|
On October 14 2024 08:32 ZeroByte13 wrote:
The difference is LoL / Dota are 5v5.
One hero might have 55% winrate, but there are 9 other sets of variables in every game - 9 other players, their heroes/champions, their experience, etc.
Maybe it's a weaker player with that champion, or maybe his/her teammates (who care mostly about their own performance and fun) won't help enabling this champion's plays.
Your opponent having an imbalanced tool in disposal and focusing on it to win in 1v1 game might feel worse.
There's quite a bit with RTS as well because units don't come online until a certain time.
In pro show matches T1 dominated a lot of the match, so T1 really is the biggest concern.
do we think any units right now are OP for example and would they have been in paywall?
I don't see this naturally will lead to OP units only pay walled. It's more that units are gonna be more or less rough in balance when released.
|
Getting more pessimistic seeing the new units. Battle Aces does not offer anything in their game that attracts a wider audience. It's only a niche competitive RTS segment they appeal to and even within that segment the longevity is uncertain.
Battle Aces still has a chance but the thinking that you need simple units to cater to new players will kill the game. It's the other way around - create exciting units to attract a new audience.
My newest "prediction" is that all of Gates of Pyre, Stormgate, Zerospace and Battle Aces - or at very least fail to attract a playerbase compared to or larger than that of Sc2.
|
On October 19 2024 08:03 Hider wrote:
Getting more pessimistic seeing the new units. Battle Aces does not offer anything in their game that attracts a wider audience. It's only a niche competitive RTS segment they appeal to and even within that segment the longevity is uncertain.
Battle Aces still has a chance but the thinking that you need simple units to cater to new players will kill the game. It's the other way around - create exciting units to attract a new audience.
My newest "prediction" is that all of Gates of Pyre, Stormgate, Zerospace and Battle Aces - or at very least fail to attract a playerbase compared to or larger than that of Sc2.
I feel the same tbh.
One of my biggest complaint with BA is the units more or less just differs in stats and not much else.
I get the fun is in the deck building, but they haven't been doing enough to make units unique to play out. Maybe with exception of recall.
I am hoping at least one or two new RTS will have a fairly tight playerbase for a couple years. I managed to get a few multiplayer games in godsworn just this week, which isn't too bad for a small indie.
|
On October 19 2024 08:58 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 08:03 Hider wrote:
Getting more pessimistic seeing the new units. Battle Aces does not offer anything in their game that attracts a wider audience. It's only a niche competitive RTS segment they appeal to and even within that segment the longevity is uncertain.
Battle Aces still has a chance but the thinking that you need simple units to cater to new players will kill the game. It's the other way around - create exciting units to attract a new audience.
My newest "prediction" is that all of Gates of Pyre, Stormgate, Zerospace and Battle Aces - or at very least fail to attract a playerbase compared to or larger than that of Sc2. I feel the same tbh. One of my biggest complaint with BA is the units more or less just differs in stats and not much else. I get the fun is in the deck building, but they haven't been doing enough to make units unique to play out. Maybe with exception of recall. I am hoping at least one or two new RTS will have a fairly tight playerbase for a couple years. I managed to get a few multiplayer games in godsworn just this week, which isn't too bad for a small indie.
Yes, it's like here is a unit that can auto-attack, here is another unit that can auto-attack but marginally different.
Yeh every single RTS game dev out there thinks the solution to attracing a wider audience is making the game easier through taking away skill expression in unit control. And all of them have failed in the past and will likely continue to do so.
I wish someone would try out my vision for the RTS genre, which I've been advocating for years. It's something like this;
1. Unit selection similar to Battle Aces (being able to select between all types of units - no races).
2. Map is larger than Sc2.
3. Unit production/macro is very easy. No buildings required to produce anything.
4. Only types of structures are static defenses
5. Units move fast and relatively low time-to-death.
6. Only a few simple a-move units. Most units have some mechanci/ability that allows for high skill expression and counterplay. (I will take lots of inspiration from MOBA's in terms of the design of abilities - although will adapted properly to an RTS).
