|
Northern Ireland22975 Posts
On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time
I think given the stripped down nature of BA opens a lot of space to really weird, really creative units and micro interactions.
I’m not sure they’ve been bold enough there.
Then you’ve got the P2W issues too. I think overall I actually like BA and its gameplay loop and what it’s trying to do, but that’s a major problem too
|
On November 13 2024 07:16 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time I think given the stripped down nature of BA opens a lot of space to really weird, really creative units and micro interactions. I’m not sure they’ve been bold enough there. Then you’ve got the P2W issues too. I think overall I actually like BA and its gameplay loop and what it’s trying to do, but that’s a major problem too
I didn't realise why I like it so much until day9 pointed it out, it has a lot of crisis management. It's very sc2-ish.
Mistakes are heavily punished and momentum swing is hard. The hard counter system mean the choice to tech/expand and deck can be game ending if you don't respond well.
I have been enjoying AoM a lot because of the randomised resources node spawn on map, every match feels different in some ways.
I have the same feeling here where I gotta think about my game plan every game.
The p2w one is what I worry the most because it's such a fun game but a lot of it comes down to being able to have a deck
|
On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time
The question is this; Can you recommend this to a MOBA player that never played an RTS before. They try it out for 1 hour and become hooked? If not the game cannot work for anything else than being a side-game for existing RTS players.
If yes, it has a chance but I am very sceptical. I think what lures people to real-time games is the ability to make "plays" and do exciting things with the heroes/shooting/units etc.
|
the amount of units you have to drag around? MOBA player? Heck no, at least vast amount of the player base from MOBA, the top moba player? not a problem, but would they like it? yes no maybe so, but it's so small of a player base on that top level it really doesn't matter.
When AOE4 was in beta, I met a guy who was GM equivalent in league of legend, he just likes strategy game and RTS and was waiting for that sort of new game, have not seen any other :O
|
Then you got guys like iceiceice, who was actually sc2 pro before he became dota2 pro, so yeah
|
On November 13 2024 08:57 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time The question is this; Can you recommend this to a MOBA player that never played an RTS before. They try it out for 1 hour and become hooked? If not the game cannot work for anything else than being a side-game for existing RTS players. If yes, it has a chance but I am very sceptical. I think what lures people to real-time games is the ability to make "plays" and do exciting things with the heroes/shooting/units etc.
I personally think Moba players will like it, I like both genres.
It's just different type of micro and macro, you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc.
When RTS was bigger than Moba, I don't think Moba asked how they can capture RTS players. There's crossover but not that important imo.
But what I like about this game is the scope, it's small enough and doesn't need to be the next big eSports title to succeed. More indie and double A would revive the genre imo.
|
On November 13 2024 10:18 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 08:57 Hider wrote:On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time The question is this; Can you recommend this to a MOBA player that never played an RTS before. They try it out for 1 hour and become hooked? If not the game cannot work for anything else than being a side-game for existing RTS players. If yes, it has a chance but I am very sceptical. I think what lures people to real-time games is the ability to make "plays" and do exciting things with the heroes/shooting/units etc. I personally think Moba players will like it, I like both genres. It's just different type of micro and macro, you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc. When RTS was bigger than Moba, I don't think Moba asked how they can capture RTS players. There's crossover but not that important imo. But what I like about this game is the scope, it's small enough and doesn't need to be the next big eSports title to succeed. More indie and double A would revive the genre imo.
I don't quite agree with that statement, when dota 1 first came out many of my friend who doens't play RTS love strategy jumped on the game immediately and loved it a lot. It captured a lot of people who love strategy game and doesn't want spam the keyboard with 200+ apm.
In this particular aspect I don't think it will attract the moba player as it's core is spamming your keyboard and micro a lot.
|
On November 13 2024 10:18 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 08:57 Hider wrote:On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time The question is this; Can you recommend this to a MOBA player that never played an RTS before. They try it out for 1 hour and become hooked? If not the game cannot work for anything else than being a side-game for existing RTS players. If yes, it has a chance but I am very sceptical. I think what lures people to real-time games is the ability to make "plays" and do exciting things with the heroes/shooting/units etc. I personally think Moba players will like it, I like both genres. It's just different type of micro and macro, you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc. When RTS was bigger than Moba, I don't think Moba asked how they can capture RTS players. There's crossover but not that important imo. But what I like about this game is the scope, it's small enough and doesn't need to be the next big eSports title to succeed. More indie and double A would revive the genre imo.
