EPTBattle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread - Page 35
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2594 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
- There doesn't seem to be any real concept of map control. Engagements were either happening at one player's base or the others. When a player repelled an attack, they were able to chase all the way back to the opponent's base, who by that time had reinforcements and could bring the fight all the way back to the other player's base. - Units bunch together super tightly. I didn't like the deathball movement in SC2 but it looks a step beyond in Battle Aces. I think this takes away a dimension of unit control that is often overlooked: being able to spread out for more vision coverage with the counterplay of picking off individual outer units.. - The units themselves, at a glance, look very similar. This is a natural consequence of them all being different types of mechs, so it's kind of unavoidable by design. There's a reason people hate mirror matches the most. I did see some micro there but it was mostly Terran infantry-style stutter-stepping. I saw some attempted melee surrounds but the pathfinding prevented them from being too effective. Not sure I dig the air units who have Phoenix-style moving attack, either. I'm withholding full judgment but those were just my initial impressions. I hope the game develops into something a little more territorial rather than simple base-to-base rubberbanding. | ||
|
KingzTig
155 Posts
In sc2 there's lot of units and spells force you to declump, whoever can declump well does well. and there are times you want to clump, eg marines vs pure lings. Units naturally spread out doesn't have that dimension. Other than that I agree there's not too much, very unique unit engagements. But I think the fun of it will be down to playing the game, given its like a few minutes per game, I don't think a turtle style should be encouraged. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26496 Posts
On June 19 2024 11:29 Excalibur_Z wrote: My chief complaints were: - There doesn't seem to be any real concept of map control. Engagements were either happening at one player's base or the others. When a player repelled an attack, they were able to chase all the way back to the opponent's base, who by that time had reinforcements and could bring the fight all the way back to the other player's base. - Units bunch together super tightly. I didn't like the deathball movement in SC2 but it looks a step beyond in Battle Aces. I think this takes away a dimension of unit control that is often overlooked: being able to spread out for more vision coverage with the counterplay of picking off individual outer units.. - The units themselves, at a glance, look very similar. This is a natural consequence of them all being different types of mechs, so it's kind of unavoidable by design. There's a reason people hate mirror matches the most. I did see some micro there but it was mostly Terran infantry-style stutter-stepping. I saw some attempted melee surrounds but the pathfinding prevented them from being too effective. Not sure I dig the air units who have Phoenix-style moving attack, either. I'm withholding full judgment but those were just my initial impressions. I hope the game develops into something a little more territorial rather than simple base-to-base rubberbanding. Indeedy, although perhaps as it’s Clem playing its to be expected, as is Parting leaning heavily on Battle Ace’s blink stalker equivalents. Maybe they just favoured units that suited them in this showcase. But in general, and not just this title, there seems to be a move to really focus on more micro, but that more largely seems to encompass stutter stepping, kiting and maybe a bit of splitting with units that function quite similarly to Terran bio. You’re talking to someone who enjoys microing bio to the degree I’ll happily just grind various marine mini games in SC2, but I feel there’s less variety these days in other forms of micro. Which does strike me as a problem, but we’ll see how these things develop. Not just the real tricky, finesse-heavy stuff like BW style muta micro or some of the funky stuff you can do with vultures or wraith, but other less taxing things, especially those that involve some kind of synergy. There don’t seem to be those interesting interactions like dragging mines, or greater than the sum of their parts combos like shuttle/reaver. Plus melee micro really doesn’t scale when everything blobs up and reduces your surface area/maximises DPS in combination, plus collision/pathing is so buttery smooth. WC3-esque body blocking just doesn’t seem doable for example. Hey it’s early doors and hopefully I get on the beta to see how it actually plays first-hand! | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On June 19 2024 12:30 KingzTig wrote: I never saw clumping as an issue. In sc2 there's lot of units and spells force you to declump, whoever can declump well does well. and there are times you want to clump, eg marines vs pure lings. Units naturally spread out doesn't have that dimension. Other than that I agree there's not too much, very unique unit engagements. But I think the fun of it will be down to playing the game, given its like a few minutes per game, I don't think a turtle style should be encouraged. I think the game desperately needs abilities. Some abilities that force more micro (splitting). The engagement right now looks fairly boring and instead the interesting part of the game seems to the pace + tactics/multitasking. I think it should be easy to add that, although it worrries me that David Kim hasn't prioritised adding that yet. | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey443 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
