In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
I second that. I don't really know exactly what is going on with these two fights (don't have played enough myself) but I found them rather engaging from a viewers point. Much more than any other RTS on the market or in development (besides BW and SC2 of course). I think I'm giving SG another shot. Haven't played the reworked campaign yet either.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
I second that. I don't really know exactly what is going on with these two fights (don't have played enough myself) but I found them rather engaging from a viewers point. Much more than any other RTS on the market or in development (besides BW and SC2 of course). I think I'm giving SG another shot. Haven't played the reworked campaign yet either.
For the second there's even a lot more going on than what I described. The sentinels (little science vessel floating looking things) have a movespeed aura that is further upgradable, plus they cast the bubble/stationary guardian shield ability which is pretty significant as it gives 80% damage reduction from ranged which is practically dark swarm. (I highly doubt it will stay that strong on release). Then there are also have Gravens throwing their reaper grenades. (They're a bit of a meme unit atm, basically a ghost that is perma cloaked if they aren't attacking, and they have a single target nuke the calls down pretty quickly).
Once balance and things are more finalized it's easy to see the potential. But that patch and matchup specifically is fried as the guy using practically every unit and spell available still manages to gets hopelessly rolled.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
I second that. I don't really know exactly what is going on with these two fights (don't have played enough myself) but I found them rather engaging from a viewers point. Much more than any other RTS on the market or in development (besides BW and SC2 of course). I think I'm giving SG another shot. Haven't played the reworked campaign yet either.
For the second there's even a lot more going on than what I described. The sentinels (little science vessel floating looking things) have a movespeed aura that is further upgradable, plus they cast the bubble/stationary guardian shield ability which is pretty significant as it gives 80% damage reduction from ranged which is practically dark swarm. (I highly doubt it will stay that strong on release). Then there are also have Gravens throwing their reaper grenades. (They're a bit of a meme unit atm, basically a ghost that is perma cloaked if they aren't attacking, and they have a single target nuke the calls down pretty quickly).
Once balance and things are more finalized it's easy to see the potential. But that patch and matchup specifically is fried as the guy using practically every unit and spell available still manages to gets hopelessly rolled.
Yeah, I think the potential is there, balance sometimes supersedes it.
When you actually get to see the majority of a toolkit used in a Stormgate match, it’s pretty fucking cool. But spamming borderline mono, or duo comps can be very dang effective.
If they can figure a way to get around that and make all these quite technical armies be the go-to, I think there’s a lot there
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
This line ('how much is human input') has also blurred over time, from WC2's casting paladin heal being a godly feat, to SC2's tanks and other units auto-avoiding massive overkill.
In ways, the advancement of technology is antithetical to the type of micro and control we're talking about here.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
This line ('how much is human input') has also blurred over time, from WC2's casting paladin heal being a godly feat, to SC2's tanks and other units auto-avoiding massive overkill.
In ways, the advancement of technology is antithetical to the type of micro and control we're talking about here.
Possibly. Hider’s argument is people will be seduced by fun micro segments.
I don’t think they will if they don’t know WHY that’s cool. If you’ve never played an RTS you’ll just see stuff fighting, big blobs of stuff fighting.
Even if you’re a very novice competitive RTS player you’ll appreciate what the top players can do that you can’t. You know how the game controls.
If you’ve no concept of how the genre plays, as an observer how does anything impress you?
Both my partner and kid had to put up with me watching a shitload of StarCraft 2, they had zero reference on why what the pros did was impressive until we played co-op together and they discovered how the game worked
Kiddo went from being ‘it’s just the next game we’re trying together’ to being like crazy impressed at my basic ability to micro and macro when we played co-op together
If a game is fun and satisfying to play that will generate more revenue and longevity than "ooh flashy explosion into blink snipe recall", especially in a free to play title.
It's really as simple as make good game -> people play good game. Catering or giving into zoomer-esque instant dopamine/gratification/gimme brain-rot just continues the cycle of slop that already exists.
Hardly anyone looks at dota or league and says "wow that looks interesting, let's try it." They know or see others playing it because it's fun and satisfying. (Despite playing both extensively I think they have always "looked" like complete ass).
TTK and micro feels very satisfying in the current game when ignoring balance and bugs. There definitely doesn't need to be any more large damaging/lethal units, spells or abilities. Last thing we need is a vocal minority that barely plays the game giving that traction.
