|
was absolutely shocked to open this thread and see that there are people who care about stormgate.
I read the past few pages of discussion.
Here's my contribution -
Stormgate as a whole should be used as a case study on how to mess up a RTS game launch.
None of these small videos or art changes or tweets mean anything to me, as a person who was really hyped to try the game out when EA first dropped in that horrible state it was in.
I think their only real shot at redemption is just ceasing all communication, hunkering down and working on the game like the No Man's Sky devs did, and just release the game at 1.0 as a full release and no more EA bullshit with the entire vision of the game (if they still dont have one then finally commit to something) and all the possible changes and features they would want the full game to have.
Then do a massive marketing push showing how much stuff has changed and hope to god that there is enough new stuff there for people to give it enough thought to actually reinstall and try it out.
|
On June 18 2025 21:34 abuse wrote:
was absolutely shocked to open this thread and see that there are people who care about stormgate.
I read the past few pages of discussion.
Here's my contribution -
Stormgate as a whole should be used as a case study on how to mess up a RTS game launch.
None of these small videos or art changes or tweets mean anything to me, as a person who was really hyped to try the game out when EA first dropped in that horrible state it was in.
I think their only real shot at redemption is just ceasing all communication, hunkering down and working on the game like the No Man's Sky devs did, and just release the game at 1.0 as a full release and no more EA bullshit with the entire vision of the game (if they still dont have one then finally commit to something) and all the possible changes and features they would want the full game to have.
Then do a massive marketing push showing how much stuff has changed and hope to god that there is enough new stuff there for people to give it enough thought to actually reinstall and try it out.
Last patch we had over 500 concurrents. If we get 6 or 700 this patch stormgate will officially be saved. That would be a VERY good indicator there is still genuine interest in the project. I'd say a steady flow ~1000 concurrents at 1.0 will be enough to fund the game indefinitely.
|
On June 19 2025 07:50 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 21:34 abuse wrote:
was absolutely shocked to open this thread and see that there are people who care about stormgate.
I read the past few pages of discussion.
Here's my contribution -
Stormgate as a whole should be used as a case study on how to mess up a RTS game launch.
None of these small videos or art changes or tweets mean anything to me, as a person who was really hyped to try the game out when EA first dropped in that horrible state it was in.
I think their only real shot at redemption is just ceasing all communication, hunkering down and working on the game like the No Man's Sky devs did, and just release the game at 1.0 as a full release and no more EA bullshit with the entire vision of the game (if they still dont have one then finally commit to something) and all the possible changes and features they would want the full game to have.
Then do a massive marketing push showing how much stuff has changed and hope to god that there is enough new stuff there for people to give it enough thought to actually reinstall and try it out. Last patch we had over 500 concurrents. If we get 6 or 700 this patch stormgate will officially be saved. That would be a VERY good indicator there is still genuine interest in the project. I'd say a steady flow ~1000 concurrents at 1.0 will be enough to fund the game indefinitely.
for one single day. it dropped to 290 in a week, and 190 in another week.
it's hovering around peak 50 and dipping to sub 20s just 2 months after the patch. (it's 21 as of the time I am editing this)
even ~200 steady at 1.0 is going to be a tall order.
|
Northern Ireland26214 Posts
On June 19 2025 07:50 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 21:34 abuse wrote:
was absolutely shocked to open this thread and see that there are people who care about stormgate.
I read the past few pages of discussion.
Here's my contribution -
Stormgate as a whole should be used as a case study on how to mess up a RTS game launch.
None of these small videos or art changes or tweets mean anything to me, as a person who was really hyped to try the game out when EA first dropped in that horrible state it was in.
I think their only real shot at redemption is just ceasing all communication, hunkering down and working on the game like the No Man's Sky devs did, and just release the game at 1.0 as a full release and no more EA bullshit with the entire vision of the game (if they still dont have one then finally commit to something) and all the possible changes and features they would want the full game to have.
Then do a massive marketing push showing how much stuff has changed and hope to god that there is enough new stuff there for people to give it enough thought to actually reinstall and try it out. Last patch we had over 500 concurrents. If we get 6 or 700 this patch stormgate will officially be saved. That would be a VERY good indicator there is still genuine interest in the project. I'd say a steady flow ~1000 concurrents at 1.0 will be enough to fund the game indefinitely.
Will it?
