EPTStormgate/Frost Giant Megathread - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 13 2023 10:07 WombaT wrote: What is tick rate just how often the game state is refreshed per unit time? Tick rate is how many times per second the game state is refreshed. You'll most often see this in fps games where 128 tick servers are much better than 64 tick servers. More is better for sure, but I'm not sure how much it matters for an rts. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17356 Posts
On June 13 2023 10:18 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Tick rate is how many times per second the game state is refreshed. You'll most often see this in fps games where 128 tick servers are much better than 64 tick servers. More is better for sure, but I'm not sure how much it matters for an rts. It's not refresh rate really but how often the game polls for player input and updates it every second (separate from visual refresh rate for example). In RTS it matters in terms of unit responsiveness (the higher the tick rate the sooner a unit can begin executing orders). It's especially important if you're issuing a lot of commands very fast since they won't have to be queued (tick rate of 1 means that if you input 10 commands in a second they will all be executed but only after this second has passed). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9404 Posts
On June 13 2023 05:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in basketball, baseball and hockey the #1 motivator to play... is that the game one is playing in ... at that very moment ... is fun. If the game itself is not fun for its own sake... in the very moment one is playing ...hardly anyone will stick with it. In Hockey no one played like Wayne Gretzky before... or since. In baseball, any one under 235 lbs can not hit like the greatest hitter of all time: Barry Bonds. In fact, hitting like Barry Bonds is pretty boring. Almost no one can play basketball like Lebron James. These sports have high player counts because they are just plain fun to play. Great games are fun at many different levels of play. Great game designers can pull off the difficult feat of making a game fun for all levels of player. We'll soon find out if these guys are as good as people like Browder, Pardo, and Kim. I wonder what guys like James Naismith and Abner Doubleday would have to say about 21st century game designers. True, and one of the points I've been trying to make over the last pages is that devs should figure out the essential part of the gameplay experience for the target audience and what adds unnecessary complexity. Double down on the essential parts and get rid of/minimize the unnecessary parts. Remember, the original topic point was about it not being exciting. What that means is that when we imagine us self playing it, we don't think it be that much fun - or at least we are worried about the longevity of it. A high-skillcap is required to make any game and sport fun and exciting. It's ofc not the only component - but one of many. But you don't need a high skillcap on parts that aren't particular fun for the target audience. You need it on the fun parts of the gameplay. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2578 Posts
It would be cool if the same depth of play could be extracted from the parts of the game that a casual observer immediately grasps as being intrinsically fun. If the things that a new player is immediately drawn to and fascinated by are the places where you find the endless rabbit holes of skill. Because of my experience playing SC2 and BW, I am very happy to play the macro puzzle game and learn how to execute precise builds, but if that skill check could somehow be moved into the realm of micro and army management, that would be the sort of innovation that would make me excited to play a new RTS. | ||
|
Sableyeah
Netherlands2119 Posts
On June 13 2023 05:02 Hider wrote: Spells are certainly an area where I think blizzard has struggled. In general spells should do either do one of the following: 1. Encourage movement-based micro or 2. Allow some type of new tactical-based opportunity. I think there zero cases of the latter in Sc2 (?), so that's really a hypothetical but I think it could work in some situations. Spells also shouldn't be APM-intensive. We want players to spend as much of their APM moving their units around. Spells should encourage more of that, not take focus away. Psi Storm is an example of something that encourages movement-based micro. I feel like the Raven is a perfect example of how a unit really does embrace your second point. All 3 abilities allows for the terran to make instantaneous decision based on the effectiveness of the spell used. 1.Consider how a turret has a variety of ways to win a battle tactically forcing a decision from the opposition ie worker harass or trading mana for units in a defensive position. 2.Missle can hit or miss and decide the tide of battle in a heartbeat. 3.Same goes for the disable. While in offensive positions a disable against a Collosus or 2 can completely shift the game. The main point being that a spell should force players to make meaningful decisions, weither it be movement-based micro or deal with the situation on a different/macro-level. Maybe I cant wrap my head around why you think there arent any tactical based opportunity with spells in SC2. Maybe more interactions where certain spells directly counter(zerg pull × blink) or maybe synergizes(archontoilet) other spells can spice up gameplay. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On June 13 2023 22:42 Sableyeah wrote: I feel like the Raven is a perfect example of how a unit really does embrace your second point. All 3 abilities allows for the terran to make instantaneous decision based on the effectiveness of the spell used. 1.Consider how a turret has a variety of ways to win a battle tactically forcing a decision from the opposition ie worker harass or trading mana for units in a defensive position. 2.Missle can hit or miss and decide the tide of battle in a heartbeat. 3.Same goes for the disable. While in offensive positions a disable against a Collosus or 2 can completely shift the game. The main point being that a spell should force players to make meaningful decisions, weither it be movement-based micro or deal with the situation on a different/macro-level. Maybe I cant wrap my head around why you think there arent any tactical based opportunity with spells in SC2. Maybe more interactions where certain spells directly counter(zerg pull × blink) or maybe synergizes(archontoilet) other spells can spice up gameplay. It allows a Terran to make quite a lot of calls in that regard Opponents, less so. Quite a lot of abilities don’t have all that much counterplay. The raven is a weird one in it’s quite a versatile and interesting caster to me when you have one or two, but it ends up scaling too well in TvT that it ends up a frequently dominant unit. Ghosts in TvZ and old Infestors had that kind of problem as well. I’m interested to see what direction they go with casters, if memory serves in some of those Q+As they did stress that they want casters to augment compositions, not be so core or massable like we’ve seen in SC2, and to be fair WC3 as well with certain comps | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9404 Posts