The only ones that look off are those with too much team colour. they need to add in the resource tab for the replay, it's hard to tell who's winning sometimes. Actually pretty fun overall, the entire series didn't even feel long to watch, army movements and small decisions are pretty interesting and dynamic. Meanwhile I can barely watch an entire SG match. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On June 19 2024 17:12 _Spartak_ wrote: I don't think they will be able to add that many abilities seeing how the battles are even faster than in SC2. Abilities can make battles take longer because units need to move before instead of fighting. I think the issue now is that all the micro you do doing larger engagements is just making sure your units are attacking all the time. Abilities also tend to increase defenders advantage somewhat, which I think wouldn't hurt either. Actually pretty fun overall, the entire series didn't even feel long to watch, army movements and small decisions are pretty interesting and dynamic. Meanwhile I can barely watch an entire SG match. I agree with this. The overarching design choice they made seem to work. Its action-packed, you have tactics. There is skill-expression in. They just need to add even more skill-expression in battles. If the battles can be really interesting as well I can see this take off. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7139 Posts
On June 19 2024 11:18 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Is there a VOD of the showmatch? The whole thing is on YT | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
https://youtu.be/dEYtosaqulc?si=bUYg2fU1Lnd9oJ0i | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7139 Posts
On June 19 2024 17:43 ETisME wrote: the units are pretty recognizable, and very simple names to remember as well. The only ones that look off are those with too much team colour. they need to add in the resource tab for the replay, it's hard to tell who's winning sometimes. Actually pretty fun overall, the entire series didn't even feel long to watch, army movements and small decisions are pretty interesting and dynamic. Meanwhile I can barely watch an entire SG match. My experience watching this was the complete opposite: All units looked exactly the same only varying in size. All games looked exactly the same. UI is lacking. Overall it was incredible boring and dull to watch. Hoping for getting some playtime myself, maybe then it becomes easier to differentiate whats going on. | ||
|
ETisME
12702 Posts
On June 19 2024 21:23 Harris1st wrote: My experience watching this was the complete opposite: All units looked exactly the same only varying in size. All games looked exactly the same. UI is lacking. Overall it was incredible boring and dull to watch. Hoping for getting some playtime myself, maybe then it becomes easier to differentiate whats going on. Is it really hard to tell? I can pretty much identify all of them at a glance now, and there's not even that many games out so far. T1 ground all looks and feel very different. gunbot has stim wasp is mass produced and got chainsaw animation blink can blink recall can recall crab looks bigger and different than scorpion Are you able to tell the difference between shocker and king crab? | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
I think they should buff harassment and army splitting to make sure there’s a lot of that going on. If people are just sending units across the map pressuring the third base, trying to build a counter composition to their opponents army, the game is gonna get old fast | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7139 Posts
On June 19 2024 22:33 ETisME wrote: Is it really hard to tell? I can pretty much identify all of them at a glance now, and there's not even that many games out so far. T1 ground all looks and feel very different. gunbot has stim wasp is mass produced and got chainsaw animation blink can blink recall can recall crab looks bigger and different than scorpion Are you able to tell the difference between shocker and king crab? I don't "feel" anything cause I haven't played it yet. I also haven't watched all the unit spotlights yet so maybe that's the problem, dunno. Or like someone else mentioned, maybe this is great fun to play but not so great fun to watch. Time will tell and maybe a few hours in beta will completely change my mind  | ||
|
[sc1f]eonzerg
Belgium6829 Posts
The game speed is actually insane. Way faster than sc2, The fights and all the action happen pretty fast. I started to get the game more by game 5. Im not sure if the unit size is different from the OBS experience compared to actual gameplay. But they feel too small and the units interaction wasnt pretty clear apart from standard surroundings. Game lethality is way to high. I remember Artosis talking excited about an air unit and he took like a minute explaining what he does etc. Then the unit finally appeared on battle and guess what happen ? The two air units gone in few seconds, They didnt even shot. Truly a KEKW moment. Overall feelings: Not a single unit impress me. Nothing ground breakin. Not exciting spells either. The air units all feelt like Phoenix from SC2.There is micro potential in the game kind of like pull a unit back with low hp etc. But the game goes so fast that is it really worth doing something like that ? I dont know if their plan is to keep adding to the map like League of legends does or Dota2 but the map after 7 games was getting old to me. Not high grounds. Not interesting paths to take. Ah and also path finding isnt something better than sc2 on this game . They still have this issue that units are behind the others doing nothing and never joining the attack. Overall this game doesnt add anything to what do we have atm. If you want to play this game you can do it right now in sc2 engine or BW. UMS maps nexus wars etc. I didnt really want to be negative about a game that i didnt even test it yet. But when i saw the concept and what i see with the gameplay etc.I will honestly not call it RTS. And they doing a mistake marketing it as an RTS. Look this game in the sc2 engine.. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
It's a fun arcade/custom map style game. It doesn't offer the skill expression to become something hugely competitive, and it's far too repetitive to be enjoyable to watch | ||
|
nforce
Bulgaria116 Posts
