|
On November 25 2024 17:21 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2024 16:57 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 23:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On November 24 2024 22:56 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote:
People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate? People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game. Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close. I feel like we are talking past each other. Stormgate simply didn’t meet much of anyone’s standards, even when it’s free, hence low player count and rating. Meanwhile for games I listed, they were able to meet paying customers’ standards. If stormgate wasn’t worth the dollars, then it’s a price issue. But it isn’t . It’s free to play with low draw to any players, I.e. not even worth the time and hard disc space atm. I am talking about the main reasons of the low review scores, not low player numbers. If Stormgate wasn't free to play, had lower expectations, had higher level of polish, it would have decent review scores. It is not true that the review score is so low because of gameplay. That doesn't mean everyone loved the gameplay of course.
We are going to revive RTS.
We are building the future of RTS.
We are building what SC3 could have been.
We are building our dream RTS.
We are building RTS accesible for new players.
We are building the first social RTS.
We are building a campaign with a compelling story that can go for years to come.
We are learning from past RTS mistakes and making our own VISION.
We are the devs behind SC2 and WC3.
We are making a game that mix RTS and Diablo (i actually read that BS in an article and they retweet that )
Those were things i hear from all the interviews with Pig , Artosis and other content creators. They actually sold me the game and to many others. For a reason it was the second most whislisted F2P game. With those claims you can imagine how big the expectations were. So yeah when you see finally see the first trailer. And do you see that well. This cinematic for sure is not so high quality. That first day with first cinematic the ship started to get water. Then they showed The game play with TLO and people were already seeing that Innovations werent part of that video. Then the people actually get to test the game..
Not innovation.
Boring uninteresting units.
Boring economy.
Confusing upgrades and many of them .
The UI is horrible.
The game is not accessible to new players at all. This game not make RTS easier. (apart from adding your units automatically to the control group. )
peformance is trash for what the game has to offer.
Art style is pretty bad.( but this is something that you can fix )
So spartak now that i know you invested money on this project. I dont even blame you for being fake and going super critic on battle aces. Atleast do you have a valid reason to chill on Stormgate. The only bad is that devs are not getting the important feedback. Normal people will just try SG. See that is not what they were told and just continue their lives playing their favorite game.´
look my experience playing it. Do you think i went to steam to bash the game or anything ? Nope.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.twitch.tv/eonzerg/clip/WrongFrigidPepperoniCoolStoryBro-ZoXio5MvUJbwU-Ul
|
Hey guys I had a question 2 pages ago, what exactly is the future of RTS ? I see a lot of people saying xyz isn't this, but if that is what is expected, what exactly is it? ?_?
|
On November 25 2024 17:21 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2024 16:57 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 23:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On November 24 2024 22:56 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote:
People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate? People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game. Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close. I feel like we are talking past each other. Stormgate simply didn’t meet much of anyone’s standards, even when it’s free, hence low player count and rating. Meanwhile for games I listed, they were able to meet paying customers’ standards. If stormgate wasn’t worth the dollars, then it’s a price issue. But it isn’t . It’s free to play with low draw to any players, I.e. not even worth the time and hard disc space atm. I am talking about the main reasons of the low review scores, not low player numbers. If Stormgate wasn't free to play, had lower expectations, had higher level of polish, it would have decent review scores. It is not true that the review score is so low because of gameplay. That doesn't mean everyone loved the gameplay of course. People will excuse polish if the gameplay is good.
If people are leaving negative reviews for lack of polish then the gameplay was not good enough to overcome the problems
|
Like I said before, there have been a lot of reviews from people who didn't get to experience the gameplay at all because lack of polish just made them quit the game in minutes and leave a negative review.
So spartak now that i know you invested money on this project. I dont even blame you for being fake and going super critic on battle aces. Atleast do you have a valid reason to chill on Stormgate. The only bad is that devs are not getting the important feedback. Normal people will just try SG. See that is not what they were told and just continue their lives playing their favorite game.´ Since you choose to resort to this lie from a bad faith actor whom I have corrected two times, I take it as an admission that you have no intention of engaging in a good faith discussion but in case you are curious, I don't like Battle Aces because I think it represents everything that has been wrong with RTS developer mindset in the last two decades. I still don't get obsessed about it and continue bad mouthing it as people who hate Stormgate do.
