On September 30 2024 22:12 followZeRoX wrote: Maybe I'm crazy but I really do enjoy this game. Wc3 + sc2 vibes really got me in. Last 3-4 days I was testing all races and played around 20-30 games, man I'm addicted as 2003 tft or 2012 sc2 beta+wol.
So much to do and learn.
I admit hotkeys, groupings, cliff fights can be a mess but since I figured that EA is 12 month beta project I cannot wait to see how this pans out.
If everything is correct it might drag wc3 players as well and create unique rts scene under one roof like sc2 did in the beggining.
Game isn't in the great state but I feel hard core bandwagonning here. 500 players plays it per day and 2000 negative comments occur.
Seems lots of people dont wanna wait how this pans out either. Also I think they WISH there were 500 players that play it every day, it gets a bit over half right now.
I believe they can still make a good game, everyone that likes it right now is right to like it but I find it so boring and would only play it if there were no alternatives ... but there are: SC2, Godsworn, AoM Retold....
Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
What else are they meant to do?
Campaign sucks. Co-op isn’t totally abysmal but it’s not SC2 level. 1v1 has such a small playerbase that if you’re any kind of newbie you’re going to get destroyed incessantly
If you’re fed up with SC2 it’s legitimately easier to get into BW or WC3 than SG
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
i'm on the site of follow ZeRoX. After playing like 40 games, i was really into it. but i think u have to be a decent strategy player to like it. for newbies its really hard because the player base ist just to experienced.
but for every decent sc2 player, its really something new with a good unit responsibility and feeling of the game. the new patch really helped here.
On October 01 2024 14:23 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
i'm on the site of follow ZeRoX. After playing like 40 games, i was really into it. but i think u have to be a decent strategy player to like it. for newbies its really hard because the player base ist just to experienced.
but for every decent sc2 player, its really something new with a good unit responsibility and feeling of the game. the new patch really helped here.
SG, like sc2, is far more about execution and multitasking than high level "slower" strategy gamed like AoE or COH or even SC series.
And SG just falls flat. Non fun units interaction (kiting 90% of the time is the limits of micro), and not nearly enough strategic depth to compensate.
I would rank it far lower strategic depth than Warcraft (since that has the map naturally expanding with tree mechanics) and creeping optimisation matters due to item/resource/XP.
On October 01 2024 14:23 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
i'm on the site of follow ZeRoX. After playing like 40 games, i was really into it. but i think u have to be a decent strategy player to like it. for newbies its really hard because the player base ist just to experienced.
but for every decent sc2 player, its really something new with a good unit responsibility and feeling of the game. the new patch really helped here.
SG, like sc2, is far more about execution and multitasking than high level "slower" strategy gamed like AoE or COH or even SC series.
And SG just falls flat. Non fun units interaction (kiting 90% of the time is the limits of micro), and not nearly enough strategic depth to compensate.
I would rank it far lower strategic depth than Warcraft (since that has the map naturally expanding with tree mechanics) and creeping optimisation matters due to item/resource/XP.
interesting take. how many games did u play and which level did u reach @ stormgate?
i agree, that the execution and mulitasking is important in SG, but can u explain in which way AoE is a more strategy game then SG, beside the eco-system? my experience with AoE is maybe too low to understand.
i disagree with the unit interaction. after every game i understand more about the unit interactions and its far more then kiting. there are many spells and siege options. even dropship micro is needed. i cant see any clear advantage of the micro needed in sc2. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems to me that your experiences in SG are very limited and there is a high degree of bias. Or my experience with 100 games in SG is still too limited to get an all-encompassing impression of SG.
On October 01 2024 01:20 WombaT wrote: Campaign sucks. Co-op isn’t totally abysmal but it’s not SC2 level. 1v1 has such a small playerbase that if you’re any kind of newbie you’re going to get destroyed incessantly
Every RTS Ladder eventually devolves/evolves into a shark tank as the game's popularity wanes. It is going to be rough for Frost Giant to get new people into Stormgate. The SC1 and SC2 campaign stories were incredible. I've seen nothing from Frostgate that indicates they are on that level of story telling.
