|
On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody.
Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days 
|
On June 22 2022 19:23 abuse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody. Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days
Which is kinda understandable considering the modern lynch mob exploding over tiny issues, sending death threats etc... It's a horrible culture.
|
Understandably, I don't think there should be much that they want to release about the story or game while still hiring key positions around art and story. I personally think the goal of stormgate should be to have it's own identity and to have things that make it worth playing on its own. The wow factor is important but as you play the nuances are what really separate and make it feel rewarding.
The story of starcraft and of dawn of war 2 both were great for campaigns. Even better than most other rts. They did really well to feel like there was something new happening all the time and that what you did during the story mattered. I actually think that is much more important than a lot of other things and the multiplayer can happen over a long period of time. The polish of the original campaign was what sold sc2, not the balance. It took about 4-5 years of gameplay to actually balance sc2. Pros kept playing because people were watching and felt a part of it.
I think it's worth thinking about the nuances. In a way, I feel like sc2 made some mistakes. Zerg has map information, protoss has tech information, terran has unit information. At some point, sc2 took away the rewarding part and made deathballs and apmless free units a big part of the 1v1 experience. 2v2 was never something in sc2 since the races kind of fought against each other in concept rather than synergize. I think there's a void there that's worth exploring in the multiplayer experience. Co-op does well in sc2 for this where each commander has weaknesses and rather than being complete it makes players rely on each other. What sc2 did better than brood war was to make the units not as general purpose, but this is a two edged sword. If you chose wrong, it was very punishing. The lesson I think is that having early units not as specialized and the game changing units specialize more made brood war not feel as punishing. Starcraft did well making it so that races could eventually became powerful by using different units.
If you consider other strategy games besides sc2, there's a lot of really cool ideas. Age of empires 4 takes a lot of strengths around the map and the way the different factions utilize it. Company of heroes had objectives around the map and a lot about upgrading units. Dawn of war 2 had heroes and different options around them. (DOW2 is my personal favorite rts after sc2). Alpha Centauri wasn't rts but had very robust and interesting ideas that even the modern civ's haven't been able to capture about diplomacy and trade.
I actually think it's bad for them to focus too much on being like starcraft. If it feels too much like starcraft, then what's the point in playing it? I think what is good is to find the right niche. The campaign of sc2 did so much in terms of variety and achievements. It made playing through the campaign multiple times feel rewarding. The story of starcraft tied into the technology and hot topics at the time. (aliens, Predator) We have come a long ways in terms of modern stories and a lot of them have to do with superheroes or the consequences of technology and globalization.
First things first, I think Frost Giant need to remember what makes rts pop. The multiplayer experience has to come after the story and identity. The campaign has to truly feel like a game. Each scenario of campaign missions give a feel to the mistakes that are made in the multiplayer. (not exploring enough fast enough or soon enough, getting vision and preempting attacks, failure which leads to other ideas which you haven't thought of.) The development of the multiplayer will happen if people are invested in the character and identity and feel like they have a grasp of possibilities from playing.
|
On June 22 2022 21:10 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 19:23 abuse wrote:On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody. Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days Which is kinda understandable considering the modern lynch mob exploding over tiny issues, sending death threats etc... It's a horrible culture.
To add to your point about the horrible culture...
People also send death threats to themselves in order to gain victim points and appear to be brave in the face of horrible danger. In reality, no danger exists.
On June 22 2022 23:07 tokinho wrote:
First things first, I think Frost Giant need to remember what makes rts pop. The multiplayer experience has to come after the story and identity. The campaign has to truly feel like a game. Each scenario of campaign missions give a feel to the mistakes that are made in the multiplayer. (not exploring enough fast enough or soon enough, getting vision and preempting attacks, failure which leads to other ideas which you haven't thought of.) The development of the multiplayer will happen if people are invested in the character and identity and feel like they have a grasp of possibilities from playing.
i disagree. Create a great multiplayer experience first. Next, one can cobble together a bunch of the units from multiplayer and slightly modify their stats if necessary. Create a few super units that fit into the story that may or may not exist in the multiplayer version. THEN... create a story and campaign around existing super cool and fun game mechanics.
To quote Blizzard: Gameplay First!
