On November 29 2024 03:30 _Spartak_ wrote: ZS does have some positional units. The problem is they are not all that useful when all matches boil down to controlling the middle due to the huge advantage towers and rich flux give you. As long as that is the case, viable compositions will be all about mobility. There is not much difference in playstyles for that reason (despite all the aforementioned customization options). Or you can make positional units so overpowered that they are still useful but then you run the risk of making them very annoying to play against. Kinda like mortars in BA.
Not really. Map design wise, the XP tower is always on route to all entry to the opponent base ramp.
If you watch the grand final, you'd see there's very little occasion where one player can control all xp towers, let alone mobility is the strongest comp. The battles actually happens a lot at the ramps, not at the centre.
You also do have strong siege units like thresher and snipers and other Merc units, it's just how you building it.
The bigger reason why you may think mobility is THE strategy is because of the tier 1 and tier 1.5 units.
The economy model simply encourage all players to build lots of tier 1 and 1.5 which are naturally quite mobile. That doesn't mean there aren't strong tankier units, terror tank is still fairly mobile, just not as mobile as other units necessarily.
Either way zerospace is build to be constant battles and micro with customisation mechanics, the system works perfectly fine. I am in the alpha and the things they changed up would never have been possible in stormgate. Same with battle aces massive change to the point they considered you must have anti air tier 1.
But this is exactly what you don't want in a game. You dont want the "slower"/beefier units like a Thor/Colossus. Those units are too slow to split up and not cost effective enough in smaller numbers to be used as a positional unit.
I think it's core to RTS games that players can secure different locations around the map. An opponent should be able to break the location but in doing so he will trade cost ineffectively.
For me this is such a simple concept; Make RTS games where players trade locations around the map for resources. But none of the current RTS games in development seems to really get this.
Otherwise the gameplay becomes only deathball vs deathball + some harass opportunities dependent on how strong harass options are.
They work perfectly fine in the game. you are basing too much of this around words and not actual gameplay. You have both beefier splash units like ultralists and siege tank like units for splash.
Zerospace positional play is all about getting better trades and securing the xp towers and the extra flux resource. Gate of pyre third resources only comes from the different neutral creep camps and the map also has fixed position where you can build tower for healing and damage to have strong map control.
On November 29 2024 03:30 _Spartak_ wrote: ZS does have some positional units. The problem is they are not all that useful when all matches boil down to controlling the middle due to the huge advantage towers and rich flux give you. As long as that is the case, viable compositions will be all about mobility. There is not much difference in playstyles for that reason (despite all the aforementioned customization options). Or you can make positional units so overpowered that they are still useful but then you run the risk of making them very annoying to play against. Kinda like mortars in BA.
Not really. Map design wise, the XP tower is always on route to all entry to the opponent base ramp.
If you watch the grand final, you'd see there's very little occasion where one player can control all xp towers, let alone mobility is the strongest comp. The battles actually happens a lot at the ramps, not at the centre.
You also do have strong siege units like thresher and snipers and other Merc units, it's just how you building it.
The bigger reason why you may think mobility is THE strategy is because of the tier 1 and tier 1.5 units.
The economy model simply encourage all players to build lots of tier 1 and 1.5 which are naturally quite mobile. That doesn't mean there aren't strong tankier units, terror tank is still fairly mobile, just not as mobile as other units necessarily.
Either way zerospace is build to be constant battles and micro with customisation mechanics, the system works perfectly fine. I am in the alpha and the things they changed up would never have been possible in stormgate. Same with battle aces massive change to the point they considered you must have anti air tier 1.
But this is exactly what you don't want in a game. You dont want the "slower"/beefier units like a Thor/Colossus. Those units are too slow to split up and not cost effective enough in smaller numbers to be used as a positional unit.
I think it's core to RTS games that players can secure different locations around the map. An opponent should be able to break the location but in doing so he will trade cost ineffectively.
For me this is such a simple concept; Make RTS games where players trade locations around the map for resources. But none of the current RTS games in development seems to really get this.
Otherwise the gameplay becomes only deathball vs deathball + some harass opportunities dependent on how strong harass options are.
Zerospace positional play is all about getting better trades and securing the xp towers and the extra flux resource. .
Yes, but that purely leads to deathballing and then becomes purely determined based on who has the stronger army right now.
The advantage with the game-design where players can take multiple "positions"/bases around the map and secure them through 'positional units' is that it incentivizes engagements all over the map. And it leaves room for many different types of decisions a player can take. Without positional units you can simply steamroll over a map objective and trade evenly or often cost effective if you have the bigger army. However, when attacking into positional units you will trade poorly but it may overall still be worth it.