On June 13 2023 22:42 Sableyeah wrote: I feel like the Raven is a perfect example of how a unit really does embrace your second point. All 3 abilities allows for the terran to make instantaneous decision based on the effectiveness of the spell used. 1.Consider how a turret has a variety of ways to win a battle tactically forcing a decision from the opposition ie worker harass or trading mana for units in a defensive position. 2.Missle can hit or miss and decide the tide of battle in a heartbeat. 3.Same goes for the disable. While in offensive positions a disable against a Collosus or 2 can completely shift the game. Yeh fair enough on the Raven. That's a fine example. The main point being that a spell should force players to make meaningful decisions Yes, although with the carveout of the ability requiring as little APM as possible/being easy to use. My personal dispreference of adding Ravens into my composition is not with the unit itself. But rather with the fact it has to take up on extra control group which adds complexity in terms of control. To credit blizzard I also think they figured out post-lotv what makes spellcasters work and what doesn't. For instance, the when the raven was redesigned they clearly redesigned it so abilities wouldn't scale nearly as well as PDD and seeker Missile, although I think they only partially succeeded in this. The raven is a weird one in it’s quite a versatile and interesting caster to me when you have one or two, but it ends up scaling too well in TvT that it ends up a frequently dominant unit. Ghosts in TvZ and old Infestors had that kind of problem as well. One band-aid fix blizzard could have implemented was making the units 3 supply. All of the spellcasters you mentioned I perceive as notably improved upon their initial designs but which still could use improvements. In general I think it's much harder to get single-targeted abilities right in RTS games. Typically they need to be very powerful and thus they can't have too much counterplay - otherwise - they would be too weak. And they are generally more spammy than AOE-abilities. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
In general I think it's much harder to get single-targeted abilities right in RTS games. Typically they need to be very powerful and thus they can't have too much counterplay - otherwise - they would be too weak. And they are generally more spammy than AOE-abilities. It is usually done with single-target counter abilities, in MOBAs, this is core gameplay, where there is a game of chicken of who commits to using long-cooldown abilities and items. This does exist in RTS as well, but idk if I like that kind of single-unit focus in that genre. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On June 13 2023 05:02 Hider wrote: Spells are certainly an area where I think blizzard has struggled. In general spells should do either do one of the following: 1. Encourage movement-based micro or 2. Allow some type of new tactical-based opportunity. I think there zero cases of the latter in Sc2 (?), so that's really a hypothetical but I think it could work in some situations. Spells also shouldn't be APM-intensive. We want players to spend as much of their APM moving their units around. Spells should encourage more of that, not take focus away. Psi Storm is an example of something that encourages movement-based micro. Targeted healing-based abilities belong in team-based games, not 1v1-focussed RTS games. Because that's an example of an ability where you don't encourage movement-based micro but rather press abilities instead. Spells should have counter-play, abduct for instance is imo the worst designed ability in all of starcraft. One stupid thing about Sc2 is that spellcasters have a too low supply count and 200 max energy. Why do they have 200 max energy? It results in mass spammings in fights. That's another example of how poorly tuned certain parts of Sc2 balance is. In genreal I like skillshots and "over time aoe effects". But I also think there are a lot more concepts that can be taken from MOBA's and adapted/tweaked into RTS games. If executed well it could certainly grant some extra flavor and uniqueness into RTS battles Although I agree the core RTS micro should be the foundation of the game. I am not fully sure how 1 and 2 differ tbh, movement is a big part to create new tactical opportunities. Even something like stim allows you to disengage where you wouldn't have been able to before, or blink lets you get into opponent bases, etc. But if i try to see your dileniation, i'd guess something like forcefields would certainly follow into the 2nd category, yes? It allows you to basically change map features. I tend to think that spells are in these games to allow for power levels, it instantly gives you something which is impactful to the game, whereas adding units is a lot more gradual. So when i get a viper, i know i can instantly kill high value units due to its pull. (i don't REALLY like that spell in the context of sc2, but imo that is moreso about the fundamental flaw of sc2 spellcasting behavior, not the spell itself). I think spells should be powerful, and the idea of counterplay is imo overstated too. Yes some counterplay is generally positive, it allows for more skill based interactions, bigger fluctuations in outcome, BUT i also think tools should 'work. Too much counterplay simply diminishes decision making. The problem with spells, as you said, is moreso that they become overpowering if they take center stage, if you can spam them enough to make use of the power they provide. We saw that in sc2's lifespan in countless of