It's still amusing talking to people that played a lot of Sc2 how much we'd all prefer WoL with simple changes like no high-ground warp-ins, no mules, no free units(Broodlord spawns). (a lot more but I think those are the big 3 off the top of my head)
Also worth noting since it's easy to get lost in the sauce of 1v1 that it's a small portion of the game at the end of the day, but vital.
We just need to see more changes and experimentation to Maps and Economy since those are heavily intertwined with tweaks to units (stats/cost/etc). I get heavily annoyed when they're focusing on things like creeps and stormgates when that should be near the bottom on priority.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
This line ('how much is human input') has also blurred over time, from WC2's casting paladin heal being a godly feat, to SC2's tanks and other units auto-avoiding massive overkill.
In ways, the advancement of technology is antithetical to the type of micro and control we're talking about here.
auto avoiding overkill was a mistake imo
On July 04 2025 13:28 Agh wrote: It's still amusing talking to people that played a lot of Sc2 how much we'd all prefer WoL with simple changes like no high-ground warp-ins, no mules, no free units(Broodlord spawns). (a lot more but I think those are the big 3 off the top of my head)
Stormgate felt much more like that 2 years ago. nowadays the pacing feels at least as fast as lotv if not faster. its quite common to have a 3rd base at 4 minutes or some units in your base attacking you before the 2 minute mark
i suppose it doesnt have the kind of worker harassment of hots+ for the early/mid game like medivac w/ boost or oracles if thats what you mean
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
Good question. As I see it, given Stormgate's budget it is too unambitious to only target RTS players. On the other hand, for Zerospace it is probably a lot more reasonable.
Personally I always imagined that the future of RTS games should appeal to its cousin - the MOBA players. Not all of them, but rather those who find enjoyment in some of the carry-heroes and/or those that can make outplayers. I think there is a large group there that a well-done modern RTS can attract.
But how do you package and sell it to them?
I don't think it can be done unless battles are awesome to watch and the gameplay contains highlights/spiky moments. When I watch a champion spotlight for a new LOL champ I think 'this looks so cool - can't wait to try it out. We need the same for RTS games.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
This line ('how much is human input') has also blurred over time, from WC2's casting paladin heal being a godly feat, to SC2's tanks and other units auto-avoiding massive overkill.
In ways, the advancement of technology is antithetical to the type of micro and control we're talking about here.
On July 04 2025 13:28 Agh wrote: It's still amusing talking to people that played a lot of Sc2 how much we'd all prefer WoL with simple changes like no high-ground warp-ins, no mules, no free units(Broodlord spawns). (a lot more but I think those are the big 3 off the top of my head)
Stormgate felt much more like that 2 years ago. nowadays the pacing feels at least as fast as lotv if not faster. its quite common to have a 3rd base at 4 minutes or some units in your base attacking you before the 2 minute mark.
agreed, and personally i liked the game pace 2 years ago much more.
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
This line ('how much is human input') has also blurred over time, from WC2's casting paladin heal being a godly feat, to SC2's tanks and other units auto-avoiding massive overkill.
In ways, the advancement of technology is antithetical to the type of micro and control we're talking about here.
On July 04 2025 13:28 Agh wrote: It's still amusing talking to people that played a lot of Sc2 how much we'd all prefer WoL with simple changes like no high-ground warp-ins, no mules, no free units(Broodlord spawns). (a lot more but I think those are the big 3 off the top of my head)
Stormgate felt much more like that 2 years ago. nowadays the pacing feels at least as fast as lotv if not faster. its quite common to have a 3rd base at 4 minutes or some units in your base attacking you before the 2 minute mark
i suppose it doesnt have the kind of worker harassment of hots+ for the early/mid game like medivac w/ boost or oracles if thats what you mean
A lot of those kinds of mechanics feel like mistakes in a big picture sense. Anything that raises the baseline of functionality of a unit by necessity reduces the skill expression, which in the short term feels good for players ("my unit went and hit their unit instead of running off to attack a worker") but in the long term limits the power of those units (Siege tanks that auto avoid overkill HAVE TO be weaker than ones that don't, for balance).
It makes me interested in the idea of units having 'personality' expressed through attack priorities as a way to prioritize positioning micro and open up the design space for units a little. Basic example would be "WC3 grunts are coded to prioritize buildings in their vision range because they're morons". It feels like it would be a way of making units 'hard to control' in a manner that players would accept and appreciate.