I also wasn't any harsher on Battle Aces than you have been : https://tl.net/forum/games/574934-battle-aces-david-kim-rts-megathread?page=26#502
|
Northern Ireland25286 Posts
On November 25 2024 18:30 TelecoM wrote:
Hey guys I had a question 2 pages ago, what exactly is the future of RTS ? I see a lot of people saying xyz isn't this, but if that is what is expected, what exactly is it? ?_?
I think the future of RTS may just be a continuation of what we’ve seen in recent years. Lots of very good games, but with an audience splitting out into various sub-genres they enjoy. But perhaps not that one killer game that attracts huge numbers and keeps them for years like a StarCraft 2.
It seems no matter how many quality of life changes you make, a big chunk of the audience just doesn’t enjoy high execution demands in things like micro or macro. Some really love that aspect, as you can imagine it’s quite difficult to appeal to both, at least in multiplayer modes.
You have from there I think two further problems that make things difficult. An RTS needs a decent chunk of depth so as not to become samey and boring. Which tends to make them at least somewhat complex, and nothing wrong with that! However, at least in a game with a multiplayer that keeps people coming back for more, versus just playing a campaign run every so often, this makes it quite difficult to keep up playing multiple games regularly in the same timeframe. Shooters don’t really have this issue to quite the same degree
Compounding this is even mediocre RTS veterans, much less very good players are just so familiar with RTS fundamentals now that it’s a chasm of a gap. So any genuine casuals or newcomers who try out a new title, absolutely need a load of others to come with them to whatever the title is.
Someone in the Zero Space subreddit said they still enjoyed the beta despite going 1-29 in ladder, and fair play to them! Many won’t have nearly that much tolerance.
As for what the ‘one game to rule them all’ might hypothetically look like, I’m not too sure. As I’ve said before I wouldn’t have necessarily asked for an RTS/RPG hybrid a la Warcraft 3, but it ended up being my favourite ever game. Thing is I really struggle to think of a more innovative twist on the genre since, at least in the ‘classic’ RTS space in the last 20 years, or at least one so successful. So something may just come out that I never asked for, but kicks arse and maybe that’s the answer.
I think a real blockbuster perhaps does need a few components
1. Decent campaign and worldbuilding/aesthetic
2. Good PvP. Ideally, team games that are at least as good as 1v1. Rarely the case with most RTS I’ve played, think that would help out.
3. Some kinda varied PvE mode. Games have took SC2’s co-op ball and ran with it, and I think that’s a good way to go.
4. A decent editor and custom game system. What elevated SCs and WC3 especially above their peers for me, not every custom map would go on to be a DoTA but really adds insane amounts of content and variety, especially for more casual players. Hell it’s a giant reason Fortnite is the colossus it is.
Now I do realise I am essentially laying out Stormgate’s roadmap here, but I think it’s a good blueprint and many seemed to agree which I think was why it has been so anticipated
Other little innovations would be cool bonuses too. I like Zero Space’s Galactic War idea as a way to enhance their base modes. I think making things more social even indirectly would be a great boost too. Clans having a clan ladder factoring in multiple modes and how your clan does could be fun, versus them sorta being hubs to hang out, but laddering just gets you points as an individual.
|
Northern Ireland25286 Posts
On November 25 2024 19:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2024 17:21 _Spartak_ wrote:On November 25 2024 16:57 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 23:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On November 24 2024 22:56 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote:
People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate? People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game. Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close. I feel like we are talking past each other. Stormgate simply didn’t meet much of anyone’s standards, even when it’s free, hence low player count and rating. Meanwhile for games I listed, they were able to meet paying customers’ standards. If stormgate wasn’t worth the dollars, then it’s a price issue. But it isn’t . It’s free to play with low draw to any players, I.e. not even worth the time and hard disc space atm. I am talking about the main reasons of the low review scores, not low player numbers. If Stormgate wasn't free to play, had lower expectations, had higher level of polish, it would have decent review scores. It is not true that the review score is so low because of gameplay. That doesn't mean everyone loved the gameplay of course. People will excuse polish if the gameplay is good. If people are leaving negative reviews for lack of polish then the gameplay was not good enough to overcome the problems
Warcraft Refunded still had its original stellar gameplay and got absolutely rinsed in reviews for other reasons. And quite rightly so!
