EPTBattle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
| ||
|
KingzTig
155 Posts
They can add map features, different map per season. different free unit rotation. BO3 with predrafted deck etc. On top of a long unit list, that seems like a good variety to me. I especially liked the gunbot and mortar units, that's pretty much siege tank marines type of engagements | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1849 Posts
On June 20 2024 07:32 KingzTig wrote: I am just thinking how much they can do to shake up the gameplay loop. They can add map features, different map per season. different free unit rotation. BO3 with predrafted deck etc. On top of a long unit list, that seems like a good variety to me. I especially liked the gunbot and mortar units, that's pretty much siege tank marines type of engagements a draft mode would be REALLY cool. | ||
|
inFeZa
Australia556 Posts
This game looks so good I just had to talk about it. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On June 20 2024 05:53 CicadaSC wrote: I think this game looks amazing. Why are people so hooked on the idea of having to build workers? It's like when SC1 innovated SC2 and u didn't have to tell them to mine anymore. Building workers isn't the important part. So much of the strategic depth in RTS games just comes from the macro and base building stage. There isn't anywhere near the room for expression that an RTS with macro offers. The best thing about RTS is that every player can have their own approach and identity. The peculiar thing is that David Kim said he wants to remove mechanical macro tasks to let players focus on strategy, but there's less room for strategy here than basically any other RTS, it's 100% a micro arena game. Don't get me wrong, the game looks fun. But it's about as complex as desert strike where you just decide on units and click a button for 'tech' or 'eco'. It's not an innovation on RTS at all. Footmen Frenzy, Evolves, Marine Arena, all those games that are basically the same thing, they're all fun but weren't exactly the next gen of WC3, BW, or SC2. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
I wonder if they even want multitasking? Like battles on multiple fronts? As I said in my last post they should buff harass. I’d also buff defense against harass, like give workers some kind of inherent defense (they can fight back or they can hide or get an armor buff or something). Or to really mix things up there could be top bar abilities, with an emphasis on harass and defense against harass rather than abilities which help your main army in a normal battle. This way the most effective way to play is to always be trying to harass and defend against harass and also manage your main army against their main army. But maybe they feel this will discourage newbs, idk. But tbh I think developmentally they’ve already closed the door on any features like this, at least for now. They’re probably looking to ship version 1.0 very similar to how the game looks now. They must expect 90%+ of players to just stream units straight across the map and try to win by countering their opponents composition. And only if the game is dying would they resort to these big gameplay changes. I’d still be shocked if most StarCraft players switch to battle aces over SG. I think BA is a great “secondary” game for RTS players but it’s hard to imagine a ton of people maining it forever. Most people who are anti-SG still don’t understand how much more polish it’s going to have and look and play much better in August, and then even better 6-12 months after that. Whereas BA I don’t see it drastically improving or changing from what we see right now. And then there will be more RTS coming out… | ||
|
ETisME
12631 Posts
On June 20 2024 19:59 Fango wrote: Building workers isn't the important part. So much of the strategic depth in RTS games just comes from the macro and base building stage. There isn't anywhere near the room for expression that an RTS with macro offers. The best thing about RTS is that every player can have their own approach and identity. The peculiar thing is that David Kim said he wants to remove mechanical macro tasks to let players focus on strategy, but there's less room for strategy here than basically any other RTS, it's 100% a micro arena game. Don't get me wrong, the game looks fun. But it's about as complex as desert strike where you just decide on units and click a button for 'tech' or 'eco'. It's not an innovation on RTS at all. Footmen Frenzy, Evolves, Marine Arena, all those games that are basically the same thing, they're all fun but weren't exactly the next gen of WC3, BW, or SC2. there is macro and traditional rts strategy, it's just dumbed down. you still have worker harass or multiple attack path which aren't in the footmen frenzy etc. I think once the economy/resource tab is in, then it will be more obvious how much macro matters in the game. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On June 20 2024 22:48 ETisME wrote: there is macro and traditional rts strategy, it's just dumbed down. you still have worker harass or multiple attack path which aren't in the footmen frenzy etc. I think once the economy/resource tab is in, then it will be more obvious how much macro matters in the game. There is a semblance of macro/strategy but it's 10x shallower than any RTS with macro. There's so much depth in starcraft when it comes to building placement, choosing to cut workers or pulling them for fights, investing in scouting, banking resources, calculated risks, making use of different race and map dynamics. Every worker and every unit is a micro-decision and it all counts. Battle Aces' macro is basically the same as Desert strike. There's nothing wrong with that, but saying "We're reducing macro tasks to let people focus on strategy" just reads as "We don't understand strategy outside of being able to choose what units to make". It's a very reductive way of looking at RTS games. All I mean is, it's a micro arena game, the devs should advertise it as that and not as a strategy game. And that's not a knock, I love those kind of games | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On June 21 2024 00:39 Fango wrote: There is a semblance of macro/strategy but it's 10x shallower than any RTS with macro. There's so much depth in starcraft when it comes to building placement, choosing to cut workers or pulling them for fights, investing in scouting, banking resources, calculated risks, making use of different race and map dynamics. Every worker and every unit is a micro-decision and it all counts. Battle Aces' macro is basically the same as Desert strike. There's nothing wrong with that, but saying "We're reducing macro tasks to let people focus on strategy" just reads as "We don't understand strategy outside of being able to choose what units to make". It's a very reductive way of looking at RTS games. All I mean is, it's a micro arena game, the devs should advertise it as that and not as a strategy game. And that's not a knock, I love those kind of games Agreed 100%. It’s actually why I’m really quite interested in getting my hands on it. Not all depth is necessarily enjoyable, but there’s clearly way more if it in an SC, or alternatively a Warcraft 3 versus this. It may have the depth of a puddle, but hey, children the world over love jumping in puddles and enjoy it. But it’s not the game that people who say ‘it should be about strategy, it shouldn’t be about how can click faster’. It’s less strategic depth, and the person who clicks faster will be the winner, just those clicks are going to be almost entirely about micro, rather than split across micro, macro and the ability to juggle those two elements. Again, I personally think this is fine, as someone who loves micro, but it is what it is. There’s way more room for a slower but very cunning player to outpunch a more mechanical player in a game of build orders that’s more traditional than something like this | ||
Waxangel
United States33507 Posts
On June 20 2024 22:42 NonY wrote: I wonder if they even want multitasking? Like battles on multiple fronts? As I said in my last post they should buff harass. I’d also buff defense against harass, like give workers some kind of inherent defense (they can fight back or they can hide or get an armor buff or something). Or to really mix things up there could be top bar abilities, with an emphasis on harass and defense against harass rather than abilities which help your main army in a normal battle. This way the most effective way to play is to always be trying to harass and defend against harass and also manage your main army against their main army. But maybe they feel this will discourage newbs, idk. I think this is more a function of the default map than a fundamental property of the game. The side paths are too narrow and the defender's adv is too strong for players to commit large forces beyond the early game, so they focus on tug-of-war in the wide open center while just sending a small number of specialized worker-killers through the side paths (king crabs, raiders, etc). This is obviously intentional as they see main-army battles as the core element of the game, but I wonder how willing they are to test different map layouts during the beta. A map where the natural and third are equally vulnerable (while not being too close to each other) would play completely differently from the current 'thirds towards the center' layout. It would probably be very basetrade heavy for a game that's already pretty basetrade-y now, but it's the kind of thing I really want to see them experiment with early to find what gameplay patterns people enjoy the most. | ||
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
| ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1469 Posts