1000 or up concurrents is probably pretty healthy territory for a good actual gaming experience. Enough players, hopefully of a broad enough skill level, that you can find matches quickly, and fair ones.
But they need to be spending money too if we’re talking actually funding the whole thing.
One thing I did see was there’s some new Game of Thrones strategy game in development that’s apparently using Frost Giant’s Snowplay engine/module. I’ve thought that could be a promising avenue for them for funding.
If I’m another developer, the bells and whistles of UE5 are pretty tasty to have, but I believe isn’t great out of the box for certain RTS things.
So just paying to license Snowplay, and getting the benefits of using UE5 in certain areas, without having to build your own set of RTS-centric tools, quite an attractive proposition.
|
On June 19 2025 20:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 07:50 CicadaSC wrote:On June 18 2025 21:34 abuse wrote:
was absolutely shocked to open this thread and see that there are people who care about stormgate.
I read the past few pages of discussion.
Here's my contribution -
Stormgate as a whole should be used as a case study on how to mess up a RTS game launch.
None of these small videos or art changes or tweets mean anything to me, as a person who was really hyped to try the game out when EA first dropped in that horrible state it was in.
I think their only real shot at redemption is just ceasing all communication, hunkering down and working on the game like the No Man's Sky devs did, and just release the game at 1.0 as a full release and no more EA bullshit with the entire vision of the game (if they still dont have one then finally commit to something) and all the possible changes and features they would want the full game to have.
Then do a massive marketing push showing how much stuff has changed and hope to god that there is enough new stuff there for people to give it enough thought to actually reinstall and try it out. Last patch we had over 500 concurrents. If we get 6 or 700 this patch stormgate will officially be saved. That would be a VERY good indicator there is still genuine interest in the project. I'd say a steady flow ~1000 concurrents at 1.0 will be enough to fund the game indefinitely. Will it? 1000 or up concurrents is probably pretty healthy territory for a good actual gaming experience. Enough players, hopefully of a broad enough skill level, that you can find matches quickly, and fair ones. But they need to be spending money too if we’re talking actually funding the whole thing. One thing I did see was there’s some new Game of Thrones strategy game in development that’s apparently using Frost Giant’s Snowplay engine/module. I’ve thought that could be a promising avenue for them for funding. If I’m another developer, the bells and whistles of UE5 are pretty tasty to have, but I believe isn’t great out of the box for certain RTS things. So just paying to license Snowplay, and getting the benefits of using UE5 in certain areas, without having to build your own set of RTS-centric tools, quite an attractive proposition.
man, you just made me a lot less excited for the GoT game 
|
is it really confirmed the got game is using snowplay?
|
United States33497 Posts
https://playstormgate.com/news/stormgates
Looks like creeps are being scrapped and they're introducing a new neutral objective mechanic. They haven't revealed the exact gameplay implementation, but looks like it will be contestable power-ups spawning at the center of the map at certain intervals (locations probably randomized if you go by the map preview).
Personally I'm kinda meh about neutral objectives in RTS, but further differentiation from SC2 is prolly the way to go for multiplayer since ppl seem to think it's just not-as-good SC2 at the moment.
|
Northern Ireland26214 Posts
On June 19 2025 22:15 abuse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 20:36 WombaT wrote:On June 19 2025 07:50 CicadaSC wrote:On June 18 2025 21:34 abuse wrote:
was absolutely shocked to open this thread and see that there are people who care about stormgate.
I read the past few pages of discussion.
Here's my contribution -
Stormgate as a whole should be used as a case study on how to mess up a RTS game launch.
None of these small videos or art changes or tweets mean anything to me, as a person who was really hyped to try the game out when EA first dropped in that horrible state it was in.
I think their only real shot at redemption is just ceasing all communication, hunkering down and working on the game like the No Man's Sky devs did, and just release the game at 1.0 as a full release and no more EA bullshit with the entire vision of the game (if they still dont have one then finally commit to something) and all the possible changes and features they would want the full game to have.