I assume Stormgate does not have similar, but I really -should- play Stormgate before I post more in this thread.
You get a little bit of that in the game right now. Arcships and stormgates tend to soak more unit attacks than you'd want, and it used to be worse. Base 0.5 Stormgate fights were a lot of pulling your army off the stormgate to actuall fight your opponent, and you'll see players like Aureil bring their Arcship forward/create structures to soak ranged shots
In general, this trend of attack-moving large armies into each other is a lot less fun than people think.
I think it's Stormgates biggest issue atm. Big fights are boring because players are not rewarded for doing noticeable movement-based micro. I think Battle Aces had a similar issue. Big armies walking into each other.
However, I think big army engagements can work but it requires that different type of unit design as to what we have now. The simplest solution is to add more AOE abilities and make their effects significant. In general I believe in as few abilities as possible to keep the game simple but make each ability very powerful.
It needs to be possible to turn a fight around with well-placed abilities or accurate and fast movement-based micro (e.g. dodging enemy abilities). But at the same time the gameplay cannot be too snowbally so making a single split-second error (and thus losing the team-fight) should not lose you the game.
The original concept appeared to be that the game will be more forgiving by reducing damage for both abilities and normal aa relative to Sc2. And while I am kinda fine with the latter, abilities need to be exciting and lethal. And as a consequence battles can be very volatile.
When I read something like this and some other posts it makes me wonder if the hands conjuring it have even tried playing the game seriously.
Most units have an ability or a passive that drastically changes how you can take on fights. The interactions are actually very satisfying.
The bolded part is just so objectively wrong it's painful. Atlas(Sieged), Hexen(Miasma), Animancer(Dark Prophecy) will all absolutely dumpster someone not respecting them.
The game has a plethora of issues, but what you are describing is about the least concerning of them.
Compared to Psi Storm? Or Reavers in Brood War. (or anything in Brood war really - abilities are incredibly powerful, just difficult to spam).
The point isn't to have more abiliities them selves. The point is to ensure that players are constantly rewarded for moving groups of units around in an engagement all the time during en agement, and if not during one moment of 'lack of micro' the battle could turn around.
Just found a random example. This fight at the Stormgate at 27 mins is boring.
If big engagements were amazing to play and watch with lots of movement-based micro (aside from kiting) and 'swingy movements', the game would have potential and we could look ignore some of its other flaws from now. However, if engagements don' play out well, nothing really matters..
Yes Magmadon do reward a bit of movement-based micro, but it's still way too much a-move, ability casting, move forward, move backward. What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
You need to think of it this way. If you show these engagements to a player that is part of the target group of the game. Would it excite them and make them want to play the game? If not, the game it's a much more fundamental one than any thing else.
(First video... "example") In what world do you think a 50 supply deficit with less tech should be able to compete? Ignoring the 25% supply disadvantage the infernal doesn't even have miasma at 11 minutes.
For the second, other than being on 0.4 (which the game doesn't get there unless the infernal player literally allows it, even then still should be unlosable) that fight looks more than fine. There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes. Good pulling back to a building + a tank that is on its way whiling focusing Magmadons and ranging the slow Hellbornes.
I think there is plenty offered to pique interest. Much more going on than banelings roll in banelings roll out.
What we need more is splitting of individual of units and abilities being lethal if done well.
Well I think we can agree to hard disagree. Thinking like this alone is why especially in early starcraft 2 that players (myself included) lost motivation to play. It's absolutely awful design to have a game be able end in an instant. Playing 12 minutes to have something stupid to happen on either side and that all be erased/go next in the span of 5 seconds. (It doesn't feel satisfying to win that way and it's uninstall worthy if you lose) I seriously can't imagine any high level player preferring what you would want.
Let me ask you a different question then. What gameplay footage (of around 1 minute) would you show to attract new players.
The way I've been evaluating the potential competitive games over the past many years is whether 'highlights' make the majority of the target group super interested in the game. If not, the game cannot attract interest and is effectively DOA. And the target group needs to be fairly large. It can't just be the few thousand players that are OK with the current micro of the game. It needs to reach beyond that.
And it's my belief that movement-based micro combined with very visually clear and impactful (and typically lethal) abilities is the way you accomplish this in an RTS.