7. Spells will be designed not be spamable, but rather to encourage movement based micro.
8. QoL improvements so it's not required to switch between control groups to use abilities.
9. Fast production speed and large armies so players can fight for multiple locations at the same time.
10.Securing "bases" around the map doesn't directly lead to larger economy/production speed. It grants other advantages but this should reduce the snowballyness of the game.
The intention with the above is to have players be able to focus almost purely on army control and fight all over the map. Secure locations and then break the opponents bases. Lots of trading will happen with rich room for creative skill-expression.
This will be a high APM and it will not be for everybody. But I can easily imagine some really cool interactions that a reasonable percentage of the MOBA-audience could be interested in.
|
On October 21 2024 00:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 08:58 ETisME wrote:On October 19 2024 08:03 Hider wrote:
Getting more pessimistic seeing the new units. Battle Aces does not offer anything in their game that attracts a wider audience. It's only a niche competitive RTS segment they appeal to and even within that segment the longevity is uncertain.
Battle Aces still has a chance but the thinking that you need simple units to cater to new players will kill the game. It's the other way around - create exciting units to attract a new audience.
My newest "prediction" is that all of Gates of Pyre, Stormgate, Zerospace and Battle Aces - or at very least fail to attract a playerbase compared to or larger than that of Sc2. I feel the same tbh. One of my biggest complaint with BA is the units more or less just differs in stats and not much else. I get the fun is in the deck building, but they haven't been doing enough to make units unique to play out. Maybe with exception of recall. I am hoping at least one or two new RTS will have a fairly tight playerbase for a couple years. I managed to get a few multiplayer games in godsworn just this week, which isn't too bad for a small indie. Yes, it's like here is a unit that can auto-attack, here is another unit that can auto-attack but marginally different. Yeh every single RTS game dev out there thinks the solution to attracing a wider audience is making the game easier through taking away skill expression in unit control. And all of them have failed in the past and will likely continue to do so. I wish someone would try out my vision for the RTS genre, which I've been advocating for years. It's something like this; 1. Unit selection similar to Battle Aces (being able to select between all types of units - no races). 2. Map is larger than Sc2. 3. Unit production/macro is very easy. No buildings required to produce anything. 4. Only types of structures are static defenses 5. Units move fast and relatively low time-to-death. 6. Only a few simple a-move units. Most units have some mechanci/ability that allows for high skill expression and counterplay. (I will take lots of inspiration from MOBA's in terms of the design of abilities - although will adapted properly to an RTS). 7. Spells will be designed not be spamable, but rather to encourage movement based micro. 8. QoL improvements so it's not required to switch between control groups to use abilities. 9. Fast production speed and large armies so players can fight for multiple locations at the same time. 10.Securing "bases" around the map doesn't directly lead to larger economy/production speed. It grants other advantages but this should reduce the snowballyness of the game. The intention with the above is to have players be able to focus almost purely on army control and fight all over the map. Secure locations and then break the opponents bases. Lots of trading will happen with rich room for creative skill-expression. This will be a high APM and it will not be for everybody. But I can easily imagine some really cool interactions that a reasonable percentage of the MOBA-audience could be interested in.
Marine arena already exists my dude
|
was always gonna be p2w trash with that setup heh
|
Even among the RTS niche crowd there are plenty of people who like campaigns, coop and team games so I don't really see a 1v1 battle arena having great success.
I can see the appeal of having short, high octane games though. We'll see
|
On October 21 2024 12:04 Kyle8 wrote:
was always gonna be p2w trash with that setup heh
Yeah I think the game looks fun but yeah there's no way to avoid a p2w scenario with their model.
LoL gets away with it because you have 5 players on each time. One hero being overpowered isn't going to hurt your personal chance of winning if you don't buy them. On average, the overpowered hero will end up on your team 80% as often as it lands on your opponent's team anyway.
Combined with the fact there are countless team compositions anyway, you'd have to play thousands of games to even start to scrape a statistically significant disadvantage.
