim said
Haven't dived in too deep but first impression is "generic mobile game". The only thing missing is missleading adds. Straight out of "Do you guys not have phones"-hell
As a PC gamer who rarely dabbles on mobile I don't think this'll be my cup of tea. But as seen by the price pools of EWC for mobile games, this is clearly a viable business strategy and more than one addictive mobil game is a cash printing machine. And maybe my first impression is completely off. Gotta watch that cast with Tastosis and some of the other vids like unit showcases
I think the initial release will be reasonable in terms of units. However, with this model, there are some potential problem areas that can arise.
New units have to be cool, interesting, to have their place but to not overlap entirely on another unit of this type. They also have to be strong too. This could make players feel like they have to buy them to stay competitive, even if that isn't entirely the case. On top of that, the units must be balanced. Fail that, and you have a riot on your hand. Play it too safe and release units that are not interesting or not powerful, you're asking people to pay for "boring" and "redundant" units.
What some games like LoL can get away with (team covering for not having some chars yourself) can't fly in a 1v1 game I don't think. And there's no way around it, you will get power creep over time and some units will become obsolete until a balance pass is made on them to bring them up to speed.
How do you design a grindign unlock system that feels fair but also annoying so you spend money to skip it? And I'm not even talking about any "bad-faith" type of arguments that they can get themselves into. There's a lot of wait and see things in this game. I think I'm hooked on the gameplay loop from what I've seen, but for me the monetization will make or break it in the end.
Looks like Lowko had fun with the game... He provides some cool insights about the game play experience.
Red Alert 3 has a very stripped down economy model. Battle Aces goes much further down that path. Kane's Wrath had sub factions. Battle Aces Deck building mechanics take that 1000X further.
For C&C fans of the fast and fluid RTS they will prolly like the game.
If this game is successful and fun I hope it comes out on the Switch and/or Switch2.
Red Alert 3 has a very stripped down economy model. Battle Aces goes much further down that path. Kane's Wrath had sub factions. Battle Aces Deck building mechanics take that 1000X further.
For C&C fans of the fast and fluid RTS they will prolly like the game.
If this game is successful and fun I hope it comes out on the Switch and/or Switch2.
I am still baffled with your post count, true Jimmy Raynor, haha.
I think an arena rts is actually what the genre needs. Force conflict, make it fast paced (or not), but it will attract attention for its snap. If you can harmonize mobile with pc, you can have a massive base and if the game is fun, it'll sell itself. Now, one thig I find very important still, at least from an Esport (why does everything need to be an Esport?) perspective is that 1) visible clarity and a certain esthetic and 2) strategic depth. For 2 the jury is still out, but it seems like they're more or less nailing 1, even though the esthetic is still not original enough for me.
Red Alert 3 has a very stripped down economy model. Battle Aces goes much further down that path. Kane's Wrath had sub factions. Battle Aces Deck building mechanics take that 1000X further.
For C&C fans of the fast and fluid RTS they will prolly like the game.
If this game is successful and fun I hope it comes out on the Switch and/or Switch2.
I really don't understand some people here:
Stormgate is repeatedly trashed for it's blob vs blob but in Battle Arena the even worse blob vs blob fights are suddenly the holy grail? Stormgate is repeatedly trashed for it's cartoony graphics but in Battle Arena the bascially same look is suddenly clean and pleasing to look at?
Red Alert 3 has a very stripped down economy model. Battle Aces goes much further down that path. Kane's Wrath had sub factions. Battle Aces Deck building mechanics take that 1000X further.
For C&C fans of the fast and fluid RTS they will prolly like the game.
If this game is successful and fun I hope it comes out on the Switch and/or Switch2.
I really don't understand some people here:
Stormgate is repeatedly trashed for it's blob vs blob but in Battle Arena the even worse blob vs blob fights are suddenly the holy grail? Stormgate is repeatedly trashed for it's cartoony graphics but in Battle Arena the bascially same look is suddenly clean and pleasing to look at?
It's indeed baffleing. To me, both games look super bland and don't have a lot of visual clarity. Blob vs Blob remains to be seen. I feel like Stormgate has at least the chance to deliver more small scale engagements because the TTK is much higher. The current blob vs blob can at least partly be attributed to the fact that everyone is still trash at the game.
Red Alert 3 has a very stripped down economy model. Battle Aces goes much further down that path. Kane's Wrath had sub factions. Battle Aces Deck building mechanics take that 1000X further.
For C&C fans of the fast and fluid RTS they will prolly like the game.
If this game is successful and fun I hope it comes out on the Switch and/or Switch2.
