|
On July 17 2024 07:45 CicadaSC wrote:
How did everyone enjoy the beta?
there were games I really liked how it went.
Like putting early pressure to cause them overproduced t1 and delay their t2, I build a deck around it.
Then there are games I thought I lost because my deck just wasn't quite there if I went foundary and they went starforge, even if I prepared with t1 AA.
The cost to tech/expand is very high and units can be a bit too much of a hard counter.
I would love them to add a base card which add longer range for vision, defense turret or shield etc, so there's more defender advantage.
But I really miss the game now that the beta is done, surprised how quickly it grew on me.
|
The game was addicting for the first day or two but it got repetitive quickly.
Also unit stats not being visible ingame is annoying to compare units
Think I'll give it another try next beta or release, whatever comes first but dunno if the game can keep many players playing every day.
|
On July 17 2024 07:45 CicadaSC wrote:
How did everyone enjoy the beta?
I played 2 games against what felt like bots and I bounced off it hard. Boring units, economy only managed in discreet large chunks made the game feel very shallow right out of the gate. Maybe it gets better, but it really didn't grab me enough to make me invest the time to see.
|
The bots masquerading as real opponents for the first matches annoyed me. I don't mind if they say you have to play a few matches against an AI before you can match up against human opponents, but don't lie to me that they're real opponents.
I only got to squeeze in ten or so matches before I took off for a long vacation, but what I got to play intrigued me. I'll definitely play again and I'm interested to see how deep the strategy can go. If it stays where it's at now, I imagine I'll lose interest fairly quickly, but I can imagine them adding more complexity and strategic depth and turning this into something I come back to for years.
|
On July 18 2024 00:03 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
The bots masquerading as real opponents for the first matches annoyed me. I don't mind if they say you have to play a few matches against an AI before you can match up against human opponents, but don't lie to me that they're real opponents.
I only got to squeeze in ten or so matches before I took off for a long vacation, but what I got to play intrigued me. I'll definitely play again and I'm interested to see how deep the strategy can go. If it stays where it's at now, I imagine I'll lose interest fairly quickly, but I can imagine them adding more complexity and strategic depth and turning this into something I come back to for years.
I do think this is the 'way' going forward, and I do think companies will have more resources to devote to better AI.
Especially in games that aren't zero sum, having some level of an AI buffer lets a larger portion of the playerbase experience winning overall, which is important for retention.
Compare this to an anecdote of WC3 where I :
1) Am fully terrible, I should be bottom of the ladder
2) Am 5k mmr on battle.net (Grubby when I last looked was 6.3k mmr?)
3) Have a 37% winrate
This system would benefit vastly from having AI opponents to smooth out that journey. I've never been above a 50% winrate in WC3 ever, and likely as a result don't play that game that much. Obviously WC3 has the problems of being an old game with a smaller playerbase (that's divided among multiple ladders) but I don't see the harm in a game future-proofing itself for that issue.
All that said, I agree that it's a bit dubious to not have them listed as bots in some way. If you -know-, you know, but... perhaps some option when joining the ladder to check a "I'm an experienced RTS player!" box to have it drop the AI games from 10 to 3 or something?
|
On July 18 2024 00:03 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
The bots masquerading as real opponents for the first matches annoyed me. I don't mind if they say you have to play a few matches against an AI before you can match up against human opponents, but don't lie to me that they're real opponents.
I only got to squeeze in ten or so matches before I took off for a long vacation, but what I got to play intrigued me. I'll definitely play again and I'm interested to see how deep the strategy can go. If it stays where it's at now, I imagine I'll lose interest fairly quickly, but I can imagine them adding more complexity and strategic depth and turning this into something I come back to for years.
Plenty of games do that, though. Warcraft Rumble and Marvel Snap both have bots that aren't marked as bots, and the only reason you know they're bots is because they herpaderp a bunch in ways that humans would not.
|
I know it's not unusual, but I hate it nonetheless. I don't mind the bots per se, but when the very first interaction I have with a game is being lied to, I just find that very off-putting.
|
Bots are a necessary evil for the companies.
If you are aiming to generate profit through mtx, you'd be foolish not to include some type of AI or Bot to entice and maintain mau's.