BA is different. Having units in a 1v1 RTS gated by cost is automatically p2w. You can't just churn out new units on a regular basis and expect them to be balanced. No RTS is balanced out of the box, you have to maintain balance through updates and react to what players figure out. Even if they somehow are (an impossible task) players without access to them to practice and figure out are immediately disadvantaged.
|
On October 21 2024 17:08 Harris1st wrote:
Even among the RTS niche crowd there are plenty of people who like campaigns, coop and team games so I don't really see a 1v1 battle arena having great success.
I can see the appeal of having short, high octane games though. We'll see
I think the idea is fine; Don't try and attempt to satisfy everyone. Instead, identify a reasonable sized target group and try and give something they don't even realize they actually want.
The problem other RTS (cough stormgate) run into is that they are trying to do everything and make everyone happy.
|
Northern Ireland26035 Posts
On October 21 2024 00:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2024 08:58 ETisME wrote:On October 19 2024 08:03 Hider wrote:
Getting more pessimistic seeing the new units. Battle Aces does not offer anything in their game that attracts a wider audience. It's only a niche competitive RTS segment they appeal to and even within that segment the longevity is uncertain.
Battle Aces still has a chance but the thinking that you need simple units to cater to new players will kill the game. It's the other way around - create exciting units to attract a new audience.
My newest "prediction" is that all of Gates of Pyre, Stormgate, Zerospace and Battle Aces - or at very least fail to attract a playerbase compared to or larger than that of Sc2. I feel the same tbh. One of my biggest complaint with BA is the units more or less just differs in stats and not much else. I get the fun is in the deck building, but they haven't been doing enough to make units unique to play out. Maybe with exception of recall. I am hoping at least one or two new RTS will have a fairly tight playerbase for a couple years. I managed to get a few multiplayer games in godsworn just this week, which isn't too bad for a small indie. Yes, it's like here is a unit that can auto-attack, here is another unit that can auto-attack but marginally different. Yeh every single RTS game dev out there thinks the solution to attracing a wider audience is making the game easier through taking away skill expression in unit control. And all of them have failed in the past and will likely continue to do so. I wish someone would try out my vision for the RTS genre, which I've been advocating for years. It's something like this; 1. Unit selection similar to Battle Aces (being able to select between all types of units - no races). 2. Map is larger than Sc2. 3. Unit production/macro is very easy. No buildings required to produce anything. 4. Only types of structures are static defenses 5. Units move fast and relatively low time-to-death. 6. Only a few simple a-move units. Most units have some mechanci/ability that allows for high skill expression and counterplay. (I will take lots of inspiration from MOBA's in terms of the design of abilities - although will adapted properly to an RTS). 7. Spells will be designed not be spamable, but rather to encourage movement based micro. 8. QoL improvements so it's not required to switch between control groups to use abilities. 9. Fast production speed and large armies so players can fight for multiple locations at the same time. 10.Securing "bases" around the map doesn't directly lead to larger economy/production speed. It grants other advantages but this should reduce the snowballyness of the game. The intention with the above is to have players be able to focus almost purely on army control and fight all over the map. Secure locations and then break the opponents bases. Lots of trading will happen with rich room for creative skill-expression. This will be a high APM and it will not be for everybody. But I can easily imagine some really cool interactions that a reasonable percentage of the MOBA-audience could be interested in.
I quite like it I gotta say
I too think the ‘casuals don’t like x, make it easier’, while it has had some individual feature successes, doesn’t really work as an overall approach
|
Am I the only one dissapointed with this? Graphics are awful and design isn't even rts.
|
Northern Ireland26035 Posts
On October 22 2024 07:09 followZeRoX wrote:
Am I the only one dissapointed with this? Graphics are awful and design isn't even rts.
I don’t really treat it as one, I treat it more as a ‘I have an hour or so and wanna go micro some stuff’ and it does that rather well
I think if you treat it like that and really enjoy micro, it’s got a nice niche. If you want the whole RTS shebang there’s plenty of better options, personally I just don’t really think of it as in that same genre, a subgenre ofc
My biggest worry is how P2W it’ll be, and I haven’t seen many indications that that’s a problem they’ll solve
Problem 2 is with such limited compositions you can employ, people will find out the best comps quickly and it’ll get very samey, very quickly. Hopefully they’ll figure out enough variety be it through units or map design to avoid that
|
On October 22 2024 07:09 followZeRoX wrote:
Am I the only one dissapointed with this? Graphics are awful and design isn't even rts.