Then do a massive marketing push showing how much stuff has changed and hope to god that there is enough new stuff there for people to give it enough thought to actually reinstall and try it out. Last patch we had over 500 concurrents. If we get 6 or 700 this patch stormgate will officially be saved. That would be a VERY good indicator there is still genuine interest in the project. I'd say a steady flow ~1000 concurrents at 1.0 will be enough to fund the game indefinitely. Will it? 1000 or up concurrents is probably pretty healthy territory for a good actual gaming experience. Enough players, hopefully of a broad enough skill level, that you can find matches quickly, and fair ones. But they need to be spending money too if we’re talking actually funding the whole thing. One thing I did see was there’s some new Game of Thrones strategy game in development that’s apparently using Frost Giant’s Snowplay engine/module. I’ve thought that could be a promising avenue for them for funding. If I’m another developer, the bells and whistles of UE5 are pretty tasty to have, but I believe isn’t great out of the box for certain RTS things. So just paying to license Snowplay, and getting the benefits of using UE5 in certain areas, without having to build your own set of RTS-centric tools, quite an attractive proposition. man, you just made me a lot less excited for the GoT game
It’s taken a bit of smoothing out, especially with performance.
If there’s one thing I can’t be very critical about with Stormgate it probably is the engine.
Of course not very critical doesn’t mean zero criticism. I think they unnecessarily pushed the tick/refresh rate/response rate (can’t remember the exact term, someone more knowledgeable can correct) unnecessarily high (way higher than SC2), and performance can suffer quite a lot.
‘Feel’ wise, it’s pretty bloody good. To the degree I kinda feel myself liking the engine more than the game itself, so I’d be interested to see what other teams could also do with it.
Also I do keep saying engine here, to my understanding it’s not really an ‘engine’ as such but a kind of module for UE5 that deals with some of the things it doesn’t really do well for RTS out the box. Quite a lot of which are to do with multiplayer networking I believe, not just the more obvious things like pathing.
On June 20 2025 04:34 sertas wrote:
is it really confirmed the got game is using snowplay?
No, I went and checked. I did see some posts on Reddit claiming as such earlier this week. Chat GPT did pull quite a few posts from disparate sources for me, including some who claimed insider knowledge.
But it’s very difficult to tell if it’s not a case of one bullshitter who seems credible, says something and it spreads as rumours spread, or if there’s something in it.
|
I like the idea which is already done in gate of pyre. The middle neutral is "captured" by whoever hits the cap amount of damage done to it.
So it's a choice between pulling their army away from it while you get some damage in vs attacking their army vs attacking the neutral directly.
Not sure how it will function in stormgate, but the gate of pyre one is specifically to offer a game ending amount of 3rd resource, so the end game doesn't drag on forever..
Hopefully SG will learn something from it, though I feel it is gonna be some half baked ideas again imo.
|
Swarm Mother – (Tier 3) Relentlessly spits out groups of Swarmlings.
so swarmhosts. these stormgates can give you swarmhosts.
i get you want to break siege position and that was kind of the point of creep camps and now stormgates to force players on to the map and to fight, but i don't know if free unit spam is the answer. why not look at hmm lets say mechabellum. A Giant Nuke? so if your opponent is active he can walk out of it but if he is camping with a lot of static D you can destroy that. Or a giant moving ion beam? so come lazers? I dont know i think there are a lot of fun things you could try.
Overall I like this idea of stormgates more than creep camps from a pure fun perspective and i think it is a good first step.
|
What is going on with that Frostgiant camp man. Holyshit didnt Swarmhost forced the majority of the player base out from Heart of Swarm ? Idk what was worse. Broodlord infestor or the Swarmhost era. Anyway i think the majority of us is still waiting for 1.0.
Creep camps yeah they were boring. Those rewards seemed very cheap to me. Oh healing. Vision.. Is just very cheap.
I honestly would have done something more extreme. Kill creep camps at some specific timing to gain an unit that will help you to kill defenses or an unit that will have longer range that will last 40 seconds. I mean like in League of legends that you get that dragon that help kill turrets. Just something more exciting and useful to get. But well we are past that. Lets see now what are those portals about.
Something i truly didnt understand for a game that is in early access is the lack of units for testing. Give the game multiple units to test with different skills and scale powers. And then stay with the most fun ones. Give character to your air units. Add fun mechanics that you can use to outplay your opponent.
You cant deny the game looks way better from what it started. But the stuff i have seen is always so basic, And now we are bringing swarmhosts. Who cares about that shit.
|
On June 20 2025 18:52 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote:
What is going on with that Frostgiant camp man. Holyshit didnt Swarmhost forced the majority of the player base out from Heart of Swarm ? Idk what was worse. Broodlord infestor or the Swarmhost era. Anyway i think the majority of us is still waiting for 1.0.