I don’t think Stormgate is directly comparable to that debacle, but I think it definitely did also suffer for being reviewed versus the hype and also the state it launched in.
Which I mean, are both Frost Giant’s fault and I certainly wasn’t alone in advocating not dropping into Early Access undercooked, but here we are.
On the flipside people do have different approaches to reviewing. For me, OK it’s EA but versus expectations, pretty disappointing to me so far. However, despite its flaws and being undercooked, it does handle better than pretty much any other RTS I’ve played since SC2. So I’d still maybe give it a 6 or 7/10 potentially. Others may give it a 4 or a 5, which is fair enough too! I try to actually review based on the thing itself. That new album from your favourite band, or a really anticipated film in a franchise you like, may be crushingly disappointing, but actually decent enough if you factor out one’s expectations for it.
I think Spartak is perhaps being misconstrued here when they’re talking about ‘gameplay’. I may be wrong but I don’t think they’re talking about the overall state of the game, content available etc but the core nuts and bolts mechanics. If that’s incorrect sure Spartak can clarify.
|
On November 25 2024 19:29 _Spartak_ wrote:Like I said before, there have been a lot of reviews from people who didn't get to experience the gameplay at all because lack of polish just made them quit the game in minutes and leave a negative review. Show nested quote +So spartak now that i know you invested money on this project. I dont even blame you for being fake and going super critic on battle aces. Atleast do you have a valid reason to chill on Stormgate. The only bad is that devs are not getting the important feedback. Normal people will just try SG. See that is not what they were told and just continue their lives playing their favorite game.´ Since you choose to resort to this lie from a bad faith actor whom I have corrected two times, I take it as an admission that you have no intention of engaging in a good faith discussion but in case you are curious, I don't like Battle Aces because I think it represents everything that has been wrong with RTS developer mindset in the last two decades. I still don't get obsessed about it and continue bad mouthing it as people who hate Stormgate do. I also wasn't any harsher on Battle Aces than you have been : https://tl.net/forum/games/574934-battle-aces-david-kim-rts-megathread?page=26#502
What im curious about is your real opinion of Stormgate. Like i said before BA or SG are both really poor projects. With that said BA does a better job making it easier to new players. If you dont wanna make it public you can pm me. But when do you put that energy in trashing BA then keep it real quiet with SG then im sorry but you are not being real.
So you investing money on SG is a myth from that other guy ? I read that u were saying that if you made profit everything will be donated to a charity. I honestly dont care what do you do with your money thats on you. But you being a Mod on reddit for Stormgate + investing money. I mean is freaking obvious that someone could think there is some conflict of interest.
When do you scream to the world that you are making a diamond but the result is not even close is pretty normal to have bad feedback. It is what it is.
Btw i always said from day 1 that Frost giant needed to do a better game than SC2. Otherwise not one will care about their game. So im not sure if im the only in that boat and was doomed to be disappointed.
|
The lie is that I had a different opinion on FG/SG before I invested and now "defending" them because I have a financial motive. I never had a financial motive. I "invested" not to get a return but to support the project. I know it was a bad "investment" and I would almost certainly lose all my money but I didn't and still don't see it anything more than a donation. I never changed my opinions on the game and always tried to promote it (you can check my post history here or elsewhere) because I believe it is probably the last chance of having a big Blizzard-style RTS success. That was my opinion on the game since before it was announced and it still is.
|
Did anyone watch Aureil's tournament over the weekend? Some pretty great games (I still need to watch the finals). I'd also recommend group D of the RO16 of the Kakao Tournament. If anyone is actually interested, I can try to put together some recommended games with links.