From a spectator's point of view, the game has no pacing; it's always at 100mph/kph and nothing else. This can create viewer fatigue, as it did for me in this series. The lack of buildup means there's no real payoff—just attack back and forth. The games are short, with no clear game stage boundaries, making it difficult to appreciate the in-game progression. In a series of games, I often forgot what happened in the previous match. This prevents the creation of memorable, lasting impressions since all the decision-making happens before the game, focusing mainly on fights. A potential fix could be to slow down the build-time of units early on, perhaps with units costing time: T1 - 5 seconds, T2 - 7 seconds, T3 - 10 seconds, or something similar. It could even be done in reverse, with T1 costing more time to make and slowing down with higher tiers. Spawn Positions and Map Control The game should bring back spawn position changes, even if they are mirrored and "cosmetic." Changing diagonal positions adds variety, as the current setup felt too samey. I suggest allowing players to spawn in all four locations but always opposite their opponents to create meaningful map control. Currently, map control isn't present, and map features don't seem to hold much significance. Units and Combat The units appear too similar and aren't immediately recognizable in terms of roles. They may have different roles, but they look like they play the same—constant attacking. When they hold the attack, you retreat until you meet your reinforcements, then push back again. Despite going through many decks of units, the playstyles and pacing remained unchanged. I don't see how you can build a deck to suit your style when the game is built around one style—constant action and fights. The units' attacks, while different, were very similar in visuals and feel. The lack of skills or spells is noticeable, and they should introduce these as soon as possible. The fights are very deathbally, with individual micro playing a minimal role beyond kiting and stutter-stepping. UI and Spectator Experience The current UI isn't helping viewers understand who is ahead and what's at stake with each attack. The game seems even until suddenly someone dies or loses significantly. It was hard to tell who was winning or losing and why. Some units, as suspected, are hard counters, meaning you can lose before the game even starts. When you bring up the decks, can you mouseover them for tooltips? As a viewer, the menu means nothing without unit knowledge. In-game, it would also help people realize what they're up against, as just having a mini portrait of a unit isn't enough information unless you know all units by heart. I'm three games in, and while it's fun, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the game, there's not much clarity on what's happening. The choice of units barely seems to matter, and they all kind of blend together. It's not as obvious as in SC, for example, where you see bio and tanks or infantry and tech in Protoss. The importance and purpose of units aren't immediately recognizable without game knowledge. Therefore, some work could be done to emphasize deck choice, but I'm not sure how much that matters. Viewer Engagement The gameplay does seem intense, and it was fun how early on Clem looked dead but turned it around. However, to my earlier point, I'm not sure much can be done with just units that have similar attacks and tiers without skills to differentiate them easily. The second you see shockers, those stand out, but the rest not so much before that. Additionally, it might help if spawn locations swapped occasionally to add a little variety, even if it's only "cosmetic." After four games, it's the same thing. Overall, it looked fun but tiring, and I can't wait to actually play it to see how much of this feedback holds up once I'm in the game. It's early, but as a sport—which we don't know if they will push for—this pacing issue might cause the games to blur together, making them less memorable individually. I know the score, but I can't recall what happened in the three games before, except the first where Clem seemed like he lost but didn't. This aligns with what I mentioned earlier about the pacing being set to MAX, which could be problematic. Slowing down the first 2-3 minutes and adding some meaningful decisions there would improve the experience significantly. Showing the viewer the buildup and payoff of a decision, or its failure, would add much-needed depth and engagement to the game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26496 Posts
On June 20 2024 02:56 nforce wrote: Some thoughts as I was watching. Still hyped to play it myself but some of the criticisms I have: From a spectator's point of view, the game has no pacing; it's always at 100mph/kph and nothing else. This can create viewer fatigue, as it did for me in this series. The lack of buildup means there's no real payoff—just attack back and forth. The games are short, with no clear game stage boundaries, making it difficult to appreciate the in-game progression. In a series of games, I often forgot what happened in the previous match. This prevents the creation of memorable, lasting impressions since all the decision-making happens before the game, focusing mainly on fights. A potential fix could be to slow down the build-time of units early on, perhaps with units costing time: T1 - 5 seconds, T2 - 7 seconds, T3 - 10 seconds, or something similar. It could even be done in reverse, with T1 costing more time to make and slowing down with higher tiers. Spawn Positions and Map Control The game should bring back spawn position changes, even if they are mirrored and "cosmetic." Changing diagonal positions adds variety, as the current setup felt too samey. I suggest allowing players to spawn in all four locations but always opposite their opponents to create meaningful map control. Currently, map control isn't present, and map features don't seem to hold much significance. Units and Combat The units appear too similar and aren't immediately recognizable in terms of roles. They may have different roles, but they look like they play the same—constant attacking. When they hold the attack, you retreat until you meet your reinforcements, then push back again. Despite going through many decks of units, the playstyles and pacing remained unchanged. I don't see how you can build a deck to suit your style when the game is built around one style—constant