In my opinion this type of gameplay is necessary in order to get proper depth and variability in a competitive RTS. Without it, I think the gameplay will become a bit boring after a while and eventually you lose interest. Too some extent it appears Zerospace tries to add depth by offering a lot of choices/abilities, but I am sceptical it will work.
On Immortals gates of pyre, yes I guess they might actually have these positional units. Although I think they have much more fundamental issues in their gameplay currently.
On November 29 2024 03:30 _Spartak_ wrote: ZS does have some positional units. The problem is they are not all that useful when all matches boil down to controlling the middle due to the huge advantage towers and rich flux give you. As long as that is the case, viable compositions will be all about mobility. There is not much difference in playstyles for that reason (despite all the aforementioned customization options). Or you can make positional units so overpowered that they are still useful but then you run the risk of making them very annoying to play against. Kinda like mortars in BA.
Not really. Map design wise, the XP tower is always on route to all entry to the opponent base ramp.
If you watch the grand final, you'd see there's very little occasion where one player can control all xp towers, let alone mobility is the strongest comp. The battles actually happens a lot at the ramps, not at the centre.
You also do have strong siege units like thresher and snipers and other Merc units, it's just how you building it.
The bigger reason why you may think mobility is THE strategy is because of the tier 1 and tier 1.5 units.
The economy model simply encourage all players to build lots of tier 1 and 1.5 which are naturally quite mobile. That doesn't mean there aren't strong tankier units, terror tank is still fairly mobile, just not as mobile as other units necessarily.
Either way zerospace is build to be constant battles and micro with customisation mechanics, the system works perfectly fine. I am in the alpha and the things they changed up would never have been possible in stormgate. Same with battle aces massive change to the point they considered you must have anti air tier 1.
But this is exactly what you don't want in a game. You dont want the "slower"/beefier units like a Thor/Colossus. Those units are too slow to split up and not cost effective enough in smaller numbers to be used as a positional unit.
I think it's core to RTS games that players can secure different locations around the map. An opponent should be able to break the location but in doing so he will trade cost ineffectively.
For me this is such a simple concept; Make RTS games where players trade locations around the map for resources. But none of the current RTS games in development seems to really get this.
Otherwise the gameplay becomes only deathball vs deathball + some harass opportunities dependent on how strong harass options are.
Zerospace positional play is all about getting better trades and securing the xp towers and the extra flux resource. .
Yes, but that purely leads to deathballing and then becomes purely determined based on who has the stronger army right now.
The advantage with the game-design where players can take multiple "positions"/bases around the map and secure them through 'positional units' is that it incentivizes engagements all over the map. And it leaves room for many different types of decisions a player can take. Without positional units you can simply steamroll over a map objective and trade evenly or often cost effective if you have the bigger army. However, when attacking into positional units you will trade poorly but it may overall still be worth it.
In my opinion this type of gameplay is necessary in order to get proper depth and variability in a competitive RTS. Without it, I think the gameplay will become a bit boring after a while and eventually you lose interest. Too some extent it appears Zerospace tries to add depth by offering a lot of choices/abilities, but I am sceptical it will work.
On Immortals gates of pyre, yes I guess they might actually have these positional units. Although I think they have much more fundamental issues in their gameplay currently.
you do have positional units that trade well and very cost efficient if they landed their shot.
On strategic choice, tech choices in zerospace are massive. Eg Legion can refund 20% cost of their tier1 on death, so you can swarm with it and trade while building up top bar abilities which can then build support towers Protectorate can upgrade supply building with towers and production buildings heal, "instant" reinforcement.
It's fun and the strategic choice is very dynamic per game. It just isn't as purist RTS like SC2. That's also why it can have pretty insane upgrades and super units/ spells.
I loved battle of Middle Earth and it's great to see more varieties in the genre again with interesting twist here and there.
100% of your messages in tl.net are in this thread. When even the haters are so addicted to talking about the game, it is no wonder the page numbers keep rising
Oh, being confirmed? But you only started commenting recently. It is as if you were here before with another account. Curious. Did that account also have a record of 100% of messages being about SG?
Looks like there's one or two articles on Chinese gaming sites about stormgate. Tim apparently upset quite a number of Chinese gamers by saying they are more critical and negative.
He couldn't have said this at a worse timing.
Black myth wukong was under a lot of drama because some particular western video game journalists were saying things like it doesn't have enough women representative or something, and how Chineses were reverse review bombing the steam rating etc.
Interesting it looks like one of the biggest Chinese gaming community even shut down the stormgate discussion hub.
Tim also spend a bit of time saying what the negatives were, if only he read the positives had a lot that goes : "just want to support the RTS scene".
