|
On June 11 2023 10:20 Archeon wrote:On creeping: Never minded it, but my days of RTS pvp are probably behind me anyways. I think it's good for campaign design and gives devs more incentive to vary threats. Show nested quote +On June 10 2023 06:54 The_Red_Viper wrote:
My point is that the actual execution of the decision IS like playing a rhythm game. You want more of x (decision), you really wanna hit the timing of pressing the button to build x at the moment it is not in queue anymore. The better you are at that with all the macro mechanics, the better you'll do because you use your money the most efficient way possible. That's the prewritten song here.
But that isn't what makes these games interesting, it's a mechanical input test which takes up quite a lot of the actions of the players, on things which have no dynamic element to them, instead of trying to design away from that and make inputs count towards the pvp sections of the game mostly.
People on this forum are heavily biased towards starcrafts design because that is what they are used to, explaining that you really need all of this to even have a skillfull game, it's nonsense, lacks vision and is imo simply married to what one knows, instead of looking beyond that.
I get it, we all kinda like the flow of it i assume, there is a certain enjoyable nature to it, but this feeling could be generated in other ways, we also all love how good it feels to make some nice micro moves. The mechanical input test is an error generator and errors are what makes these games interesting. If you can entirely overview what's happening and spend your entire time in one area you'll likely hit a mechanical cap eventually and things will just run down optimal buildorders with little variation. Obviously you can design a game to be more circumstantial and randomized with little macro-mechanical demand where it becomes more about getting the most out of the hand you were dealt, but then we're talking about different genres and not action packed fair pvp strategy games. If you dislike the macro mechanics specifically Dawn of War 1 and 2 minimized base building and mainly are about moving units on the map and in skirmishes. They are still clickfests though.
Sure, but there is no need to have an "error generator" which takes most of the actions in the realm of macro. Any input which happens in real time is in theory such an error generator, in any game. I am mostly talking against the macro aspect here, because it takes space over other, more dynamic, more pvp focused inputs which would also 'error check'.
If you design a game in such a way that most of the inputs should be spent actively on the map, achieving things where there is constant danger of some pvp interaction, that does exactly the same thing in this highly abstract idea of generating errors, but it is interactive, dynamic, creates scenarios which are 'fun' (using units vs placing a building).
The popular pc games all do this i think, whereas starcraft is doing the opposite, imo an oldschool design which limits the genre massively.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
Just realized the "new" showcased unit is literally in the reveal screenshots in the OP.
![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/Waxangel/stormgate/june9reveal/screenshot1.png)
When is the game showcase? Even the content they are giving us is re-used. We really need something new.
|
On June 12 2023 01:15 [Phantom] wrote:Just realized the "new" showcased unit is literally in the reveal screenshots in the OP. When is the game showcase? Even the content they are giving us is re-used. We really need something new.
Releasing pre-alpha footage is risky because it's easy to cause disappointment. I guess that's why we see relatively old footage. They need time to make it look exciting and can't switch builds for that to work. That triggers some bad memory from the Cyberpunk gameplay showcase, a really well-done area, that was worse in the final release, but still among the best content in the game,
Let's hope my doom and gloom is completely unfounded, and we witness the first footage of a great, genre defining game.
Edit:
Countdown timer:
https://countingdownto.com/w4/display/57X8IEuz
Where to watch:
https://www.twitch.tv/pcgamer
https://www.youtube.com/pcgamer
|
|
|
On June 11 2023 16:33 Hildegard wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2023 11:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On June 11 2023 10:20 Archeon wrote:
The mechanical input test is an error generator and errors are what makes these games interesting. If you can entirely overview what's happening and spend your entire time in one area you'll likely hit a mechanical cap eventually and things will just run down optimal buildorders with little variation. Go achieves a lot of depth in the variations with "buildorders" and follow ups (more than you can count) without ofc having any mechanical input test, because of simple but balanced rules. It's harder to balance a game with less simple rules as well as go is, but should be possible. This would be high level balance. Go is symmetrical, however. With three distinct factions, balance needs to be achieved with unachievable skill checks. This means you can't get it perfect, but you can do things a lot better than the opponent. Now, with different areas of unachievable skill checks, player styles can emerge. Once balance looks somewhat ok, it moves to maps and small buffs and nerfs that move the win rates of specific match-ups closer to 50-50 for professional players. This was the SC2 approach, and it works pretty well for professional play. However, this approach does not work across different skill levels, as seen by Protoss dominance at non-professional levels and Zerg dominance at professional level for a long time.