I agree with you that the scope is smaller, probably cheaper to maintain than Stormgate. They can probably very effectively monetize on a per $-to-hours-played ratio. So out of all the games, Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre and Stormgate - it's the only one I can see with a chance to survive.
There is a case where they can maintain a small profit with a very little studio, e.g. 10 FTE. I expect, however, they think they can capture more. They think that due to the decrease in learning barrier and focus on "simple units" that they can attract a larger audience.
you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc.
I think this isn't what attracts a larger audience. I think it's the ability to make plays that people want in real-time games. And yes I can make a "play" in sc2 currently by outmultitasking and outsmarting my opponents - but that's not what appeal to a wider audience. It needs to be micro-focussed.
Being able to launch some cool new abilities and have opponents counter-react to this in a way never seen before in an RTs games. That's what possibly could work.
RTS has potential as it can offer unique micro opportunities compared to what can be accomplished when you only control one hero. Hitting a big psi storm and/or dodging a psi storm can feel great and rewarding.
But what about some assination/high-dps/hign-mobility/get-in+get-out fast type of units. No RTS game has to my knowledge attempted to experiment with this. Even though they are super popular in MOBA's.
I want RTS games to take inspiration from abilities in MOBA's and figure out ways to adapt some of these concepts into an RTS.
|
On November 14 2024 02:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 10:18 ETisME wrote:On November 13 2024 08:57 Hider wrote:On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time The question is this; Can you recommend this to a MOBA player that never played an RTS before. They try it out for 1 hour and become hooked? If not the game cannot work for anything else than being a side-game for existing RTS players. If yes, it has a chance but I am very sceptical. I think what lures people to real-time games is the ability to make "plays" and do exciting things with the heroes/shooting/units etc. I personally think Moba players will like it, I like both genres. It's just different type of micro and macro, you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc. When RTS was bigger than Moba, I don't think Moba asked how they can capture RTS players. There's crossover but not that important imo. But what I like about this game is the scope, it's small enough and doesn't need to be the next big eSports title to succeed. More indie and double A would revive the genre imo. I agree with you that the scope is smaller, probably cheaper to maintain than Stormgate. They can probably very effectively monetize on a per $-to-hours-played ratio. So out of all the games, Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre and Stormgate - it's the only one I can see with a chance to survive. There is a case where they can maintain a small profit with a very little studio, e.g. 10 FTE. I expect, however, they think they can capture more. They think that due to the decrease in learning barrier and focus on "simple units" that they can attract a larger audience. Show nested quote +you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc. I think this isn't what attracts a larger audience. I think it's the ability to make plays that people want in real-time games. And yes I can make a "play" in sc2 currently by outmultitasking and outsmarting my opponents - but that's not what appeal to a wider audience. It needs to be micro-focussed. Being able to launch some cool new abilities and have opponents counter-react to this in a way never seen before in an RTs games. That's what possibly could work. RTS has potential as it can offer unique micro opportunities compared to what can be accomplished when you only control one hero. Hitting a big psi storm and/or dodging a psi storm can feel great and rewarding.
But what about some assination/high-dps/hign-mobility/get-in+get-out fast type of units. No RTS game has to my knowledge attempted to experiment with this. Even though they are super popular in MOBA's.I want RTS games to take inspiration from abilities in MOBA's and figure out ways to adapt some of these concepts into an RTS.