SC1 began when Bob Fitch made the engine. Until that engine was made the game was dead in the water. Apparently , the engine they are using is not for RTS games. What a cruel irony it will be if someone can make a better version of Stormgate using Blizzard's SC2 world builder tools.
|
On June 23 2022 01:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 21:10 Miragee wrote:On June 22 2022 19:23 abuse wrote:On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody. Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days Which is kinda understandable considering the modern lynch mob exploding over tiny issues, sending death threats etc... It's a horrible culture. To add to your point about the horrible culture... People also send death threats to themselves in order to gain victim points and appear to be brave in the face of horrible danger. In reality, no danger exists. Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 23:07 tokinho wrote:
First things first, I think Frost Giant need to remember what makes rts pop. The multiplayer experience has to come after the story and identity. The campaign has to truly feel like a game. Each scenario of campaign missions give a feel to the mistakes that are made in the multiplayer. (not exploring enough fast enough or soon enough, getting vision and preempting attacks, failure which leads to other ideas which you haven't thought of.) The development of the multiplayer will happen if people are invested in the character and identity and feel like they have a grasp of possibilities from playing. i disagree. Create a great multiplayer experience first. Next, one can cobble together a bunch of the units from multiplayer and slightly modify their stats if necessary. Create a few super units that fit into the story that may or may not exist in the multiplayer version. THEN... create a story and campaign around existing super cool and fun game mechanics. To quote Blizzard: Gameplay First! SC1 began when Bob Fitch made the engine. Until that engine was made the game was dead in the water. Apparently , the engine they are using is not for RTS games. What a cruel irony it will be if someone can make a better version of Stormgate using Blizzard's SC2 world builder tools.
I'll say they should create a base mechanic that can work in both multiplayer and campaign, and diverge to 2 different design goals for multiplayer and single player respectively, but single player should always be polished before multiplayer.
80-90% of RTS player don't even touch multiplayer, base on steam achievement of RTS like Iron Harvest, Grey goo, Ashes of Singularity..., I don't have the number for SC2 and SC1, but I'm not surprise if it's the similar number.
You can focus mostly on multiplayer, but it also means that you are actively alienate 90% of your fanbase
Edit: regarding the units, I think it's better to design unit for single player 1st and then tone them down for multiplayer.
Units in single player doesn't care about balance, so developer can freely design them to be cool. People like cool stuff and it attract more people
|
Story wise I d like a more nuanced campaign, in a way like SC1. Like you know they are all kinda dicks in their own ways but you also can see the logic behind all characters and it makes sense. No-one is inherently good (well may be Fenix). Sc2 WOL i found was pretty nice too with the various choices and various upgrades to units, but the deus ex machina and gods fighting shit of LotV was a huge letdown for me so I hope they don't go that route.
Aside from that, agreed with previous posts, I d like a nice single player as well as multiplayer, it shouldnt be one or the other given they ll probably charge us the full pricetag. I also hope they dont lock themselves in an expansion pattern where there is some pressure to add units for the sake of it.
|
On June 23 2022 01:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2022 21:10 Miragee wrote:On June 22 2022 19:23 abuse wrote:On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody. Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days Which is kinda understandable considering the modern lynch mob exploding over tiny issues, sending death threats etc... It's a horrible culture. To add to your point about the horrible culture... People also send death threats to themselves in order to gain victim points and appear to be brave in the face of horrible danger. In reality, no danger exists.
Never heard of that. Not saying that this doesn't happen. But I don't get what you are trying to say. That death threats are a non-issue?
|
|
|
nice to hear the foundations of the software are on solid ground.
Austin Hudelson - Lead Server Engineer: In our very early pre-pre alpha builds, the unit pathfinding currently feels remarkably similar to SC2, largely thanks to the efforts of our Chief Architect, James Anhalt. There are still edge cases (units occasionally getting stuck, giving up) that we will continue to iterate and refine as we continue development.
The other part of responsiveness is networking, on this front Stormgate already performs similarly to SC2 under typical conditions.