But if they are going to do that, I think they better nail on the micro/battle/unit side to make it varied and interesting. Right now, the intent seems to be scaling back on battle aspect to more of large formation/flank/positioning only since units die really too fast for more precise micro and turn it more of "autobattle". I don't like that at all. Way too much thing currently seems to be casual- something that would be fun for few games but not beyond 100+ games. This would be a great mobile game but not a "main" game. | ||
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
ALRIGHT WHO CAN MAKE THE SILLIEST CAPTION?! Film yourself cheering the loudest and pouring a beer on yourself if you want to be the first to play the competitive war game! Make a goofy selfie with you and your mechanical keyboard! Can they just stop that degrading shit and do something respectable like run an essay contest about the legacies of 1950s Sino-Russian relations? | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On June 21 2024 05:37 MegaBuster wrote: So the answer to the 'low skill floor, high skill ceiling' problem all these companies talks about is the harassment hallway. Of course! Architecture rocks! There's always an extent that lowering skill floor lowers the ceiling. But I do wish the games in development would look more into buffing bad macro than removing it completely. Some MOBAs have automatic builds and auto leveling up, no reason you can't have automated builds in an RTS. The competitive players will obviously turn it off. But lower level players at least have units spawn on their own and eventually build up an army. Or having units autocast abilities by default at least. People enjoy watching armies just clash into each other like Nexus Wars. | ||
|
MegaBuster
167 Posts
'Be a Battle Ace. Prove to Uncapped Games that you are the most 'Battle Asexual' and compete by not sleeping with your wife. Beta key for whoever goes the longest? Poor taste. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Miragee
8619 Posts
On June 21 2024 06:49 MegaBuster wrote: Also this one particular beta key contest I found very off-putting. 'Be a Battle Ace. Prove to Uncapped Games that you are the most 'Battle Asexual' and compete by not sleeping with your wife. Beta key for whoever goes the longest? Poor taste. Source? lol I would enjoy an essay contest but I'm not sure that's the target audience of this game. xD | ||
|
KingzTig
155 Posts
On June 21 2024 00:39 Fango wrote: There is a semblance of macro/strategy but it's 10x shallower than any RTS with macro. There's so much depth in starcraft when it comes to building placement, choosing to cut workers or pulling them for fights, investing in scouting, banking resources, calculated risks, making use of different race and map dynamics. Every worker and every unit is a micro-decision and it all counts. Battle Aces' macro is basically the same as Desert strike. There's nothing wrong with that, but saying "We're reducing macro tasks to let people focus on strategy" just reads as "We don't understand strategy outside of being able to choose what units to make". It's a very reductive way of looking at RTS games. All I mean is, it's a micro arena game, the devs should advertise it as that and not as a strategy game. And that's not a knock, I love those kind of games I would call it strategy genre since even tower defence is considered as one. Just some additional thoughts, typical meaningful 2 base engagements start at 7mins-ish for sc2, almost 9mins-ish for SG. Meanwhile for BA, that's almost one to two game length time. The ingame strategy (building tech path etc) is moved to deck, you just dive right into executing your deck strategy, mobility, zone control, timings etc. | ||
|
Waxangel
United States33507 Posts
On June 21 2024 06:49 MegaBuster wrote: Also this one particular beta key contest I found very off-putting. 'Be a Battle Ace. Prove to Uncapped Games that you are the most 'Battle Asexual' and compete by not sleeping with your wife. Beta key for whoever goes the longest? Poor taste. User was temp banned for this post. I enjoy like one insane MegaBuster post per day, but he needs to be rate limited  | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1849 Posts
On June 20 2024 22:42 NonY wrote: As eonzerg observed, with the high number of units, the micro is more just controlling the shape of your army (good concave), stutter stepping forward/backward, etc. a LOT of micro that is really fun and fan-favorite micro from sc1/sc2/wc3 is completely absent. I wonder if they even want multitasking? Like battles on multiple fronts? As I said in my last post they should buff harass. as someone who played this game, this is the most harass oriented RTS out of the unholy trio, SC/SG/BA | ||
|
Miragee
8619 Posts
On June 21 2024 12:51 CicadaSC wrote: as someone who played this game, this is the most harass oriented RTS out of the unholy trio, SC/SG/BA What's SC? I don't think it's a good idea to use the same abbreviation as Starcraft for a new RTS game. | ||
| ||