Creep camps yeah they were boring. Those rewards seemed very cheap to me. Oh healing. Vision.. Is just very cheap.
I honestly would have done something more extreme. Kill creep camps at some specific timing to gain an unit that will help you to kill defenses or an unit that will have longer range that will last 40 seconds. I mean like in League of legends that you get that dragon that help kill turrets. Just something more exciting and useful to get. But well we are past that. Lets see now what are those portals about.
Something i truly didnt understand for a game that is in early access is the lack of units for testing. Give the game multiple units to test with different skills and scale powers. And then stay with the most fun ones. Give character to your air units. Add fun mechanics that you can use to outplay your opponent.
You cant deny the game looks way better from what it started. But the stuff i have seen is always so basic, And now we are bringing swarmhosts. Who cares about that shit.
100% agree.
|
I don't really get the new map features when the core unit stats/strength and costs still need to be addressed.
The maps in general are really bad. There are a lot of ways to improve them but the current sizes and layouts are pretty abysmal. From the actual spawns(mains) and expansions to Therium placement, and creep camp positioning, it's all a mess.
We're pretty much playing scrap station 2.0 along with sc1 campaign resources.
I'm not a fan of gutting features unless they actively take away from the game or make it worse. Not entirely sure of the decision to take away creeps. Sure things needed to be done like not show vision or that you've captured it until it has been scouted, but just add the stormgates on top of the current maps separately.
Need to see and play the actual changes to know that it's not just going to be one race lollerskating over the new objectives like it is currently.
|
It may be the nature of their development process, but from an outsider perspective it doesn't sound good that they're dropping features like creep camps. Given their development timeline you'd want to believe they still have a strong idea of the 'complete' product and what's fun and awesome in it and it's just a matter of bringing the features together. This on the other hand makes it feel like they're still very much throwing around ideas and trying to see what sticks. In a way the game feels further away from the 1.0 now.
Scrapping the camps may very well be the correct call here gameplay quality wise, but image & PR wise it feels like a pretty big setback to me.
|
The motivation behind creep-camps and stormgates are (I assume) to encourage players to get out on the map. However, the question I ponder is what happens when a player has a much weaker fighting army? Should he still be forced out on the map to fight a fight he can't win?
IMO this is misunderstanding on how you encourage battles in Sc2 and it's a similar misunderstanding that led to the design of the HOTS Swarm Host.
A player that is weak at a given point in time should be allowed to sit in his base. The way he can get back in the game is by properly utilising defensive positions until he reaches a similar army value.
The player with map-control should have a better econ so he can trade cost ineffetively while still keeping the trades efficient. The problem we sometimes have seen with turtling play is that offensive player can't trade at all and barely has a stronger economy.
I understand Stormgate needs to take big gambles and try something new. But I believe this shows a misunderstanding on how to encourage action in an RTS.
Better design would players could position a few defensive units around the map and trade cost effectively against a much larger army. In SC2 (unlike BW) you almost aways benefit from grouping your army together as a big ball trades better vs a small army. Stormgate should have focussed on unit-design (or other mechanics) that addresses that issue.
|
Isn't it better to force many small engagements to decide the game instead of having one big fight, turtle, one big more to end the game?
Basically making goals spread out and important but not requiring a large army. With max supply being a rare event in 1vs1? (I hate these types of games though, too high APM requirements to feel like you are playing decent.)
|
On June 21 2025 16:40 Yurie wrote:
Isn't it better to force many small engagements to decide the game instead of having one big fight, turtle, one big more to end the game?
Basically making goals spread out and important but not requiring a large army. With max supply being a rare event in 1vs1? (I hate these types of games though, too high APM requirements to feel like you are playing decent.)
Yeah.
It depends on plenty of finer details of course, but I think for example some of the absolute worst SC2 metas have been the ones where the best comeback solution is to turtle up, max out and hope the volatility of clumped units somehow gives you a winning fight. A lot of the time the underdog is stalling the game for some pretty marginal odds.
I think in SC2's case the issues were a lot about how easily the clumped units and pathfinding convert the army advantage into crushing wins. It's then ramped up even further by base units having some insane positioning & chasing tools like concussive shot, blink and such that make it very difficult to disengage effectively. All this meant that the threshold where you could no longer really fight on the map was hit very soon once you were in disadvantage.
|
Each time I look at the stormgate discord and the links to the leddit ama's they did I lose a little hope for humanity.