It's not an RTS. It's a Unit Battle Arena with some strategic choices (Expand, Tech, Units)
This is not going to "revolutionize the market" , "have amazing netcode, rollback and pathfinding" or other things that FGS has promised. It's goal is simply to have fun micro interactions and those are actually quite fun.
I can absolutely see this clocking in on steamcharts somewhere between places 80-100 for a long time IF the money model is decent
|
On October 22 2024 17:13 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2024 07:09 followZeRoX wrote:
Am I the only one dissapointed with this? Graphics are awful and design isn't even rts. It's not an RTS. It's a Unit Battle Arena with some strategic choices (Expand, Tech, Units) This is not going to "revolutionize the market" , "have amazing netcode, rollback and pathfinding" or other things that FGS has promised. It's goal is simply to have fun micro interactions and those are actually quite fun. I can absolutely see this clocking in on steamcharts somewhere between places 80-100 for a long time IF the money model is decent
Maybe I expected another rts when I saw DK in the mix. You are right, as is Wombat
|
last beta was very fun, easy to boot up and get a few games in.
It actually feels like sc2 in many ways, but obviously a heavy stripped down version of it.
But the micro, unit pathing felt very like sc2.
I am still cautiously optimistic, it's definitely a game my partner would enjoy playing with me as well. SC2 is just too much for her, even though she learnt most of it pretty fast.
|
United States33487 Posts
New Beta phase started... and the criticisms about the grindy unlock system (and potential P2W) are immediately at the forefront again 
There's a vaguely worded official post about how they're testing "new user flow iterations as well as the short-term progression system," but it's not a particularly interesting or fun experience for anyone who played the last beta right now (and, I suspect, people who have hopped in on the new round of invites).
From some light play, nothing feels particularly different about the core gameplay, and I'm not one to really fuss about balance tweaks during a beta. Still, definitely interested in checking out some high-level match VODs to see if the balance changes actually did shift the play patterns for the top 1%.
|
Having watched PiG's recent video on the matter it's kinda shocking that they seem to treat the game more like a TCG than a RTS, which at first glance sure looks enticing, but how much do you have to dumb down the gameplay to reel in the right audience for this?
When I played Hearthstone or Magic I welcomed the strategic part without the mechanical aspect, so I wonder if many people will like to have some sort of middleground?
|
On November 09 2024 19:35 Creager wrote:
Having watched PiG's recent video on the matter it's kinda shocking that they seem to treat the game more like a TCG than a RTS, which at first glance sure looks enticing, but how much do you have to dumb down the gameplay to reel in the right audience for this?
When I played Hearthstone or Magic I welcomed the strategic part without the mechanical aspect, so I wonder if many people will like to have some sort of middleground?
You wouldn't be shocked at all if you realize Tencent is the boss here.
|
https://x.com/catsuka/status/1799335196929781954
"Battle Aces" animated trailer, directed by Louve Karnas at
@TheLineStudio
for the first video game by Uncapped Games (a Tencent studio newley founded by Blizzard and Riot veterans).
So ..... you know , if you know who Tencent is...... and how their games are in general. Like just expect mega p2w.
Like Tencent literally have personal assistant to the VIP(SWIPE Gods) in China. :D
I would be shocked if the game isn't P2W , like Black Myth Wukong, that's actually refreshing from Chinese Studios
|
got in with the new beta invite wave and i think the game has good elements but idk if i'm sold on it yet
the UI is VERY barebones, including no unit list menu that allows you to have better sense over what you are controlling / selected and you cannot individually select/deselect units unless you are looking at them. target fire is (seemingly) pretty dogshit, a lot of coinflippy mechanics, frankly weird and redundant unit design, progression system is lackluster AND tediously long, no chat, no end of game stats menu, no pve elements.
they got a lot of work to do to get the game finished, but i think they have potential here. the p2w signs are obviously there, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