|
On November 26 2024 02:41 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2024 19:29 _Spartak_ wrote:Like I said before, there have been a lot of reviews from people who didn't get to experience the gameplay at all because lack of polish just made them quit the game in minutes and leave a negative review. So spartak now that i know you invested money on this project. I dont even blame you for being fake and going super critic on battle aces. Atleast do you have a valid reason to chill on Stormgate. The only bad is that devs are not getting the important feedback. Normal people will just try SG. See that is not what they were told and just continue their lives playing their favorite game.´ Since you choose to resort to this lie from a bad faith actor whom I have corrected two times, I take it as an admission that you have no intention of engaging in a good faith discussion but in case you are curious, I don't like Battle Aces because I think it represents everything that has been wrong with RTS developer mindset in the last two decades. I still don't get obsessed about it and continue bad mouthing it as people who hate Stormgate do. I also wasn't any harsher on Battle Aces than you have been : https://tl.net/forum/games/574934-battle-aces-david-kim-rts-megathread?page=26#502 What im curious about is your real opinion of Stormgate. Like i said before BA or SG are both really poor projects. With that said BA does a better job making it easier to new players. If you dont wanna make it public you can pm me. But when do you put that energy in trashing BA then keep it real quiet with SG then im sorry but you are not being real. So you investing money on SG is a myth from that other guy ? I read that u were saying that if you made profit everything will be donated to a charity. I honestly dont care what do you do with your money thats on you. But you being a Mod on reddit for Stormgate + investing money. I mean is freaking obvious that someone could think there is some conflict of interest. When do you scream to the world that you are making a diamond but the result is not even close is pretty normal to have bad feedback. It is what it is. Btw i always said from day 1 that Frost giant needed to do a better game than SC2. Otherwise not one will care about their game. So im not sure if im the only in that boat and was doomed to be disappointed.
I m with you, as you know. And the vast majority of people I talked to (casual players, or currently active BW folks, which I guess would count as hardcore) all had the same feelings of disappointment. I expected that all the hype was a bit misplaced but still feel let down.
As an example of alpha game, i m currently playing some deadlock and love it despite not being a MOBA fan and having terrible aim.
A future RTS would be a great campaign, possibly with RPG elements and maybe replayability (different endings based on choices), and great multiplayer (besides 1v1) and UMS. I got into sc 25 years ago (TT...i m old) through 4v4, ffa and then evolve. I was so terrible, but it was fun and i played with classmates at the local cybercafé for cheap. Those are key retention elements.
Also i think building a game for esport is dumb. Make a good fun game, if esport comes out of it add the tools then (replay, overlays etc) but don't go for esport and money first, it makes it fake and "corrupted" if that makes sense
|
On November 25 2024 18:30 TelecoM wrote:
Hey guys I had a question 2 pages ago, what exactly is the future of RTS ? I see a lot of people saying xyz isn't this, but if that is what is expected, what exactly is it? ?_?
Probably just a niche thing, since many of the folks who were gaming during RTS heyday now have too many responsibilities like wife, kids, job etc to commit to learning and playing new RTS games.
Better if developers focus on campaign, casual game modes like co-op & customs, and provide a decent map editor.Focusing on making it the next big esport is the wrong move i think, if you do that and the balance is bad on release then it's basically DOA whereas if you have a strong casual playerbase you can build up the competitive multiplayer aspects later when balance is improved.
|
On November 25 2024 18:30 TelecoM wrote:
Hey guys I had a question 2 pages ago, what exactly is the future of RTS ? I see a lot of people saying xyz isn't this, but if that is what is expected, what exactly is it? ?_?
I don't think there is this ONE future for RTS gaming. I think there are many possibilities all going in different directions.
Maybe it is more MOBA'esque, maybe it is very team oriented, maybe it has MMO elemtents... Nobody knows.
I can tell you however what the foundation for all of the above has to be: Decent graphics and decent framerates.
We are going to revive RTS.
We are building the future of RTS.
We are building what SC3 could have been.
We are building our dream RTS.
We are building RTS accesible for new players.
We are building the first social RTS.
We are building a campaign with a compelling story that can go for years to come.
We are learning from past RTS mistakes and making our own VISION.
We are the devs behind SC2 and WC3.