action and fights. The units' attacks, while different, were very similar in visuals and feel. The lack of skills or spells is noticeable, and they should introduce these as soon as possible. The fights are very deathbally, with individual micro playing a minimal role beyond kiting and stutter-stepping. UI and Spectator Experience The current UI isn't helping viewers understand who is ahead and what's at stake with each attack. The game seems even until suddenly someone dies or loses significantly. It was hard to tell who was winning or losing and why. Some units, as suspected, are hard counters, meaning you can lose before the game even starts. When you bring up the decks, can you mouseover them for tooltips? As a viewer, the menu means nothing without unit knowledge. In-game, it would also help people realize what they're up against, as just having a mini portrait of a unit isn't enough information unless you know all units by heart. I'm three games in, and while it's fun, from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the game, there's not much clarity on what's happening. The choice of units barely seems to matter, and they all kind of blend together. It's not as obvious as in SC, for example, where you see bio and tanks or infantry and tech in Protoss. The importance and purpose of units aren't immediately recognizable without game knowledge. Therefore, some work could be done to emphasize deck choice, but I'm not sure how much that matters. Viewer Engagement The gameplay does seem intense, and it was fun how early on Clem looked dead but turned it around. However, to my earlier point, I'm not sure much can be done with just units that have similar attacks and tiers without skills to differentiate them easily. The second you see shockers, those stand out, but the rest not so much before that. Additionally, it might help if spawn locations swapped occasionally to add a little variety, even if it's only "cosmetic." After four games, it's the same thing. Overall, it looked fun but tiring, and I can't wait to actually play it to see how much of this feedback holds up once I'm in the game. It's early, but as a sport—which we don't know if they will push for—this pacing issue might cause the games to blur together, making them less memorable individually. I know the score, but I can't recall what happened in the three games before, except the first where Clem seemed like he lost but didn't. This aligns with what I mentioned earlier about the pacing being set to MAX, which could be problematic. Slowing down the first 2-3 minutes and adding some meaningful decisions there would improve the experience significantly. Showing the viewer the buildup and payoff of a decision, or its failure, would add much-needed depth and engagement to the game. Great post, how did you get into my brain? I’m actually back from casting/onsing a local SC2 tourney here and a lot of that rings especially true. Especially at lower levels where it’s not your Serrals, Marus of the world and all sorts of off-meta stuff is happening. There’s loads to talk about within a series, big clashes in styles and each series is a bit of a story encompassing the series itself, as well as the various reputations and histories of the players. We had will they/won’t they cheesers (they usually will), a bloke playing random, the usual racial matchup/map balance stuff. There’s plenty to talk about, hell many a series I spent as much time bantering with the crowd about the previous sets in that series as the actual game ongoing. I’ve done it for 12+ years, probably in some zone where I’ve cast a lot more then most, while a lot less than actual casters, but putting my casting head on I’m having a hard time seeing how I’d really do an engaging show with this game. A lot of the ‘art’ is filling downtime, and pondering on what players could/should do in various scenario and not just shoutcasting what’s on screen, and I’m not sure where the space is for that with this gameplay loop. Some will be unfamiliarity, for sure but I think it being time capped at 10 and mostly balls to the wall action is part too. On the flipside, it being so frenetic and truncated may make it really fun to actually play. I think it’ll live and die on attracting a new audience personally based on how they’re monetising it, but as a game in and of itself without considering how it does, it already has a pretty solid niche at least for me. I’ve got the guts of an hour before one of life’s many obligations that come with adulthood. I fancy a bit of an RTS fix but I haven’t played SC2 in forever. Do I spend that time trying to remember BOs, risk having a 20/30 minute macro game reducing my ability to finish games down to 1 or 2, while risking some frustrating BO losses and cheese at the other end of that spectrum, or just jump and play a guaranteed 5/6 games of Battle Aces? Honestly I think it looks ideal for that, but equally it’s problematic that I feel the game’s real niche feels like an RTS fix for time-limited or burned out RTS vets. I may be totally off on that mind! Fingers crossed I can get on beta and see what Minibat thinks of it too | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
I’m actually back from casting/onsing a local SC2 tourney here and a lot of that rings especially true. Especially at lower levels where it’s not your Serrals, Marus of the world and all sorts of off-meta stuff is happening. There’s loads to talk about within a series, big clashes in styles and each series is a bit of a story encompassing the series itself, as well as the various reputations and histories of the players. We had will they/won’t they cheesers (they usually will), a bloke playing random, the usual racial matchup/map balance stuff. There’s plenty to talk about, hell many a I think this is gonna change to "how will the player change his deck going into next game". And once you have a basic understanding on how the decks playout you speculate how the matchups will go. I actually think that will be quite fun. We probably have like 1-2 minute breaking between each game where casters can discuss this before we get action for 5 minutes straight. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1898 Posts
| ||
| ||