There is plenty going on and also nice things like a shield on the Vulcan absorbing a ton of damage from the Hellbornes.
Notice, I keep emphasizing movement based micro and abilities rewarding that. I don't want players spamming abilities. I want players movement units around (not only kiting) as a reaction to what the opponent is doing with the occational high-impact ability that can change the outcome of the fight.
It's not about how much is going on. It's about whether what is going on is something that excites the target group.
Has the target group played any RTS at all?
I think you kind of need some level of hands-on experience of the genre to appreciate micro. It’s very unclear to anyone who’s never touched such a game how it all works, how much is human input etc etc
I mean I’ve found that introducing my kid, and partner to StarCraft.
This line ('how much is human input') has also blurred over time, from WC2's casting paladin heal being a godly feat, to SC2's tanks and other units auto-avoiding massive overkill.
In ways, the advancement of technology is antithetical to the type of micro and control we're talking about here.
auto avoiding overkill was a mistake imo
On July 04 2025 13:28 Agh wrote: It's still amusing talking to people that played a lot of Sc2 how much we'd all prefer WoL with simple changes like no high-ground warp-ins, no mules, no free units(Broodlord spawns). (a lot more but I think those are the big 3 off the top of my head)
Stormgate felt much more like that 2 years ago. nowadays the pacing feels at least as fast as lotv if not faster. its quite common to have a 3rd base at 4 minutes or some units in your base attacking you before the 2 minute mark
i suppose it doesnt have the kind of worker harassment of hots+ for the early/mid game like medivac w/ boost or oracles if thats what you mean
It makes me interested in the idea of units having 'personality' expressed through attack priorities as a way to prioritize positioning micro and open up the design space for units a little. Basic example would be "WC3 grunts are coded to prioritize buildings in their vision range because they're morons". It feels like it would be a way of making units 'hard to control' in a manner that players would accept and appreciate.
I didn't know that, that's very cool! I really dig the idea.
On July 05 2025 11:17 BeoMulf wrote: You get a little bit of that in the game right now. Arcships and stormgates tend to soak more unit attacks than you'd want, and it used to be worse. Base 0.5 Stormgate fights were a lot of pulling your army off the stormgate to actuall fight your opponent, and you'll see players like Aureil bring their Arcship forward/create structures to soak ranged shots
Yeah SC's had some of this too at various points in their life, flying barracks to scout and using ovies to soak some damage. I think that's interesting conceptually and I -think- I like it, but it's hard to say without playing it in a game and meta where it's necessary/core to strategy.
On July 05 2025 16:45 Miragee wrote: I didn't know that, that's very cool! I really dig the idea.
Thanks! For clarity, that is NOT how WC3 works currently afaik, in case that's what was understood.
Majority player wanna see a slower game pace and less bases as fast. Make tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 have a dedicated place that last minutes each and don't just get skipped over. I have a build right now that is 100% safe vs vanguard. 3 luminite 2 therium saturated and I get dragon by 6:30 in time for 2nd stormgate. That is way too fast for your "end game" unit to show up. And for reference, yes I'm over 2000 rating.
I hope frost giant hear this. Slow the game down massively. Game progression is faster than any other RTS atm.
I'm fine with current pace but I think with it they should just give every race charges on production. That way it eases pressure to be super crisp and know the exact timings of when to add etc.
It also has the added benefit of addressing a defenders advantage solution that is equal across the board, rather than 1 race just being able to build a production facility at each expansion and be able to shit out units with energy as needed. Not to mention it would allow more freedom in map variety rather than a cookie cutter standard that we will eventually get.
It's a pretty easy fix vs having to do sweeping changes, but the game will shift more towards being battle aces lite (which may not be a bad thing..)
slightly related to Stormgate, have you guys heard of the Stop Killing Games petition that got over a million signatures? They basically want to make it so after a company releases a game, they have to keep it online forever, whether it is handing it over to the community to run or whatever the solution may be. Companies argue you are purchasing a license, not the game, so they hold no legal obligation to keep the game servers playable for you, but Stop Killing Games wants to change that. What do you think? If this goes through then there is a chance that no matter the player count of stormgate after 1.0, we may be able to play it forever. I find this movement extremely relevant to stormgates situation and quite interesting how it will develop.
EPT