I think there are very good reasons why high-mobility high damage get-in-get-out type of unit are so rare in RTS games: they are super frustrating to play against! Remember hellbat drops in early Heart of the Swarm? Boosted medivacs in, drop 8x helbat and lose your mineral line in 2 seconds. Not very fun. Losing an idle bioball to disruptors does already not feel great either. The only way to balance this is to make the said unit really expensive to make it high-risk-high reward for the attacker, but then the whole game hinges on a single moment with a single unit. This is fine in MOBAs, where controlling single units is what you do, but RTS games should be about controlling armies imo.
|
So my friends reacted to battle aces a lot , way better than Stormgate, they kinda love it, but as Chinese community, they are also fully aware what tecent means.
|
United States32926 Posts
Detailed unit stats sheet was released, which I find very interesting for larger RTS theory reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleAces/comments/1grf5n6/dev_update_1114_detailed_unit_stats/
I've always wondered why RTS unit numbers aren't balanced on a 1-to-1 basis, and BattleAces has answered by doing just that. Wasps do bonus damage only vs Recalls, Garngatuas deal less damage only vs Butterflies, and every anti-air unit seems to have its own damage X multiplier vs air.
I really like that they've made the bet that theoretical elegance and intuitiveness don't matter, as long as it feels elegant and intuitive in practice. And, at least in my experience, I think they're right.
Branching on to StarCraft II, I feel like the game is at a stage where these kinds of tweaks would be good (if there are no technical limitations)? The recent Ghost population nerf feels so blunt and ham-fisted, whereas nerfing Snipe damage to Brood Lords and Ultralisks would be much more surgical.
|
On November 15 2024 09:36 Waxangel wrote:Detailed unit stats sheet was released, which I find very interesting for larger RTS theory reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleAces/comments/1grf5n6/dev_update_1114_detailed_unit_stats/I've always wondered why RTS unit numbers aren't balanced on a 1-to-1 basis, and BattleAces has answered by doing just that. Wasps do bonus damage only vs Recalls, Garngatuas deal less damage only vs Butterflies, and every anti-air unit seems to have its own damage X multiplier vs air. I really like that they've made the bet that theoretical elegance and intuitiveness don't matter, as long as it feels elegant and intuitive in practice. And, at least in my experience, I think they're right. Branching on to StarCraft II, I feel like the game is at a stage where these kinds of tweaks would be good (if there are no technical limitations)? The recent Ghost population nerf feels so blunt and ham-fisted, whereas nerfing Snipe damage to Brood Lords and Ultralisks would be much more surgical.
I truly hate this style of balance, but you're right that practise means more than theory. The downside is that this is far less easy to digest and to understand at a glance. It can make a game harder to pick up, and can be a worrying sign that the devs don't know what they're doing (another one is gigantic numbers, IMO). Nothing like exponential scaling up into the M's, B's, T's to know a game's just not put a ton of effort into how its progression feels.
Thing is, games that are microcosms of micro and moment to moment decisions like this seem particularly suited to sweatin' in up, and once you're in deep, a "clean" system doesn't matter, and even clean systems will tend to have unseen/unforseen aspects that the top players need to take into account. The numbers don't matter so much as your brain's ability to 'feel' the numbers, and those will be unit-per-unit basis anyway. So, I guess, why not do this kind of fiddly tinkering?
|
On November 15 2024 13:39 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2024 09:36 Waxangel wrote:Detailed unit stats sheet was released, which I find very interesting for larger RTS theory reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/BattleAces/comments/1grf5n6/dev_update_1114_detailed_unit_stats/I've always wondered why RTS unit numbers aren't balanced on a 1-to-1 basis, and BattleAces has answered by doing just that. Wasps do bonus damage only vs Recalls, Garngatuas deal less damage only vs Butterflies, and every anti-air unit seems to have its own damage X multiplier vs air. I really like that they've made the bet that theoretical elegance and intuitiveness don't matter, as long as it feels elegant and intuitive in practice. And, at least in my experience, I think they're right. Branching on to StarCraft II, I feel like the game is at a stage where these kinds of tweaks would be good (if there are no technical limitations)? The recent Ghost population nerf feels so blunt and ham-fisted, whereas nerfing Snipe damage to Brood Lords and Ultralisks would be much more surgical. I truly hate this style of balance, but you're right that practise means more than theory. The downside is that this is far less easy to digest and to understand at a glance. It can make a game harder to pick up, and can be a worrying sign that the devs don't know what they're doing (another one is gigantic numbers, IMO). Nothing like exponential scaling up into the M's, B's, T's to know a game's just not put a ton of effort into how its progression feels. Thing is, games that are microcosms of micro and moment to moment decisions like this seem particularly suited to sweatin' in up, and once you're in deep, a "clean" system doesn't matter, and even clean systems will tend to have unseen/unforseen aspects that the top players need to take into account. The numbers don't matter so much as your brain's ability to 'feel' the numbers, and those will be unit-per-unit basis anyway. So, I guess, why not do this kind of fiddly tinkering?
legit dota2 TI has been who break the game the best/fastest win :D
|
Pig did a pretty long interview with David Kim.