We are making a game that mix RTS and Diablo
Were all this true, this would count as next gen for me
|
I'll argue MOBAs are RTS in a way, people just don't treat it as such. Most MOBAs have most of the RTS elements. That aside, I don't think Stormgate has a future. The SOOP stormgate tournament with the SSL BW pros in it has somewhat convinced me it doesn't have what it takes. It will need some pretty drastic and big reworks on many of its aspects to be viable as "the future" of RTS.
|
On November 25 2024 17:21 _Spartak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2024 16:57 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 23:15 _Spartak_ wrote:On November 24 2024 22:56 ETisME wrote:On November 24 2024 22:20 _Spartak_ wrote:
People don't spend money on games unless they decided they like the look of it. With Stormgate being f2p, a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise buy the game (and thus leave a review), downloaded it, didn't like it and then left a negative review. Are you arguing that people had higher expectations of games like Silica and Rogue Command than they did with Stormgate? People spend money on the game if they think they will like it, not the look. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it is a game worth downloading, stormgate is far from being the only f2p game. Sure but it does increase the number of downloads from people who would otherwise not have bought it. Despite being an f2p game, Stormgate was the RTS with the highest level of customer expectation for a long time. The indie games you mention are not being judged by the same standards. Not even close. I feel like we are talking past each other. Stormgate simply didn’t meet much of anyone’s standards, even when it’s free, hence low player count and rating. Meanwhile for games I listed, they were able to meet paying customers’ standards. If stormgate wasn’t worth the dollars, then it’s a price issue. But it isn’t . It’s free to play with low draw to any players, I.e. not even worth the time and hard disc space atm. I am talking about the main reasons of the low review scores, not low player numbers. If Stormgate wasn't free to play, had lower expectations, had higher level of polish, it would have decent review scores. It is not true that the review score is so low because of gameplay. That doesn't mean everyone loved the gameplay of course.
The recent review score pretty show that isn't the case because it already has better polish than before, pretty sure they added the extra note to set expectations lower, and players going in seeing how low the score is.
The game is mediocre and it would have been much worse if it didn't get all the marketing hype with influencers etc trying to get some sort of esports happening.
|
Them having added more polish doesn't mean the polish is at a level many would find acceptable. The cutscenes and cinematics have still not changed and those were the biggest culprits. For what it's worth, the review scores did improve slightly. Before f2p release on August 13, the review score was above 60%, it quickly dropped to 50% because new f2p players were reviewing it at less than 40%. Now the score is stable at 50%, so new players are reviewing the game at around 50%. Still bad of course.
|
On November 26 2024 22:18 _Spartak_ wrote:
Them having added more polish doesn't mean the polish is at a level many would find acceptable. The cutscenes and cinematics have still not changed and those were the biggest culprits. For what it's worth, the review scores did improve slightly. Before f2p release on August 13, the review score was above 60%, it quickly dropped to 50% because new f2p players were reviewing it at less than 40%. Now the score is stable at 50%, so new players are reviewing the game at around 50%. Still bad of course.
it's 42% positive for recent reviews.
|
Talked with some broodwar pros post Stormgate tournament(finals still gonna happen) and some of them liked SG and are still playing a bit after being eliminated. That's a good sign.
|
On November 26 2024 21:23 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:
I'll argue MOBAs are RTS in a way, people just don't treat it as such. Most MOBAs have most of the RTS elements. That aside, I don't think Stormgate has a future. The SOOP stormgate tournament with the SSL BW pros in it has somewhat convinced me it doesn't have what it takes. It will need some pretty drastic and big reworks on many of its aspects to be viable as "the future" of RTS.
MOBA's are RTS for people that cant macro always have been.
|
On November 27 2024 10:41 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:
Talked with some broodwar pros post Stormgate tournament(finals still gonna happen) and some of them liked SG and are still playing a bit after being eliminated. That's a good sign.
The 2nd semi final was great today; looking forward to the finals on Friday!
|
On November 27 2024 11:06 iamperfection wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2024 21:23 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:
I'll argue MOBAs are RTS in a way, people just don't treat it as such. Most MOBAs have most of the RTS elements. That aside, I don't think Stormgate has a future. The SOOP stormgate tournament with the SSL BW pros in it has somewhat convinced me it doesn't have what it takes. It will need some pretty drastic and big reworks on many of its aspects to be viable as "the future" of RTS. MOBA's are RTS for people that cant macro always have been.
nah thats a bullshi claim. it is a different format of rts, dont mean it is for people who cant do something. thats just you trying to claim some kind of superiority over the people who play it because you can do something they cant. pure bullshi. Look at all the bw pros who absolutely love mobas or changed career to moba.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