"they say a man never really knows himself... until he leaves Blizzard" "Tim Morten, Rob Pardo, I wonder, how well do you know yourself?"
On October 01 2024 14:23 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
i'm on the site of follow ZeRoX. After playing like 40 games, i was really into it. but i think u have to be a decent strategy player to like it. for newbies its really hard because the player base ist just to experienced.
but for every decent sc2 player, its really something new with a good unit responsibility and feeling of the game. the new patch really helped here.
SG, like sc2, is far more about execution and multitasking than high level "slower" strategy gamed like AoE or COH or even SC series.
And SG just falls flat. Non fun units interaction (kiting 90% of the time is the limits of micro), and not nearly enough strategic depth to compensate.
I would rank it far lower strategic depth than Warcraft (since that has the map naturally expanding with tree mechanics) and creeping optimisation matters due to item/resource/XP.
interesting take. how many games did u play and which level did u reach @ stormgate?
i agree, that the execution and mulitasking is important in SG, but can u explain in which way AoE is a more strategy game then SG, beside the eco-system? my experience with AoE is maybe too low to understand.
i disagree with the unit interaction. after every game i understand more about the unit interactions and its far more then kiting. there are many spells and siege options. even dropship micro is needed. i cant see any clear advantage of the micro needed in sc2. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems to me that your experiences in SG are very limited and there is a high degree of bias. Or my experience with 100 games in SG is still too limited to get an all-encompassing impression of SG.
Game speed shouldn't influence how hard it is to understand?
The nature of AOE eco is that you have multiple resource nodes that are spread across the map, and so every single game plays out quite differently and you get far more micro decision making throughout. Which resource nodes you harvest (thus dry out) first plays a huge role.
I mentioned how creep mechanics simply works better at wc3. Another one, destructible trees instead of a resource that naturally encouraging expanding, it is just there.
Look at all the complaints about exos /argents /hedgehogs /vectors. It's all quite literally kiting with very minimum counter play.
I play a lot of RTS games so I don't have much bias towards any of them, be it COH style or even tooth and tail. I think it just takes much longer for some players to see what it really is, there's not much interesting dynamic between units.
Some could work at low unit counts like brute split, but who really cares after 10mins into the game where it becomes clumps after clumps of units?
Meanwhile a zergling is always interesting, with speed and burrow upgrade, that's not even counting its potential to morph to baneling. Literally no unit come close in SG, with or without "abilities"
It lacks the dedicate micro from low unit counts RTS like WC3, it lacks the dynamic and tension from high unit count RTS like SC2 or BW.
For reference, I am silver with 60 games with 3 factions. I am also silver at AoM /Gold for AoE and find the game infinitely dynamic. I am diamond all 3 races in sc2.
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
Anything that ends up on Kickstarter is suspect. I don't care what cock and bull story the people make up for why they need money.
The story they came up with for why they needed to do a Kickstarter was pretty good. Too bad they could not come up with a good campaign story in the game.
"uhh guys.. uhhh.. California just outlawed the burning of coal.. so ..uhh.. guys... we need to uhhh .. buy some land that has a steep hill and uhhh we need to buy some some water so we can generate hydro for our servers using a makeshift waterfall... our servers need electricity guys"
Nothing FGS has said indicates that 1v1 is "complete". For example, there was talk of resource changes/reworks as well as high ground advantages coming in, amongst other things. More units also (more tier 3 and more units in lower tiers as necessary).
So sure, the game isn't as deep as it could be yet, and I agree it does have a lot of annoying kiting. It's also a function of the maps.
I agree that they need to do more, experiment more, etc. I know they've been pretty safe so far, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they start adding in slightly more experimental stuff over the next year or so.
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
I don't really care what alleged salaries they took or how they scammed investors. For open beta it's solid. far better then Counter Strike 2 for example.
Of course then need to polish it more but 12 months is plenty of time and attitude of community hating it won't help.
On October 01 2024 14:23 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
I don't really care what alleged salaries they took or how they scammed investors. For open beta it's solid. far better then Counter Strike 2 for example.
Of course then need to polish it more but 12 months is plenty of time and attitude of community hating it won't help.