I like how he pressed some hard questions on micro transaction and also David Kim not immediately turning around like he had no thoughts behind it.
The conversation about the insane counter multiplier was interesting as well and I am glad it's discussed to that depth.
This beta was a lot more fun than last one personally, find myself making quite a lot of on-the-spot decisions.
One thing I find not many talk about is:
Typically in RTS, we make strategic choice based on a ton of imperfect knowledge. (Which tech path or expand)
This game really switches it all up and I really like how much it brings to the genre
|
Played this beta MUCH less than previous ones. Couple issues at the start hit me hard, 1. Needing to play 10 bot games. Why is the system not having an option to skip this if you are either a.) a self declared RTS veteran or b.) completed them in previous betas. 2. The early monetization was too much of a grind to unlock units. So having to spam games vs bots, and then once I completed that having to play countless games just to try out the decks I wanted to was not fun. I know they fixed the unit unlock problem but by then I didn't really feel like coming back. When I'm playing a game it's to have fun, the moment I stop having fun is when I stop playing the game. For battles aces it was the start of this test.
|
On November 19 2024 11:18 CicadaSC wrote:
Played this beta MUCH less than previous ones. Couple issues at the start hit me hard, 1. Needing to play 10 bot games. Why is the system not having an option to skip this if you are either a.) a self declared RTS veteran or b.) completed them in previous betas. 2. The early monetization was too much of a grind to unlock units. So having to spam games vs bots, and then once I completed that having to play countless games just to try out the decks I wanted to was not fun. I know they fixed the unit unlock problem but by then I didn't really feel like coming back. When I'm playing a game it's to have fun, the moment I stop having fun is when I stop playing the game. For battles aces it was the start of this test.
That's what the beta is for.
Like d.kim said, these are easy fix, it's all about core gameplay.
I haven't seen day9 with adrenaline pumping for years. And everyone else seems happy with it. Parting definitely likes the game a lot, he's in the discord quite often.
|
On November 19 2024 15:03 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 11:18 CicadaSC wrote:
Played this beta MUCH less than previous ones. Couple issues at the start hit me hard, 1. Needing to play 10 bot games. Why is the system not having an option to skip this if you are either a.) a self declared RTS veteran or b.) completed them in previous betas. 2. The early monetization was too much of a grind to unlock units. So having to spam games vs bots, and then once I completed that having to play countless games just to try out the decks I wanted to was not fun. I know they fixed the unit unlock problem but by then I didn't really feel like coming back. When I'm playing a game it's to have fun, the moment I stop having fun is when I stop playing the game. For battles aces it was the start of this test. That's what the beta is for. Like d.kim said, these are easy fix, it's all about core gameplay. I haven't seen day9 with adrenaline pumping for years. And everyone else seems happy with it. Parting definitely likes the game a lot, he's in the discord quite often.
sure is what a beta is for. i was just sharing my own personal experience regarding this playtest.
|
Northern Ireland22975 Posts
On November 19 2024 15:03 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2024 11:18 CicadaSC wrote:
Played this beta MUCH less than previous ones. Couple issues at the start hit me hard, 1. Needing to play 10 bot games. Why is the system not having an option to skip this if you are either a.) a self declared RTS veteran or b.) completed them in previous betas. 2. The early monetization was too much of a grind to unlock units. So having to spam games vs bots, and then once I completed that having to play countless games just to try out the decks I wanted to was not fun. I know they fixed the unit unlock problem but by then I didn't really feel like coming back. When I'm playing a game it's to have fun, the moment I stop having fun is when I stop playing the game. For battles aces it was the start of this test. That's what the beta is for. Like d.kim said, these are easy fix, it's all about core gameplay. I haven't seen day9 with adrenaline pumping for years. And everyone else seems happy with it. Parting definitely likes the game a lot, he's in the discord quite often.
