|
On July 10 2023 04:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 04:14 [Phantom] wrote:
I would love a game without shitty cheeses like cannon rush.
i like RTS games where, on occasion, you are fighting for your life one minute into the game. The key is to design the game so that the person on the offense has to do some awesome creative moves and tactics to put the defender in danger very early. i hate the cannon rush... but SC1 and SC2 are such great games that i just put up with it and chalk it up to being part of the game.
Beating a cannon rush is the best feeling.
Losing to a cannon rush is the worst feeling.
Actually no, holding off a cannon rush and then dying to follow-up DTs is the worst feeling.
Still, holding it off and then BMing the cannon rusher feels great, worth having it in the game just for that 
|
You could go on a path which gives an early aggressor the advantage without the risk of it beeing game ending by introducing a third party (Creeps, ressource spots).
Like Player A wants to be aggressive /cheese while Player B wants to play defensive / safe. Defenders advantage is big enough to not allow Player A to do much damage at Player B's main base. But Player A can go on the map, kill creeps for let's say worker build time speed bonus and conquer a "goldmine" which gives, let's say 10% more income (or fixed amount).
The upside beeing, the aggression paid of and Player A has the advantage and can snowball that. The downside is, there was kinda zero player interaction here
|
Wouldn't the logical move be to remove the fog of war and make the whole map visible all the time? No cheese, no scouting rng. It wouldn't be a game for everyone, but it would make the game more focused. No cheese, no macro mechanics, no need to acquire additional bases, and instead a heavy emphasis on army control. In addition, creeps replace macro mechanics. Maybe the game could even start with a small army. It wouldn't be a game I would want to watch, but it would be a game a lot of people would probably enjoy playing.
|
any one know much about the scouting units that are in Stormgate? will every faction have a C&C style scouting unit?
|
They really only show one race yet. But they often mentioned the importance of scouting so I imagine every race will have some form of early scouting available
|
On July 11 2023 00:40 Hildegard wrote:
Wouldn't the logical move be to remove the fog of war and make the whole map visible all the time? No cheese, no scouting rng. It wouldn't be a game for everyone, but it would make the game more focused. No cheese, no macro mechanics, no need to acquire additional bases, and instead a heavy emphasis on army control. In addition, creeps replace macro mechanics. Maybe the game could even start with a small army. It wouldn't be a game I would want to watch, but it would be a game a lot of people would probably enjoy playing.
I think no Fog of War probably wouldn't work out as well since it would make defending too easy, however, in general I think your way of thinking is needed for RTS to succeed in the future. It feels like it might be worth experimenting with.
In contrast, game-devs copy-pasting the 90s RTS-type-of-game and making 10-20% changes to certain parts of the game will not revitalize it.
I dare them to completely kill off the parts of the game that aren't fun and try to improve/create even more depth on the parts of the game that are fun.
I am not a fan of the concept of scouting units either. It's simply not that intuitive for new casual players and there is a limited amount of micro you can do with them. I think completely removing the need to do early-game scouting by killing off any risk of dying in the early game is better if done correctly. Instead, attacks/fights should occur around the middle of the map.
|
I played C&C Remastered withsome friends a few days ago and fog of war is turned off as a baseline. It was horrible to see everything and an army coming from miles away...
If you don't like the scouting unit interaction, maybe just make it everyone has SC2 like scans every minute or so but please don't remove fog of war. That's half the thrill
|
Northern Ireland27473 Posts
You need fog of war to make positional mindgames mean anything and be satisfying.
Also without the mechanic, a unit like the siege tank, I think most can agree one of the best/most iconic RTS units ever, no longer has much of a satisfying dynamic.
I’m not sure which way it goes, and I guess it depends on the speed of the players.
But with full info either you’re catching every unsiege, or you’re never getting caught unsieged
With limited information there’s a tradeoff between pushing quickly and pushing safely as the offensive player, while the defensive player tries to slow the advance, cut off reinforcements, set up flanks and pounce at a hopefully judicious time
I could definitely see a pure army battler kind of game being very fun though having played multiplayer in RTTs such as Myth, I just think you’d need to really excise that element and focus very much on doing just that.
|
A pure army battler would be a tactical game rather than strategy game I'd say yeah.
|
On July 13 2023 01:03 WombaT wrote:
I could definitely see a pure army battler kind of game being very fun though having played multiplayer in RTTs such as Myth, I just think you’d need to really excise that element and focus very much on doing just that.
Total War Warhammer multiplayer is a good example. It's incredibly fun both to play and watch
|
|
|
On July 13 2023 01:03 WombaT wrote:
You need fog of war to make positional mindgames mean anything and be satisfying.
Also without the mechanic, a unit like the siege tank, I think most can agree one of the best/most iconic RTS units ever, no longer has much of a satisfying dynamic.
I’m not sure which way it goes, and I guess it depends on the speed of the players.