People suggesting things about "comeback" mechanics is absolutely wild. If you suck & are behind early and aren't going for a build that will pay off later you take the L and a spoonful of git gud. Your strategy and diversions you're forced into or decide to take based on scouting and game state are your "comeback" mechanics.
In regards to defender's advantage, I don't like the idea of static defense being strong. It creates uninteresting gameplay from both a player and spectator point of view. Even things like Celestial's collection array defense beam (albeit thankfully nerfed from the original state and much more niche now) are still too immediately powerful being able to outright thwart of kill most forms of harassment immediately.
I think Warcraft 3 was the first and only real game to truly have the best solution. Each each had a unique base defense (Militia, Moonwells, Burrows, Ghouls) that was pretty much isolated from offensive capability.
The top bar in Stormgate allows for something like this but isn't utilized in that way currently.
Just having a separate ability with 2 or 3 uses for the entire game that would grant each race a unique defending affect would be welcomed. Eg) Celestials current one would fall perfectly into this category.
|
On June 22 2025 13:18 Agh wrote:
Each time I look at the stormgate discord and the links to the leddit ama's they did I lose a little hope for humanity.
People suggesting things about "comeback" mechanics is absolutely wild. If you suck & are behind early and aren't going for a build that will pay off later you take the L and a spoonful of git gud. Your strategy and diversions you're forced into or decide to take based on scouting and game statE are your "comeback" mechanics.
In regards to defender's advantage, I don't like the idea of strong defense being strong. It creates uninteresting gameplay from both a player and spectator point of view. Even things like Celestial's collection array defense beam (albeit thankfully nerfed from the original state and much more niche now) are still too immediately powerful being able to outright thwart of kill most forms of harassment immediately.
I think Warcraft 3 was the first and only real game to truly have the best solution. Each each had a unique base defense (Militia, Moonwells, Burrows, Ghouls) that was pretty much isolated from offensive capability.
The top bar in Stormgate allows for something like this but isn't utilized in that way currently.
Just having a separate ability with 2 or 3 uses for the entire game that would grant each race a unique defending affect would be welcomed. Eg) Celestials current one would fall perfectly into this category.
agreed. i think come back mechanics as an idea are stupid, but there is still potential to make them ok. i think the way stormgates are being implemented its not bad. if you are ahead, you can take map control and secure every single one, and instead of a comeback mechanic it becomes a snowball mechanic and a game ender. However, if your opponent is ahead but makes a mistake and ignored a crucial stormgate, or over commits to it and exposes themself to a counter attack, then i guess it opens windows to come back. It's a comeback mechanic that only exists if the other player makes a mistake basically.
|
On June 21 2025 20:08 Bacillus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2025 16:40 Yurie wrote:
Isn't it better to force many small engagements to decide the game instead of having one big fight, turtle, one big more to end the game?
Basically making goals spread out and important but not requiring a large army. With max supply being a rare event in 1vs1? (I hate these types of games though, too high APM requirements to feel like you are playing decent.) Yeah. It depends on plenty of finer details of course, but I think for example some of the absolute worst SC2 metas have been the ones where the best comeback solution is to turtle up, max out and hope the volatility of clumped units somehow gives you a winning fight. A lot of the time the underdog is stalling the game for some pretty marginal odds. I think in SC2's case the issues were a lot about how easily the clumped units and pathfinding convert the army advantage into crushing wins. It's then ramped up even further by base units having some insane positioning & chasing tools like concussive shot, blink and such that make it very difficult to disengage effectively. All this meant that the threshold where you could no longer really fight on the map was hit very soon once you were in disadvantage.
Yes and I think the focus of a modern RTS should be replicate BW's dynamic where small units can cost effectively trade against larger armies without a BWtype of pathing. That would require new types of abilities or mechanics - some experimentation would definitely be required.
In regards to defender's advantage, I don't like the idea of strong defense being strong. It creates uninteresting gameplay from both a player and spectator point of view. Even things like Celestial's collection array defense beam (albeit thankfully nerfed from the original state and much more niche now) are still too immediately powerful being able to outright thwart of kill most forms of harassment immediately.
A strong defenders advantage is a neccesity - however it is essential that the optimal gameplay becomes "keep your entire army together while turtling". Hence something that accomplishes what I mentioned above so a defensive player is encouraged to spread small groups of units out across the map. The aggresive player will need a larger army to break the position and will trade cost ineffectively in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