I really don't understand some people here:
Stormgate is repeatedly trashed for it's blob vs blob but in Battle Arena the even worse blob vs blob fights are suddenly the holy grail? Stormgate is repeatedly trashed for it's cartoony graphics but in Battle Arena the bascially same look is suddenly clean and pleasing to look at?
For me personally the engagements are what's key, it's blob vs blob but the low time to kill means you constantly refreshing your unit comp.
Stormgate blob is just a slow death animation, or hyper fast like exploding imps. It also feels so very clusterphobic, whenever infernal does a drop or a massive engagement. I love the extreme transparent and simple UI in battle aces, it opens up so much more screen space.
I personally think stormgate issue isn't just the cartoon graphics, it's the blur they have at times, as if it has no texture at all. It just looks so ugly. You can even see it in their unit screencap here: https://playstormgate.com/factions/infernal
Another difference is, stormgate has race specific aesthetic, which looking quite off atm. Infernal looking more demon orcs than demon. Vanguard design is so blend that they might as well all be t1 to 1.5
Battle aces design is way more cohesive, every units are just a gun with legs and a smiley face. But it’s still clear what units role it is and it is just fun looking (though cell shaded would have been perfect)
And perhaps you are right, the criticism shouldn’t be the cartoon art style, it just looks bad, especially when it has a campaign that’s meant to be pretty serious
It is not that surprising that Uncapped Games has had more time to polish visuals compared to Frost Giant as the latter is also building a campaign, a co-op mode, a bespoke 3v3 mode, a custom games editor as well as hero models, dozens of structures for different factions, creep camps etc. as opposed to Battle Aces which has one mode, one "faction" and not much else to build visually except for units and environment.
I agree that much of the criticism of Stormgate visuals was about the lack of quality/polish, rather than the artstyle (and that's a good thing for the game as polish can always be added whereas artstyle is unlikely to change). Some people may actually want a darker/grittier style but most will be content with polished visuals regardless of what artstyle is used. It is just that people don't always use the correct terms when complaining about stuff.
On June 11 2024 15:20 Uldridge wrote: I think an arena rts is actually what the genre needs. Force conflict, make it fast paced (or not), but it will attract attention for its snap. If you can harmonize mobile with pc, you can have a massive base and if the game is fun, it'll sell itself. Now, one thig I find very important still, at least from an Esport (why does everything need to be an Esport?) perspective is that 1) visible clarity and a certain esthetic and 2) strategic depth. For 2 the jury is still out, but it seems like they're more or less nailing 1, even though the esthetic is still not original enough for me.
I feel they missed a trick in not tweaking the controls personally.
It looks almost playable with a controller, you could macro up just as effectively anyway. But the actual battle control it still looks like a mouse is hugely advantageous
If that wasn’t the case it really looks like an RTS that PC players and console players could co-exist pretty closely on, at least to the degree FPS games work where keyboard+mouse is still advantageous but a good controller user can do fine.
My kiddo quite enjoys noodling about in StarCraft or checking out a tournament when he’s over with me, although he lacks a regularly used PC when he’s back at his ma’s to get into it regularly during the week.
I feel this would be right up his alley if it was more console-friendly actually. He and his mates have a pretty stable 3/4 favourite games and try out stuff from other genres when they fancy something different so they’re open to new things (provided the barrier to entry is F2P). And they all quite like that dopamine cycle of grinding and unlocking things that yours truly is less of a fan of :p
I think it goes under the radar just a little bit but a decent chunk of the younger generation don’t actually use PCs that much, or have one of their own. Tablets and smartphones fill a lot of the general entertainment/productivity holes.
It’s not really an expectation I have of Stormgate, it’s still too complex for non KBM to really feel viable, but Battle Aces is almost close to being.
Perhaps I’m a bit overly down on it, those who’ve played it on here seem to quite enjoy it so maybe it’s a more fun experience to play than the footage conveys, which I’ll concede. It feels it may fall into a hole where it’s too dumbed-down/different (delete where applicable) for many an RTS veteran, but maybe not accessible enough to the new audience it’s trying to capture at the same time.
Where with Stormgate I think they maybe go a pretty guaranteed 1/2 on a potential audience, us veterans obviously, Battle Aces to me is a more volatile proposition. I could see it being more likely to go 2/2 or 0/2
On June 09 2024 00:22 _Spartak_ wrote: - Uncapped Games twitter account: 2.756 followers (barely increased after the reveal) - Battle Aces twitter account: 668 followers - Battle Aces discord: 628 members - Battle Aces subreddit: 138 members - Battle Aces youtube account: 385 subscribers with all of the videos under 10k views so far - Battle Aces reveal video at TheGameAwards youtube channel: 3.2k views (one of the least viewed game reveals)
People here seem to think this game appeals to a mythical younger audience but it is gaining no traction whatsoever. ZeroSpace had much better numbers than this.