Tons of people seem to quite like the core gameplay aye, but a lot really don’t like how the unlocking decks aspect works, or at least the pace of it.
It’s a problem I’m not sure how they get around at this stage and find effective alternate ways to monetise, but on the plus side at least they’re also getting that feedback now.
It would be much worse if both betas had had a completely unrepresentative unlock system and then that was suddenly revealed when the game launches.
I mean they do have to make money as well, there is that to consider too. Personally I think F2P plus pay to unlock everything, be it seasonal or permanent might work better.
Folks like to experiment in RTS, or find things that click with them, it seems in ways some of the most appealing aspects of the game mechanics are in direct conflict with the unlock/monetisation model.
For me unlike a game like League, or card builders like Hearthstone or Magic, there’s also little additional pull beyond game functionality. Some players will go hardcore on whatever’s best in a meta, but some will play a middling hero just because they’re cool, or like having cool-looking or favoured characters in their deck or just to collect.
If X robot air harassment unit is just better than Y, I don’t think the units have enough identity to really make many go ‘yeah I know this unit is worse but damn it’s so cool I’ll play it anyway’
|
On November 14 2024 02:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2024 10:18 ETisME wrote:On November 13 2024 08:57 Hider wrote:On November 13 2024 07:11 ETisME wrote:On November 12 2024 20:36 Hider wrote:On November 12 2024 17:33 ETisME wrote:
I don't really agree at all.
Deadlock isn't casual not newbie friendly.
Exactly. Deadlock works because it's "exciting". I can watch a few highlights and be inspired to want to try out the heroes, some tricks or abilities. Battle Aces is unmarketable. Big clump of units a-moving against each other is not something you that will cater to a wider audience. And it's ironic because the exact reason they are going for simple units is to cater to casuals, but it will end up having the opposite effect. I kinda agree and disagree It's difficult to market for sure but i think it just needs to be through word of mouth.. The game is exciting because how much momentum swing there is. And the game is extremely fast paced. Watch day9 stream and he loved it (other than no stats and micro transaction bit). And on the point about newbie friendly, it's easier to get into because it has very little complexity of macro. But it is still very multitasking and mechanics heavy, the macro isn't THAT easy, especially with the hard counter mechanics with 0 build time The question is this; Can you recommend this to a MOBA player that never played an RTS before. They try it out for 1 hour and become hooked? If not the game cannot work for anything else than being a side-game for existing RTS players. If yes, it has a chance but I am very sceptical. I think what lures people to real-time games is the ability to make "plays" and do exciting things with the heroes/shooting/units etc. I personally think Moba players will like it, I like both genres. It's just different type of micro and macro, you still have the general concept of power spike, poking, decision making under imperfect knowledge, multitasking, twitch reflex etc. When RTS was bigger than Moba, I don't think Moba asked how they can capture RTS players. There's crossover but not that important imo. But what I like about this game is the scope, it's small enough and doesn't need to be the next big eSports title to succeed. More indie and double A would revive the genre imo. I agree with you that the scope is smaller, probably cheaper to maintain than Stormgate. They can probably very effectively monetize on a per $-to-hours-played ratio. So out of all the games, Zerospace, Immortals Gates of Pyre and Stormgate - it's the only one I can see with a chance to survive. There is a case where they can maintain a small profit with a very little studio, e.g. 10 FTE. I expect, however, they think they can capture more. They think that due to the decrease in learning barrier and focus on "simple units" that they can attract a larger audience. Uncapped Games is not a small studio. They are only slightly smaller than Frost Giant and they also empoy a lot of industry veterans most of whom are based in California, so it is not like the salary per empoyee will be lower than FG either. Their smaller scope allows them to produce a more polished game at an earlier stage of development but they will still need to earn quite a lot of money to make it sustainable if they wish to continue developing content for the game going forward and for Tencent to think it is a good investment to keep funding the studio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