On June 24 2022 00:06 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 01:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 22 2022 21:10 Miragee wrote:On June 22 2022 19:23 abuse wrote:On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody. Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days Which is kinda understandable considering the modern lynch mob exploding over tiny issues, sending death threats etc... It's a horrible culture. To add to your point about the horrible culture... People also send death threats to themselves in order to gain victim points and appear to be brave in the face of horrible danger. In reality, no danger exists. Never heard of that. Not saying that this doesn't happen. But I don't get what you are trying to say. That death threats are a non-issue?
no , i'm saying that fake death threats , fake swattings and all manner of false flag attacks add to the toxic culture. Fake Swatting is more elaborate but that also happens.
https://kotaku.com/twitch-streamer-fakes-his-own-joke-swatting-gets-banne-1721863481
in general its called a false flag attack. its easy to do. any one can pump out a bunch of fake gmail/twitter/facebook accounts. A substantial portion of twitter is fake accounts.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/17/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-cannot-move-forward-until-he-has-clarity-on-bot-numbers.html
as far as toxic culture goes... it starts with the leadership of places like Twitter and Twitch and goes down the toxic chain of command from there.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On June 25 2022 10:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:nice to hear the foundations of the software are on solid ground. Show nested quote +Austin Hudelson - Lead Server Engineer: In our very early pre-pre alpha builds, the unit pathfinding currently feels remarkably similar to SC2, largely thanks to the efforts of our Chief Architect, James Anhalt. There are still edge cases (units occasionally getting stuck, giving up) that we will continue to iterate and refine as we continue development.
The other part of responsiveness is networking, on this front Stormgate already performs similarly to SC2 under typical conditions. Show nested quote +On June 24 2022 00:06 Miragee wrote:On June 23 2022 01:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 22 2022 21:10 Miragee wrote:On June 22 2022 19:23 abuse wrote:On June 22 2022 14:17 StasisField wrote:On June 22 2022 07:06 WombaT wrote:
Whatever their vision is, I hope they stick with it. We’ve seen enough recent efforts in the genre where devs try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
This is what I'm most worried about. I have seen members of Frost Giant answer some questions about the game's design with something like "we want to get <concept> in front of the community early on so we can learn what they want." I don't want a game designed by the loudest voices on reddit. I hope the design choices they are making are coming from internal discussions where they talk about the pro's and con's of each approach and analyze how each piece fits in their game and not based on feedback they're getting from random people on the internet who haven't played their game and don't know how well something would and wouldn't fit in the game as a whole. They should know what they want to be in their game and how it all ties together. If Frost Giant goes looking to the internet for answers they're going to deliver a lukewarm product that pleases nobody. Sadly looking to the internet for answers is the meta these days. Pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen here. Game devs don't have the balls to have a vision and execute it these days Which is kinda understandable considering the modern lynch mob exploding over tiny issues, sending death threats etc... It's a horrible culture. To add to your point about the horrible culture... People also send death threats to themselves in order to gain victim points and appear to be brave in the face of horrible danger. In reality, no danger exists. Never heard of that. Not saying that this doesn't happen. But I don't get what you are trying to say. That death threats are a non-issue? no , i'm saying that fake death threats , fake swattings and all manner of false flag attacks add to the toxic culture. Fake Swatting is more elaborate but that also happens. https://kotaku.com/twitch-streamer-fakes-his-own-joke-swatting-gets-banne-1721863481in general its called a false flag attack. its easy to do. any one can pump out a bunch of fake gmail/twitter/facebook accounts. A substantial portion of twitter is fake accounts. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/17/elon-musk-says-twitter-deal-cannot-move-forward-until-he-has-clarity-on-bot-numbers.htmlas far as toxic culture goes... it starts with the leadership of places like Twitter and Twitch and goes down the toxic chain of command from there.
Even if half of Twitter are bots, it stands that then 50% of people being arseholes are humans.
People being arseholes on the internet is hardly some controversial observation, and the gaming community is no exception. Indeed it’s probably worse than many others.
I mean the vast majority of online death threats are venting and not credible death threats no, they’re still not particularly pleasant.
|
I thought it was interesting that they said in the AMA they are experimenting with different supply cost extremes. Namely having less units then protoss or more units then zerg for total supply.