In what domain is this open beta more solid than CS 2’s? I’ve no familiarity with the latter so this is a genuine query
Community are largely judging the product as it is currently, if anything they were pretty patient and generous for quite some time
It's definitely not the most rough early access ever, but I don't think that's a good sign at all. The forever winter early access is basically technical alpha, clunky movement, poor optimisation, bad AI, a very hated mechanics, multiplayer lobby doesnt work well. It's still getting 2-6k concurrent players.
Sure it's different genre but gets to show a good visual presentation and interesting concept goes a long way, even in a hardcore genre with competition like tarvok
On October 02 2024 06:00 followZeRoX wrote: Of course then need to polish it more but 12 months is plenty of time and attitude of community hating it won't help.
you reap what you sow. Frost Giant is selling a product for a profit. This product is not a child car-safety-seat.. the product is not a home insurance policy.. the product is not fruits nor vegetables nor high quality meat. Frost Giant is selling a frivolous product with promises of ultimate fun and crazy thrills. They got money from Kakao; Kakao is a massive megacorporation looking to turn their $30M gamble into Billions in revenue. Kakao wants millions of customers. Amongst the Billions of dollars and millions of customers you are going to have a few idiots. Frost Giant is a business venture in a frivolous, absurd market place.
when you choose this path and make promises to paying customers... you draw heat.
If Frost Giant can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen
On October 01 2024 14:23 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
I don't really care what alleged salaries they took or how they scammed investors. For open beta it's solid. far better then Counter Strike 2 for example.
Of course then need to polish it more but 12 months is plenty of time and attitude of community hating it won't help.
Good for you i guess. FGS poor leadership killed the game, simple as that. With their player numbers and no traction SG is pretty much lost. If it had anything special i could see maybe outside investment. But who would invest millions at this point?
On October 01 2024 14:23 gingerfluffmuffnr2 wrote:
On October 01 2024 01:16 followZeRoX wrote: Numbers I saw are from Steam charts.
I can agree with you. It's not in a good state but unlike SC2 it's new and refreshing. For example I'm fed up with sc2 after more then a decade of playing but I understand why someone won't play an unfinished product.
I'm only bothered that mass of people never gave a chance, played 3 maps and jumped to post negative feedback
I played 5 matches with Inf and that was it for the race. Other race were better but still bad. SG is a terrible product for its 40 mil pricetag. No need to play 10s of hours
The negative reviews were earned by FGS for their scammy behaviour, even if SG was decent
I don't really care what alleged salaries they took or how they scammed investors. For open beta it's solid. far better then Counter Strike 2 for example.
Of course then need to polish it more but 12 months is plenty of time and attitude of community hating it won't help.
Let's get over misconceptions.
This is a release, not alpha, not beta. We've got an alpha more than a year ago. We've got 3(4) beta stages after it. Developers referred to EA release as "release" multiple times. Also, they charge money for MTX. EA term means nothing. It is just a marketing buzzword nowadays.
This is a release. And it should and is treated as such.
It is a release, but by typical standards it's in an Alpha state right now. Virtually the entire software world denotes "Beta" as feature complete, and Stormgate is a year away from that mark.
I don't even think 60 employees is as big an issue as the salaries. Paying individual people $1.215m to work on the game for 5 years without that being reliant at all on the quality of their output is completely out of touch with reality.
It's a hard sell when it's coming out of profits that exist because they're the best in the world at their craft, but the guys getting paid that are doing so out of investor / kickstarter money while in the deep red and have done an awful job for those years by any objective measure.
On October 04 2024 06:45 Cyro wrote: It is a release, but by typical standards it's in an Alpha state right now. Virtually the entire software world denotes "Beta" as feature complete, and Stormgate is a year away from that mark.
I don't even think 60 employees is as big an issue as the salaries. Paying individual people $1.215m to work on the game for 5 years without that being reliant at all on the quality of their output is completely out of touch with reality.
It's a hard sell when it's coming out of profits that exist because they're the best in the world at their craft, but the guys getting paid that are doing so out of investor / kickstarter money while in the deep red and have done an awful job for those years by any objective measure.
"$1.215m to work on the game for 5 years"
is that how much they are paying them for 5 years? That honestly sounds low
EPT