Seems like decent growth to me, not exploding but no RTS does + they don't rely as much on SC/Blizz fame to carry them.
- Uncapped Games twitter account: 2.823 followers (barely increased after the reveal) - Battle Aces twitter account: 1076 followers - Battle Aces discord: ~1k members - Battle Aces subreddit: 313 members - Battle Aces youtube account: 588 subscribers with 3 videos at 10 or over 10k - Battle Aces reveal video at TheGameAwards youtube channel: 6k - Battle Aces at IGN YT - 40k
With many other videos reaching 15-20k or more views. Give it time, can't make a snap decision based on 2 days of data and marketing just starting.
Are you actually bringing up those numbers to disprove my point? Of course it grew a bit more since the announcement but the growth is very minimal. The numbers are still pretty bad. ZeroSpace had much better numbers a few days after their announcement. Like a lot better. I am not even comparing them to Stormgate. I am also willing to bet an overwhelming majority of those people (like 90%+) are SC2 players. The game is getting no traction from the audience it is supposedly going to attract.
On June 12 2024 15:23 _Spartak_ wrote: Are you actually bringing up those numbers to disprove my point? Of course it grew a bit more since the announcement but the growth is very minimal. The numbers are still pretty bad. ZeroSpace had much better numbers a few days after their announcement. Like a lot better. I am not even comparing them to Stormgate. I am also willing to bet an overwhelming majority of those people (like 90%+) are SC2 players. The game is getting no traction from the audience it is supposedly going to attract.
On the flipside I don’t really see how it would, or indeed any of these games really will at this stage.
Rare indeed is the game that really gains traction and hype in pre-beta form unless it’s incredibly novel, or something from a firmly established IP or a developer with a big track record.
There’s not a product to ‘wow’ people with yet, and the kind of vehicles for publicising these upcoming games I don’t really think are ones that all that many outside of us types particularly consume.
Even our local StarCraft group of many veteran, older gamers only bothered to tune in because we already knew Stormgate was going to be revealed. On the plus side I did get made aware of D.O.R.F which looks like it’ll be a fun play through.
Not that things are hopeless and these folks can be reached, but I think it’ll have to be a combo of a really compelling product, word of mouth, perhaps streamers/content creators outside of the usual suspects showing them off.
I dunno how meaningful traction at this stage really is, but we’ll have to wait and see. I will say it’s ridiculous to be simultaneously positive about Battle Aces prospects and negative on Stormgate based on the numbers so far though.
Especially as Stormgate won’t live and die on its competitive mode alone. There’s at least alternative revenue streams for the likes of SC2-style co-op, campaigns etc.
My point with the initial comment was that a lot of people are saying "This game is not for me but it will be great for newcomers/non-RTS players/younger players etc." but the game didn't seem to interest them at all. What happens is this:
Watched some vids from Artosis, Lowko and the likes. It looks more fun than I first thought but it still seems like a game I would play 2-3 matches on my mobile while on a train ride. Not something I would play for a whole evening with friends
On June 12 2024 18:45 Harris1st wrote: Watched some vids from Artosis, Lowko and the likes. It looks more fun than I first thought but it still seems like a game I would play 2-3 matches on my mobile while on a train ride. Not something I would play for a whole evening with friends
I caught up more games as well. If it's anything like marvel snap, I can see myself sinking in hours without noticing Pretty excited tbh
On June 12 2024 15:23 _Spartak_ wrote: Are you actually bringing up those numbers to disprove my point? Of course it grew a bit more since the announcement but the growth is very minimal. The numbers are still pretty bad. ZeroSpace had much better numbers a few days after their announcement. Like a lot better. I am not even comparing them to Stormgate. I am also willing to bet an overwhelming majority of those people (like 90%+) are SC2 players. The game is getting no traction from the audience it is supposedly going to attract.
Checking google trends, ZeroSpace is on the same level.
I'm bringing up those numbers to illustrate that you bringing them up is meaningless. Of course the game will attempt to catch the established RTS audience first. Then, being designed to be easier for everyone, should attract others with marketing and mostly word of mouth. I don't think anyone expected that they would announce it and suddenly the hoards of people who have never played an RTS will get hyped and flock to it the very second the trailer is released. This will take time. if the game is indeed good.
EPT