How is lag and accurate matchmaking going when there are less than 50 people playing concurrently? I imagine these conditions are a stiff test of Frost Giant's new platform.
On December 03 2024 11:54 ETisME wrote: Looks like there's one or two articles on Chinese gaming sites about stormgate. Tim apparently upset quite a number of Chinese gamers by saying they are more critical and negative.
He couldn't have said this at a worse timing.
Black myth wukong was under a lot of drama because some particular western video game journalists were saying things like it doesn't have enough women representative or something, and how Chineses were reverse review bombing the steam rating etc.
R. Valentine is IGN's designated zero evidence sexual misconduct accuser. When IGN has zero evidence they send in Ms. Valentine to create a narrative. She knows she'll eventually have to walk down the same plank as Joe Scarborough and Mika. We're now at the "Robespierre Reign of Terror" stage of cancel culture. The Revolution has folded over onto itself. By this analogy, Louis the 16th got decapitated on November the 5th 2024.
On December 03 2024 22:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: How is lag and accurate matchmaking going when there are less than 50 people playing concurrently? I imagine these conditions are a stiff test of Frost Giant's new platform.
Matchmaking is obviously not that "accurate" when there aren't that many players playing at the same time. I don't understand why lag would have anything to do with it though. You mean when players are matched with others across the world? That probably happens more often with lower player numbers but the experience would be the same as before. There are some cases when servers act up (regardless of how far away you are to the server) and you get 999+ ping but otherwise, cross-server play seems to be smoother than any RTS out there based on the testament of players.
I'm pretty disappointed this game turned into such a slop. It's bad for the industry as a whole. That guy who schizoposted about how much he hated this game for years must be feeling great though.
On November 29 2024 03:30 _Spartak_ wrote: ZS does have some positional units. The problem is they are not all that useful when all matches boil down to controlling the middle due to the huge advantage towers and rich flux give you. As long as that is the case, viable compositions will be all about mobility. There is not much difference in playstyles for that reason (despite all the aforementioned customization options). Or you can make positional units so overpowered that they are still useful but then you run the risk of making them very annoying to play against. Kinda like mortars in BA.
Not really. Map design wise, the XP tower is always on route to all entry to the opponent base ramp.
If you watch the grand final, you'd see there's very little occasion where one player can control all xp towers, let alone mobility is the strongest comp. The battles actually happens a lot at the ramps, not at the centre.
You also do have strong siege units like thresher and snipers and other Merc units, it's just how you building it.
The bigger reason why you may think mobility is THE stratHE strategy is because of the tier 1 and tier 1.5 units.
The economy model simply encourage all players to build lots of tier 1 and 1.5 which are naturally quite mobile. That doesn't mean there aren't strong tankier units, terror tank is still fairly mobile, just not as mobile as other units necessarily.
Either way zerospace is build to be constant battles and micro with customisation mechanics, the system works perfectly fine. I am in the alpha and the things they changed up would never have been possible in stormgate. Same with battle aces massive change to the point they considered you must have anti air tier 1.
But this is exactly what you don't want in a game. You dont want the "slower"/beefier units like a Thor/Colossus. Those units are too slow to split up and not cost effective enough in smaller numbers to be used as a positional unit.
I think it's core to RTS games that players can secure different locations around the map. An opponent should be able to break the location but in doing so he will trade cost ineffectively.
For me this is such a simple concept; Make RTS games where players trade locations around the map for resources. But none of the current RTS games in development seems to really get this.
Otherwise the gameplay becomes only deathball vs deathball + some harass opportunities dependent on how strong harass options are.
Zerospace positional play is all about getting better trades and securing the xp towers and the extra flux resource. .
Yes, but that purely leads to deathballing and then becomes purely determined based on who has the stronger army right now.
The advantage with the game-design where players can take multiple "positions"/bases around the map and secure them through 'positional units' is that it incentivizes engagements all over the map. And it leaves room for many different types of decisions a player can take. Without positional units you can simply steamroll over a map objective and trade evenly or often cost effective if you have the bigger army. However, when attacking into positional units you will trade poorly but it may overall still be worth it.
In my opinion this type of gameplay is necessary in order to get proper depth and variability in a competitive RTS. Without it, I think the gameplay will become a bit boring after a while and eventually you lose interest. Too some extent it appears Zerospace tries to add depth by offering a lot of choices/abilities, but I am sceptical it will work.
On Immortals gates of pyre, yes I guess they might actually have these positional units. Although I think they have much more fundamental issues in their gameplay currently.
egy is because of the tier 1 and tier 1.5 units.
The economy model simply encourage all players to build lots of tier 1 and 1.5 which are naturally quite mobile. That doesn't mean there aren't strong tankier units, terror tank is still fairly mobile, just not as mobile as other units necessarily.