Possible match up of a hero oriented race vs a mass unit race ?
|
meh..  
is all I have to say about this game (what we have seen so far) at this very moment.
|
I sure like the sound of that for example from the AMA:
Also, within a single faction, we like the idea of allowing there to be multiple "tracks" to the tech tree capable of skewing unit volume significantly. Imagine if the Infernal Host could optimize towards either hordes and hordes of slavering "cannon fodder" battle thralls or a much smaller handful of towering demon lords. Or perhaps accepting tradeoffs in order to strike a balance between the two extremes. If all three of those scenarios are viable, it would open up a ton of interesting choices for players and also help boost the value of early/consistent scouting.
|
On June 27 2022 02:56 ProMeTheus112 wrote:I sure like the sound of that for example from the AMA: Show nested quote +Also, within a single faction, we like the idea of allowing there to be multiple "tracks" to the tech tree capable of skewing unit volume significantly. Imagine if the Infernal Host could optimize towards either hordes and hordes of slavering "cannon fodder" battle thralls or a much smaller handful of towering demon lords. Or perhaps accepting tradeoffs in order to strike a balance between the two extremes. If all three of those scenarios are viable, it would open up a ton of interesting choices for players and also help boost the value of early/consistent scouting.
I wonder how they plan to achieve this. Will certain buildings lock other buildings out? They could do something like Age Of Empire's Landmark system and make those buildings drastically change a faction's playstyle or unit composition.
Maybe a few upgrades change certain units in your faction both positively and negatively instead of upgrades only being used for slight improvements? Imagine if, for example, you could upgrade the Immortal to also be able to attack air but its supply goes up by one and it loses its barrier ability. You get the added bonus of Immortals being useful vs Air but they are also weaker and harder to mass. Weakening the Immortal also makes this upgrade situational, so you'll only get it when you feel the situation calls for it, rather than something you will always get when you make that unit.
|
Regarding the AMA a recent thread in the storm gate reddit sub said they stated in the AMA each lobby can support up to 32 players.Not sure if this will be realised come release due to lag issues but it would be amazing for custom games.
|
On June 27 2022 08:47 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 02:56 ProMeTheus112 wrote:I sure like the sound of that for example from the AMA: Also, within a single faction, we like the idea of allowing there to be multiple "tracks" to the tech tree capable of skewing unit volume significantly. Imagine if the Infernal Host could optimize towards either hordes and hordes of slavering "cannon fodder" battle thralls or a much smaller handful of towering demon lords. Or perhaps accepting tradeoffs in order to strike a balance between the two extremes. If all three of those scenarios are viable, it would open up a ton of interesting choices for players and also help boost the value of early/consistent scouting. I wonder how they plan to achieve this. Will certain buildings lock other buildings out? They could do something like Age Of Empire's Landmark system and make those buildings drastically change a faction's playstyle or unit composition. Maybe a few upgrades change certain units in your faction both positively and negatively instead of upgrades only being used for slight improvements? Imagine if, for example, you could upgrade the Immortal to also be able to attack air but its supply goes up by one and it loses its barrier ability. You get the added bonus of Immortals being useful vs Air but they are also weaker and harder to mass. Weakening the Immortal also makes this upgrade situational, so you'll only get it when you feel the situation calls for it, rather than something you will always get when you make that unit.
Or like a unit that has a very weak attack and low HP but can use a spell, like call upon a small storm. And if you have two of those you can make it into a very beefy unit with a small range AoE attack but can't use the storm anymore and the process is not reversable 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 27 2022 02:56 ProMeTheus112 wrote:I sure like the sound of that for example from the AMA: Show nested quote +Also, within a single faction, we like the idea of allowing there to be multiple "tracks" to the tech tree capable of skewing unit volume significantly. Imagine if the Infernal Host could optimize towards either hordes and hordes of slavering "cannon fodder" battle thralls or a much smaller handful of towering demon lords. Or perhaps accepting tradeoffs in order to strike a balance between the two extremes. If all three of those scenarios are viable, it would open up a ton of interesting choices for players and also help boost the value of early/consistent scouting.
Yeah, it's tough to balance but I've always really wanted to see that kind of customization being an option 
Honestly, I didn't super love the trailer, but I still feel like I did 12 years ago when waiting for the SC2 beta - very excited haha
|
I listened to the pylon show interview, and I'm all for their stated goals.
One of the coolest things, on paper, that I like about what they want to do, is to encourage people to compete.
That's something that's kinda lost in modern esports, I think. When you go to a tournament its usually like, an already decided 32 man bracket or something. Fighting games have this mindset where the health of a game is not based on the # of pros, or how much money is in the prize pool, but instead based on the number entrants to the big tournament. I want that for RTS. The hypest storylines I remember are the pros who fly out and try to get a title going through the open bracket. Even reading the live threads about ASL qualifiers gives that kind of feeling. It feels that kind of BYOC environment is dead. I wish for the next big RTS to make that part of their ethos for success.