examples, quick fixes (if one wants a smart cast options for easier control) is limiting in some way how many casters are on the field. Increasing supply, even just having fixed limitations of how many units of a certain type are allowed to be built to begin with (maybe not ideal, but i think people are too enarmored with the idea of 'elegance' to begin with, if it was up to me i would favor different balance stats for different matchups). It ofc depends a lot on the game itself, i don't think casters are a big problem in bw because the execution difficulty is so high so noone can actually abuse it, i don't think casters in mobas are a problem because one focuses on one unit, that's the whole game really, the point is to abuse spells. In a game like sc2, the balance is off because the difficulty of execution is too low, AND because the game is supposed to be about macro more than anything. So it depends on the identity of the new rts game, what focus does it have, if it is large on micro, spells can arguably go more ham (even the single target ones you seem to dislike), if it is closer to sc2, it will have to find solutions to limit spell usage. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9404 Posts
I am not fully sure how 1 and 2 differ tbh, movement is a big part to create new tactical opportunities. Even something like stim allows you to disengage where you wouldn't have been able to before, or blink lets you get into opponent bases, etc. The latter I was thinking more like tactical-based changes which is a notch above the micro that takes place during a brief engagement. I guess we can think of burrow or cloak as abilities in which grants new tactics/playstyles to units without necessarily being part of within-battle micro. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4547 Posts
I hope the other factions are more unique. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16797 Posts
On June 14 2023 02:49 Zaros wrote: Did anyone else notice the artillery unit is the Pacifier from Red Alert 3 Uprising? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mIE505UUJw yep, i noticed it. its pretty cool. i don't think the Pacifier made it into the multiplayer game. It was usable in the single player campaign. THe unit it is fighting is in the multiplayer version of the game though. if RA3 had the kind of support ATVI gave SC2.. RA3 coulda been off the charts amazing. so we've got scouting attack dogs... peace keeper type infantry... and now the pacifier artillary unit. Lots of RA3 in this game.  If you want a laugh.. https://www.gamereplays.org/redalert3/portals.php?show=news&news_id=600158 | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16797 Posts
On June 14 2023 17:14 Laurens wrote: Some serious overlap with the Terran units in starcraft from what we can see so far. I hope the other factions are more unique. in an ideal world i'd prefer totally different and new. That said, i don't care very much about overlap. the massive rise of "remasters" seems to indicate a lot of the general gaming audience doesn't care about overlap either. Hell, SC2 with a tic rate of 60 might be an interesting new experience. | ||
|
lestye
United States4178 Posts
On June 15 2023 02:45 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in an ideal world i'd prefer totally different and new. That said, i don't care very much about overlap. the massive rise of "remasters" seems to indicate a lot of the general gaming audience doesn't care about overlap either. Hell, SC2 with a tic rate of 60 might be an interesting new experience. Oh absolutely, and the overlap would completely change given the context of more War3 map designs, and those units might be completely different given the comps on different races. | ||
|
Garrl
Scotland1974 Posts
Is there going to be hero units? They mentioned creeping. How is the netcode? I'm seeing units with slow turn animations and ones that don't have instant feedback on attacking. Is this a symptom of poor use of UE5's netcode that they're having to rely on to make it feel right? Are there any highground mechanics? A criticism I have is that the lighting on the map is making it really hard to read the actual playfield. At 2:40 in the video, I really can't tell wtf is going on with the lighting. There seems to be multiple light sources going on - there's a dropship casting a shadow in completely opposite direction to the trees, and the long shadows are making it hard to read. Is the tank at 2:40 infront of a highground ramp or is that a shadow coming from something? There's also a slightly strange decision to add a single target stun mechanic when most modern game designers for PVP games explicitly avoid stun mechanics because it just isn't fun to not be able to interact. Might give a hint to the designers also trying to incorporate PVE mechanics in the same 'ruleset.' Overall, in terms of game design from what they've shown, it looks like they took the design from WC3, nixed the most interesting part (heroes) and set it in SC's setting. I don't know, I don't think this is going to light the RTS world on fire, personally. | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany306 Posts
Friday, June 16, 2023 at 10:00-11:00 AM PDT / 1:00-2:00 PM EDT / 7:00-8:00 PM CEST. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On June 16 2023 01:08 Garrl wrote: How is the netcode? I'm seeing units with slow turn animations and ones that don't have instant feedback on attacking. Is this a symptom of poor use of UE5's netcode that they're having to rely on to make it feel right? Looks like deliberate design intention sort of like Dragoon in BW in a different way. Heroes: not in 1v1, only team games. Creeps in 1v1, giving resources and "global" bonuses. | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2394 Posts
On June 16 2023 01:08 Garrl wrote: There's also a slightly strange decision to add a single target stun mechanic when most modern game designers for PVP games explicitly avoid stun mechanics because it just isn't fun to not be able to interact. Might give a hint to the designers also trying to incorporate PVE mechanics in the same 'ruleset.' What? In an RTS, if some of your units get stunned, you can macro or control other units. BW has Maelstrom and stasis, SC2 has stasis traps and old fungal was also similar. These hit more than a single target stun. Stuns are also prolific in MOBA, which do involve controlling a single character. This is such a weird point to make. | ||
| ||