Either way zerospace is build to be constant battles and micro with customisation mechanics, the system works perfectly fine. I am in the alpha and the things they changed up would never have been possible in stormgate. Same with battle aces massive change to the point they considered you must have anti air tier 1. [/QUOTE]
But this is exactly what you don't want in a game. You dont want the "slower"/beefier units like a Thor/Colossus. Those units are too slow to split up and not cost effective enough in smaller numbers to be used as a positional unit.
I think it's core to RTS games that players can secure different locations around the map. An opponent should be able to break the location but in doing so he will trade cost ineffectively.
For me this is such a simple concept; Make RTS games where players trade locations around the map for resources. But none of the current RTS games in development seems to really get this.
Otherwise the gameplay becomes only deathball vs deathball + some harass opportunities dependent on how strong harass options are. [/QUOTE]
Zerospace positional play is all about getting better trades and securing the xp towers and the extra flux resource. .[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that purely leads to deathballing and then becomes purely determined based on who has the stronger army right now.
The advantage with the game-design where players can take multiple "positions"/bases around the map and secure them through 'positional units' is that it incentivizes engagements all over the map. And it leaves room for many different types of decisions a player can take. Without positional units you can simply steamroll over a map objective and trade evenly or often cost effective if you have the bigger army. However, when attacking into positional units you will trade poorly but it may overall still be worth it.
In my opinion this type of gameplay is necessary in order to get proper depth and variability in a competitive RTS. Without it, I think the gameplay will become a bit boring after a while and eventually you lose interest. Too some extent it appears Zerospace tries to add depth by offering a lot of choices/abilities, but I am sceptical it will work.
On Immortals gates of pyre, yes I guess they might actually have these positional units. Although I think they have much more fundamental issues in their gameplay currently.
[/QUOTE] The game you're describing already exists. It's called Total Annihilation and it has many derivatives including Supreme Commander or the more recent Beyond All Reason. I've kinda come around to thinking TA-style RTSs are the pinnacle of the genre. Starcraft still stands as the single best RTS but it seems to have some kind of lightning in a bottle quality. No one has ever made a Starcraft style RTS other than Blizzard that wasn't, at best, mediocre. I blame the exponential complexity of highly asymmetric races.
On December 04 2024 03:11 _Spartak_ wrote: I don't understand why lag would have anything to do with it though. You mean when players are matched with others across the world? That probably happens more often with lower player numbers but the experience would be the same as before. There are some cases when servers act up (regardless of how far away you are to the server) and you get 999+ ping but otherwise, cross-server play seems to be smoother than any RTS out there based on the testament of players.
What does lag have to do with only 40 people playing the game world wide? Well, lag is worse when you are in New York and you match with a player in Madagascar.
On December 03 2024 22:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote: How is lag and accurate matchmaking going when there are less than 50 people playing concurrently? I imagine these conditions are a stiff test of Frost Giant's new platform.
Matchmaking is obviously not that "accurate" when there aren't that many players playing at the same time. I don't understand why lag would have anything to do with it though. You mean when players are matched with others across the world? That probably happens more often with lower player numbers but the experience would be the same as before. There are some cases when servers act up (regardless of how far away you are to the server) and you get 999+ ping but otherwise, cross-server play seems to be smoother than any RTS out there based on the testament of players.
if this is the best cross server tech ever made they can sell it or license it. i doubt it is though. i suspect their cross-server tech is as mediocre as the game.
It'll be interesting to see if this game lives longer than xDefiant. xDefiant will die in 13 months and many players are rightfully getting full refunds. It'll be interesting to observe the refund situation with this game if FG goes under.
On December 04 2024 14:49 MattBarry1 wrote: Can't log onto my old TL account. Sad!
The game you're describing already exists. It's called Total Annihilation and it has many derivatives including Supreme Commander or the more recent Beyond All Reason. I've kinda come around to thinking TA-style RTSs are the pinnacle of the genre. Starcraft still stands as the single best RTS but it seems to have some kind of lightning in a bottle quality. No one has ever made a Starcraft style RTS other than Blizzard that wasn't, at best, mediocre. I blame the exponential complexity of highly asymmetric races.
TotalA really should be more popular, it fills such an interesting niche.
I like Supreme commander and BAR as well but they are very similar to eachother.
I think the RTS scene is just much better off having lots of different types of RTS. Been enjoying rogue command quite a lot, even though it's still a bit barebone right now. A rogue lite single player RTS, what a great little concept.
They definitely haven’t put much effort into this. That awkward silence between the voice line is weird. Isn’t coop hero supposed to be their main sell right now?
EPT
