Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread - Page 40

On June 29 2024 03:16 JimmyJRaynor wrote:

i hope this game ends up on the Switch.

On June 29 2024 02:27 NonY wrote:
is the game more fun or less fun when you engage in this progression system versus when everything is unlocked? i thought it was clear from the feedback they got from people who played with everything unlocked versus the feedback they got from people engaging in the progression system that it's more fun to have it unlocked. so what else is there to think about? shouldn't that be the end of it?

there are two things i can think of:
(1) can they iterate on the progression system so it's actually the preferred option and make it more fun than having everything unlocked? games can definitely do this but it's more difficult when they're competitive. if it's a competitive multiplayer game then progression systems are more like work you have to do to earn the right to compete on an even playing field, or to have an advantage against newer players. on the other hand if there were a co-op game mode, or this were a single player game, i think it's more acceptable to have your full arsenal gated by how many games you've played. having an option to pay $30 to unlock max level of every hero would actually take a lot of the fun out of it and you'd get fewer hours of enjoyment from the game that way

(2) maybe the progression system is necessary because of their revenue model. but in that case im just saying there should be three categories of players: (a) someone who plays the game 30+ hours every week and can unlock everything for free, (b) someone who pays $30 and has everything unlocked forever or (c) someone who does neither and just doesnt mind playing in a limited way. i think MOST long term players would fall into the "pay $30" category. it's not a bad thing to say "copy smite" because smite is a successful game

in my opinion, the "pay $30 to unlock everything forever" does make this a complete non-issue that doesn't need to be discussed anymore. the question is whether or not they're going to do it. like i said there are myriad issues that they'll be contending with if they're perpetually dealing with a lot of players who have everything unlocked and a lot of players who don't. by having the $30 option, the community will not have any sympathy for people who complain about issues stemming from not having everything unlocked. the community can be united in playing the game and giving feedback on the game in the context of having everything unlocked, and that's how uncapped games can balance the game and update the game, without having to care about the experience of players who dont have everything unlocked


Not talking about anger. Talking about any negative feeling -- sadness, regret. Anything NOT fun. You're entitled to fun when you play a video game. If any part of it feels "not fun" then that should be closely examined to see if it can be minimized or eliminated.


There better be at least 3 or else they should've just made 3-4 unique factions. If there aren't 5+ then the whole concept is confusing to me. What I think the game could really use is a draft but I don't know how it could be implemented. If it's a slow draft like 15 seconds per choice, then you're spending as much time drafting as you are playing the match. And if it's a fast draft like 5 seconds per choice, a lot of people would make mistakes in the draft and then not even want to play the match (but I think 5 seconds would be ample time for experienced players).

Even if they make different maps where different decks are good, you're still playing mirror matchups. Like in starcraft when a map favors a certain race, like PvZ is 55% win and PvT is 50% win, everyone would pick protoss every game if they were equally good with all races, so it's just a PvP map at that point. Actually we saw this sometimes in Proleague where certain maps were notorious for mirror matchups.


IMO this is very optimistic and i hope the game ends up like this but it's got a long way to go. I hard disagree that it's comparable to league though. Too many significant differences. Even just the fact that you pre-select your whole loadout in a 1v1, whereas in league you have 5 players vs 5 players doing a draft, that's enough to make them incomparable

Also if/when they do make more maps or spice things up in some other way to incentivize playing a greater variety of decks, that will of course necessitate having more units unlocked to build those various decks. The very loose comparison here would be to heroes of the storm since it has maps that are much better for certain team comps than others, so there are fewer heroes you can one trick

----------

I would not want to be in the devs shoes figuring out how quickly to do balance patches. I do not think the game will be that fun if there are a lot of mirror matchups. But you also want to give people time to try to break the meta themselves without having to change the rules of the game. Really depends how many will be meta slaves and how many will stubbornly play their own favorite units. The game really needs the kind of player who will continue to play mech no matter what, even when everyone else is playing bio

On June 29 2024 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Just started playing Battle Aces. Went 10-0 against opponents with the same (beginner/starting) units as me, and the gameplay felt good because it was essentially a mirror match-up where I could try out slightly different strategies and focus on microing in skirmishes, two-pronged attacks, etc. Small victories compounding into a win, each time. Solid.

11th game was against someone with completely different units who just instantly annihilated me without even microing their army. That didn't feel great, but I guess I'll need to dedicate quite a bit of time earning in-game currency to unlock a lot more units. Is the fastest way to do that to just keep playing 1v1 over and over again?

On June 29 2024 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Just started playing Battle Aces. Went 10-0 against opponents with the same (beginner/starting) units as me, and the gameplay felt good because it was essentially a mirror match-up where I could try out slightly different strategies and focus on microing in skirmishes, two-pronged attacks, etc. Small victories compounding into a win, each time. Solid.

11th game was against someone with completely different units who just instantly annihilated me without even microing their army. That didn't feel great, but I guess I'll need to dedicate quite a bit of time earning in-game currency to unlock a lot more units. Is the fastest way to do that to just keep playing 1v1 over and over again?

On June 29 2024 20:50 WombaT wrote:
I’m on beta now, did they do a second wave?

What kinda units are worth shooting for to unlock initially? Doubt I’ll have the time to play a ton of it so will probably have to be pretty efficient rather than too experimental there!

On June 29 2024 20:50 WombaT wrote:
I’m on beta now, did they do a second wave?

What kinda units are worth shooting for to unlock initially? Doubt I’ll have the time to play a ton of it so will probably have to be pretty efficient rather than too experimental there!

On June 29 2024 23:03 CicadaSC wrote:
https://steamcharts.com/app/2820350 finally this information is out. a bit small, no? i cant imagine how they are going to turn a profit on this game.

On June 29 2024 23:14 WombaT wrote:

I mean it is a closed beta. I woulda booted it up and give it a crack last week if I’d got on the first wave, alas I wasn’t

One positive scanning there is that there hasn’t been a big drop off of activity, which would indicate to me that players aren’t dropping it after a day or two but are continuing to play it a bit.

I think you’d really worry if day 1 of beta had way more players than day 7, as it’d indicate people gave it a go and dropped it quickly.

As with all these in-development RTS games they’re mostly being playtested by RTS vets and big RTS fans almost exclusively. The big question is can they expand beyond that when they actually launch