Well I do believe it is possible to make a better game even than the existing ones.
|
well after dorf, stormgate will have a hard time
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On June 12 2023 05:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:
well after dorf, stormgate will have a hard time
Turns out dorf is the true RTS succesor we didn't expect. It actually does look very cool.
|
I think your bolded quote is very, very wrong. Microing your macro, especially while also attempting other objectives like moving your army or scouting, has a crazy skillceiling and is heavily rewarded in SC2.
For 99.98% of the playerbase, your ability to quickly gather and efficiently spend resources is the largest differentiating factor in most games (yes, even if you play Terran. Loool). Even in professional games it often is. We've all seen some of those Innovation or Serral (pro level) games where they `accidentally' win, because their light pressure arrives 10 seconds sooner and with 2 more units than when anyone else does it - not because they micro it perfectly, but because they have
I view macro as a form of multitasking. It's not super high skillcap by itself though since it doesn't involve mouse precision. When you need high mouse precision + high APM as you need in micro battles, that's where the real difference between the top 1% and the top 0.001% comes into play.
Obviously automated macro would all things equal make the game have a lower skill cap. But I think you can compensate that with rewarding more multitasking/action in other ways and it would be fine.
On the disucssion on whether macro or not is a fundamental part of an RTS. As I view an issue RTS games have is that they wanna try and do everything. Macro, micro, scouting, strategies, tactics. And it's one of the reasons the genre is dying because its overwhelming.
Rather, I think game developers need to focus on the parts of the game that the target audience really wants and make those part feel as great and have as high skillcap as possible and simplify it in other ways. If you believe that's macro, okay great then go all in and try to make that part feel great. However, it's not gonna reach a noticeable audience if you are gonna force all players to learn micro, scouting and reactions and all the various late-game strategies as well.
|
That warhammer game looked rough, Dorf still best RTS
|
Anyone know when the SG content is scheduled to run? It's getting late where I am...
|
Damn, this taking too long.....
|
well they obviously have to save the best for last, right???
|
I'm just going to have to watch it in reruns. I hope it's cool!
|
Finally!
It's on youtube now.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
The game does look more like it will play like Warcraft than it does Sc2, so I'm not sure if people here will like that.
Also it was pretty short. Basically 2 engagements, and one super early game.
Still, it looks cool. I liked it.But again, very few things shown.
Although to be fair, Zelda tears of the kingdom showed jack shit before release and it turned out great so we'll see.
(Although if I'm honest I may still have liked D.O.R.F trailer more...)
|
Looked promising from a first view, very inspired by warcraft and starcraft which isn't surprising, high micro focus? Love the trees which block bigger units for a map design idea, solid i'd say for prealpha footage.
|
|
|
Quick thoughts on the gameplay: Thought it looked okay. However, I am slightly worried it just becomes an easier version of Sc2with some QoL improvements.
As I argued previously while you can make Sc2 in some ways, you need to compensate it in other ways. And I am not quite sure they are doing that.
In terms of skillcap, the significant reduction in army size (really managing max of 15 units is not a lot if you don't have hero-units with multiple abilities) will most likely make the game be much easier to play.
|
United States33693 Posts
zepellin micro and creepjacking, this is war3 
|
It looks a lot closer to WC3 than SC2 indeed.
But it also looks even closer to the first terran footage of sc2 that was shown (small army sizes, lot's of micro, even a foresty terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