The players that would naturally filter out into the low single digit win percentages would just hang up the game without them. These types of players are also painfully unaware that they are even fighting vs AI in the first place.
Also as far as initial games go I think it's a healthy practice for the first handful rather than getting immediately curbstomped.
While I'm not a fan because the idea itself is spawned from the participation meta ideology(plague), as well as being somewhat predatory, you have to acknowledge that it's a smart business decision.
|
On July 18 2024 07:41 Agh wrote:
Bots are a necessary evil for the companies.
If you are aiming to generate profit through mtx, you'd be foolish not to include some type of AI or Bot to entice and maintain mau's.
The players that would naturally filter out into the low single digit win percentages would just hang up the game without them. These types of players are also painfully unaware that they are even fighting vs AI in the first place.
Also as far as initial games go I think it's a healthy practice for the first handful rather than getting immediately curbstomped.
While I'm not a fan because the idea itself is spawned from the participation meta ideology(plague), as well as being somewhat predatory, you have to acknowledge that it's a smart business decision.
Somehow your post reminded me of dating portals where half (or more) of the women are bots. Seems like standard practice these days
|
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
On July 18 2024 19:47 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2024 07:41 Agh wrote:
Bots are a necessary evil for the companies.
If you are aiming to generate profit through mtx, you'd be foolish not to include some type of AI or Bot to entice and maintain mau's.
The players that would naturally filter out into the low single digit win percentages would just hang up the game without them. These types of players are also painfully unaware that they are even fighting vs AI in the first place.
Also as far as initial games go I think it's a healthy practice for the first handful rather than getting immediately curbstomped.
While I'm not a fan because the idea itself is spawned from the participation meta ideology(plague), as well as being somewhat predatory, you have to acknowledge that it's a smart business decision.
Somehow your post reminded me of dating portals where half (or more) of the women are bots. Seems like standard practice these days
I mean in that case developers probably don’t want those bots to be there, they destroy the entire purpose of such apps.
Whereas in a game you may actually want bots so players can cut their teeth
|
That's not completely true, some services charge to message and thus it can be financially beneficial to them to have more appealing accounts around encouraging people to use up their stock of freely available messages. That's leaving aside the broader issue that even a simple subscription dating service has some financial incentive for you not to find a partner so that you keep using it (not that I'm making any claim about how this balances out with being "good enough" to pay for).
Part of the whole Ashley Madison explosion was learning that a lot of the women on there were fake accounts, though I think from memory they may actually have been piloted by people doing it as a job, rather than bots.
|
United States33693 Posts
Didn't play a ton of beta, but I found it to be quite fun and addictive when I did (basically same opinion since the closed test). Also gotta double down on my take that all the 'easy to learn/anyone can enjoy' marketing is kinda nonsense. Yes, they've lowered the most basic barriers to entry, but since it's a 1v1 game, it ramps up to being a hands/APM-heavy game very quickly. In order to appeal to people outside the experienced RTS gaming crowd, they really need to draw in a decent sized group of low-skill, new players who can learn together.
Honestly, no idea how any game goes about doing the latter. A lot of the successful competitive PvP games I see are incredibly unfriendly to beginners (MOBAs in particular), but it seems like they get enough critical mass for people to rope their friends in and convince them to commit. Ionno if it's even a function of game quality—feels pretty random at times.
|
On July 23 2024 02:23 Waxangel wrote:
Didn't play a ton of beta, but I found it to be quite fun and addictive when I did (basically same opinion since the closed test). Also gotta double down on my take that all the 'easy to learn/anyone can enjoy' marketing is kinda nonsense. Yes, they've lowered the most basic barriers to entry, but since it's a 1v1 game, it ramps up to being a hands/APM-heavy game very quickly. In order to appeal to people outside the experienced RTS gaming crowd, they really need to draw in a decent sized group of low-skill, new players who can learn together.
Honestly, no idea how any game goes about doing the latter. A lot of the successful competitive PvP games I see are incredibly unfriendly to beginners (MOBAs in particular), but it seems like they get enough critical mass for people to rope their friends in and convince them to commit. Ionno if it's even a function of game quality—feels pretty random at times.