Thats gonna be kinda hard to do though. An issue with publisher backed tournaments is that you have to compete for cost and floor real estate against other games and studios. Maybe that balances out with publishers trying to keep esports in-house.
Regardless, that's something thats missing in the Western RTS scene, and I think for the health of the scene, encouraging EVERYONE to compete is in everyone's interests. I feel thats the case with Magic the Gathering and FGC and we could learn from that.
On June 23 2022 23:51 WGT-Baal wrote:
Story wise I d like a more nuanced campaign, in a way like SC1. Like you know they are all kinda dicks in their own ways but you also can see the logic behind all characters and it makes sense. No-one is inherently good (well may be Fenix). Sc2 WOL i found was pretty nice too with the various choices and various upgrades to units, but the deus ex machina and gods fighting shit of LotV was a huge letdown for me so I hope they don't go that route.
Aside from that, agreed with previous posts, I d like a nice single player as well as multiplayer, it shouldnt be one or the other given they ll probably charge us the full pricetag. I also hope they dont lock themselves in an expansion pattern where there is some pressure to add units for the sake of it.
Oh for sure. That's made the SC/warcraft campaigns so interesting is that you were competing against interests and gains you made in the campaign before and having characters hate eachother added a lot of drama. (That's probably the thing I hate most about WoW's storytelling), but SC2 was 100x worse because everyone was on the same side for like, all 5 years of storytelling.
|
On June 26 2022 16:20 M3t4PhYzX wrote:meh.. is all I have to say about this game (what we have seen so far) at this very moment.
hey.. at least its more than what Rob Pardo's 7 year old Bonfire Studios has produced. Its hilarious seeing people who started at Bonfire a year after the company was formed. Then worked at Bonfire for 2+ years and have now left. That is Dilbert Cartoon level software engineering job.
|
Northern Ireland25333 Posts
On June 29 2022 03:18 lestye wrote:I listened to the pylon show interview, and I'm all for their stated goals. One of the coolest things, on paper, that I like about what they want to do, is to encourage people to compete. That's something that's kinda lost in modern esports, I think. When you go to a tournament its usually like, an already decided 32 man bracket or something. Fighting games have this mindset where the health of a game is not based on the # of pros, or how much money is in the prize pool, but instead based on the number entrants to the big tournament. I want that for RTS. The hypest storylines I remember are the pros who fly out and try to get a title going through the open bracket. Even reading the live threads about ASL qualifiers gives that kind of feeling. It feels that kind of BYOC environment is dead. I wish for the next big RTS to make that part of their ethos for success. Thats gonna be kinda hard to do though. An issue with publisher backed tournaments is that you have to compete for cost and floor real estate against other games and studios. Maybe that balances out with publishers trying to keep esports in-house. Regardless, that's something thats missing in the Western RTS scene, and I think for the health of the scene, encouraging EVERYONE to compete is in everyone's interests. I feel thats the case with Magic the Gathering and FGC and we could learn from that. Show nested quote +On June 23 2022 23:51 WGT-Baal wrote:
Story wise I d like a more nuanced campaign, in a way like SC1. Like you know they are all kinda dicks in their own ways but you also can see the logic behind all characters and it makes sense. No-one is inherently good (well may be Fenix). Sc2 WOL i found was pretty nice too with the various choices and various upgrades to units, but the deus ex machina and gods fighting shit of LotV was a huge letdown for me so I hope they don't go that route.
Aside from that, agreed with previous posts, I d like a nice single player as well as multiplayer, it shouldnt be one or the other given they ll probably charge us the full pricetag. I also hope they dont lock themselves in an expansion pattern where there is some pressure to add units for the sake of it. Oh for sure. That's made the SC/warcraft campaigns so interesting is that you were competing against interests and gains you made in the campaign before and having characters hate eachother added a lot of drama. (That's probably the thing I hate most about WoW's storytelling), but SC2 was 100x worse because everyone was on the same side for like, all 5 years of storytelling.
Yeah interesting points, ultimately I think to have a decent pro scene some stability is important.
On the flip side big open bracket tournaments bring both hype, as well as an opportunity for promising players to make a name for themselves.
That balance feels off for quite some time in SC2. I don’t think it’s advisable for every tournament but it definitely added something in the MLG/IPL era
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