Most if not all of them have in common that they are team games. Be it 3v3 or 6v6. It's always easier to learn as a group and this makes sure the game is beeing talked about outside of the "gaming time" as well
|
Yes. It also allows you to express your frustration to your friends in a way that many people prefer.
It is usually harder for someone to say
"Yesterday I had a nice game but then I fooked up and lost" (I'm such a loser)
compared to
"Yesterday I had a nice game but then my ally fooked up and we lost" (poor me, can you imagine?)
Even if you play with your friends and you don't think your allies are degenerates - or maybe you do, depends on your friends, I guess... - it is still easier to think that yeah, we lost, but it's because Steve joined our push too late, hopefully next time he'll do better.
And Steve thinks - yeah, we lost but it's because Josh pushed too early without waiting for me, hopefully next time he'll do better.
When you lose in 1v1 there's absolutely no one to blame but yourself - unless it was a cheater or a smurfs, and guess what, so many players attribute their losses to playing vs cheaters and smurfs. 
|
On July 23 2024 02:23 Waxangel wrote:
Didn't play a ton of beta, but I found it to be quite fun and addictive when I did (basically same opinion since the closed test). Also gotta double down on my take that all the 'easy to learn/anyone can enjoy' marketing is kinda nonsense. Yes, they've lowered the most basic barriers to entry, but since it's a 1v1 game, it ramps up to being a hands/APM-heavy game very quickly. In order to appeal to people outside the experienced RTS gaming crowd, they really need to draw in a decent sized group of low-skill, new players who can learn together.
Honestly, no idea how any game goes about doing the latter. A lot of the successful competitive PvP games I see are incredibly unfriendly to beginners (MOBAs in particular), but it seems like they get enough critical mass for people to rope their friends in and convince them to commit. Ionno if it's even a function of game quality—feels pretty random at times.
Probably due to friends, having fun together. I remember having lans with friend in Dota2 or League of Legends, but never had that , or not as much at all for SC2, especially if there are female friends involved, that only happens with Moba they would play with us.
|
[B]When you lose in 1v1 there's absolutely no one to blame but yourself - unless it was a cheater or a smurfs, and guess what, so many players attribute their losses to playing vs cheaters and smurfs.
You can also blame David Kim
|
I don't believe that Battle Aces will be succesful if the only way it can attract new players is by having active players convince their friends to play it as a group together.
What I believe in is making a game that looks awesome in a highlight-reel. This way you can market it to the typical "ego-moba" player . They will look at awesome plays and demonstration of skills through a highlight video and want to try that out as well.
As a similar example, I remember convincing multiple sc2 players that LOL wasn't as bad afterall after showing them the Faker vs Ryu Zed vs Zed outplay in LOL. You need the same thing for an RTS game.
The biggest problem though is that Battle Aces don't do "highlights"/big-moments play well (and neither does stormgate, zero space for that matter). You need to have something that looks awesome and can convince the target group to give it a chance.
I think the only ones that will give Battle Aces a chance currently are former RTS players.
Think of this; If someone released a game in a genre you usually don't play and their best argument to convince you to play it was that the learning curve was lower than other games in the genre - would that be a convincing argument? No! Games that get hyped and have people interested in them are games that looks awesome. Think back to the hype of pre-release Overwatch - so many non fps players thought this looked awesome and were interested in trying it out.
For that reason I think David Kim is completely off when he thinks that "simple units" is the way to get new players into the game. No you want high-skill cap units with potential for outplays to convince new players to give it a chance. Watching armies a-move into each other is not the way.
|
I think most casuals these days have no typical genre. They just go with the flow and where the fun is to be had or where they feel their time is valued. And this is probably the biggest group there is. Obviously there might be tendecies where some are more shooter oriented and some more strategic but looking at the last big hits, genre doesn't matter that much IMO
Helldivers -> Shooter with great teamplay
Palworld -> Shooter with crafting / building/ collecting
Baldurs Gate -> RPG , strategical adventure
Lost Ark -> ARPG MMO, Hackn Slay
Elden Ring -> Open World RPG
I'm not sure about Palworld but all except Elden Ring are great team games with friends btw. And all are PvE (mostly)
|
On July 24 2024 05:16 Hider wrote:
I don't believe that Battle Aces will be succesful if the only way it can attract new players is by having active players convince their friends to play it as a group together.
What I believe in is making a game that looks awesome in a highlight-reel. This way you can market it to the typical "ego-moba" player . They will look at awesome plays and demonstration of skills through a highlight video and want to try that out as well.
As a similar example, I remember convincing multiple sc2 players that LOL wasn't as bad afterall after showing them the Faker vs Ryu Zed vs Zed outplay in LOL. You need the same thing for an RTS game.
The biggest problem though is that Battle Aces don't do "highlights"/big-moments play well (and neither does stormgate, zero space for that matter). You need to have something that looks awesome and can convince the target group to give it a chance.
I think the only ones that will give Battle Aces a chance currently are former RTS players.
Think of this; If someone released a game in a genre you usually don't play and their best argument to convince you to play it was that the learning curve was lower than other games in the genre - would that be a convincing argument? No! Games that get hyped and have people interested in them are games that looks awesome. Think back to the hype of pre-release Overwatch - so many non fps players thought this looked awesome and were interested in trying it out.
For that reason I think David Kim is completely off when he thinks that "simple units" is the way to get new players into the game. No you want high-skill cap units with potential for outplays to convince new players to give it a chance. Watching armies a-move into each other is not the way.
Unless they do more unnecessary and unwarranted changes like they did with the king crab the units mostly have delicate intricacies with how they interact with each other.
The amount that you can actually outmicro and outplay is pretty crazy. And there is absolutely no idle a-moving near the top of the ladder, so not sure where that is coming from. Even people that grinded pretty high up like PiG acknowledge that there are a lot of decks and combos that they can't use effectively due to the micro and apm requirements. From the competitive and esports side I think anyone that actually tries out the game will quickly appreciate the skill top players have in comparison to themselves.
|
United States33693 Posts
On July 24 2024 19:53 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2024 05:16 Hider wrote:
I don't believe that Battle Aces will be succesful if the only way it can attract new players is by having active players convince their friends to play it as a group together.
What I believe in is making a game that looks awesome in a highlight-reel. This way you can market it to the typical "ego-moba" player . They will look at awesome plays and demonstration of skills through a highlight video and want to try that out as well.
As a similar example, I remember convincing multiple sc2 players that LOL wasn't as bad afterall after showing them the Faker vs Ryu Zed vs Zed outplay in LOL. You need the same thing for an RTS game.
The biggest problem though is that Battle Aces don't do "highlights"/big-moments play well (and neither does stormgate, zero space for that matter). You need to have something that looks awesome and can convince the target group to give it a chance.
I think the only ones that will give Battle Aces a chance currently are former RTS players.
Think of this; If someone released a game in a genre you usually don't play and their best argument to convince you to play it was that the learning curve was lower than other games in the genre - would that be a convincing argument? No! Games that get hyped and have people interested in them are games that looks awesome. Think back to the hype of pre-release Overwatch - so many non fps players thought this looked awesome and were interested in trying it out.
For that reason I think David Kim is completely off when he thinks that "simple units" is the way to get new players into the game. No you want high-skill cap units with potential for outplays to convince new players to give it a chance. Watching armies a-move into each other is not the way. Unless they do more unnecessary and unwarranted changes like they did with the king crab the units mostly have delicate intricacies with how they interact with each other. The amount that you can actually outmicro and outplay is pretty crazy. And there is absolutely no idle a-moving near the top of the ladder, so not sure where that is coming from. Even people that grinded pretty high up like PiG acknowledge that there are a lot of decks and combos that they can't use effectively due to the micro and apm requirements. From the competitive and esports side I think anyone that actually tries out the game will quickly appreciate the skill top players have in comparison to themselves.
The argument being made isn't that the game itself is low-skill, it's that it has few moments that will be PERCEIVED as high-skill to competitive gamers who don't play RTS.
While I agree to some extent, I don't know that it really matters a ton? The famous Faker-Ryu Zed duel that's being brought up wasn't exactly a common occurrence in LoL esports, and for a game with as much long-term success as LoL, there's actually surprisingly few "wow" plays that broke through into mainstream gaming. The Faker-Ryu duel prolly had some non-zero positive effect, but LoL was already pretty successful (and continues to be successful) on its core merits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