But with full info either you’re catching every unsiege, or you’re never getting caught unsieged
With limited information there’s a tradeoff between pushing quickly and pushing safely as the offensive player, while the defensive player tries to slow the advance, cut off reinforcements, set up flanks and pounce at a hopefully judicious time
I could definitely see a pure army battler kind of game being very fun though having played multiplayer in RTTs such as Myth, I just think you’d need to really excise that element and focus very much on doing just that.
While I don't disagree, I think we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of "make 1very large change and then assume everything else is similar to what we are used to and explain why it won't work." If you make this type of change, obviously other parts of the game would have to be reworked completely. I think it would be hard to make this work, but I can't rule it out completely.
|
Are we seriously debating the merits of removing fog of war for a real time strategy game here?
As an actual suggestion to make a better RTS game?
I get the strong impression that the kind of game a fair few people on this thread want Stormgate to be isn't anything I'd call an RTS. It's one thing to take some lessons from MOBAs and RTTs and so on, but Stormgate is promising itself to be an RTS. If the kinds of reinventions and innovations people want remove substantive elements of what makes that recipe work, they probably want something that Stormgate isn't even aiming to be.
|
Regarding fields of vision I'd say something like units generally being able to see farther than they can shoot (or some of them being that way, or maybe being low damage units that can both shoot and see farther than usual), would help make scouting more practical and keep luck factor in check especially early game, while various early attack options may exist. Again for the FoV part I think war3 is generally just like that except maybe at nighttime for non-NightElf.
|
On July 14 2023 04:53 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Regarding fields of vision I'd say something like units generally being able to see farther than they can shoot (or some of them being that way, or maybe being low damage units that can both shoot and see farther than usual), would help make scouting more practical and keep luck factor in check especially early game, while various early attack options may exist. Again for the FoV part I think war3 is generally just like that except maybe at nighttime for non-NightElf.
Okay that is interesting. Couple the vision with weather, day/ night effects. No idea how that'll play out but it sounds fascinating.
Or the weather influencing the walking speed of units (terrain gets muddy). Or a river/ stream that is there and can't be crossed at the 5min mark, but it's a sunny day and at the 11:30 mark the riverbed is dry and can be crossed.
|
What we know is that the Stormgate team tries to minimize early losses, macro mechanics, and unnecessary complexity (for example, armor and attack upgrades). The suggestion to remove "Fog of War" just feels like the logical next step in what people discuss as fun and what the developers want to accomplish.
It doesn't really matter if we call the result RTS, Army Battler, or something completely new. If the gameplay doesn't force death balls and rewards flanking, the better player wins the game most of the time.
Without build order wins, the chances for the worse player to take games would actually be lower than in both Starcraft games. However, the question is if that's a good thing or if the off-chance to defeat someone a lot better is something that hooks players.
1v1 games don't feel good because humans tend to be happy with a win rate of 65-70%. Without teammates or RNG to blame losses on, the experience might prove too unforgiving.
Edit:
The lack of build order wins and rng tanked the absolutely amazing game Bloodline Champions in my opinion. Objectively, it was one of the best games of its time, but it was so unforgiving that the better players won pretty much all the time. Maybe having three distinct races is enough for Stormgate to soften the blow when losing.
|
On July 14 2023 23:24 Hildegard wrote:
Without build order wins, the chances for the worse player to take games would actually be lower than in both Starcraft games. However, the question is if that's a good thing or if the off-chance to defeat someone a lot better is something that hooks players.
1v1 games don't feel good because humans tend to be happy with a win rate of 65-70%. Without teammates or RNG to blame losses on, the experience might prove too unforgiving.
in many great competitive games... sometimes the better player//team does not win. Texas Hold'em is built around lousy players almost always having a 10%+ chance of beating a far better player.
In baseball, the BO5 format in the playoffs has almost nothing to do with being good 7 days per week over a 6-month 162 game season.
|
On July 14 2023 16:51 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 04:53 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Regarding fields of vision I'd say something like units generally being able to see farther than they can shoot (or some of them being that way, or maybe being low damage units that can both shoot and see farther than usual), would help make scouting more practical and keep luck factor in check especially early game, while various early attack options may exist. Again for the FoV part I think war3 is generally just like that except maybe at nighttime for non-NightElf. Okay that is interesting. Couple the vision with weather, day/ night effects. No idea how that'll play out but it sounds fascinating. Or the weather influencing the walking speed of units (terrain gets muddy). Or a river/ stream that is there and can't be crossed at the 5min mark, but it's a sunny day and at the 11:30 mark the riverbed is dry and can be crossed.
That's cool.
On July 14 2023 23:24 Hildegard wrote:
1v1 games don't feel good because humans tend to be happy with a win rate of 65-70%. Without teammates or RNG to blame losses on, the experience might prove too unforgiving.
That makes sense, I think luck factor doesn't need to be 0 but a game can get weird and have really high luck factor with a lot of early game cheeses, I think at many points SC2 could be kind of like that. It's nice if a lower skilled player can have some chance to fight a better player, but with a high luck factor games at any skill level, even equal, can feel random.. well obvious stuff I guess, luck factor isn't a terrible thing, can even bring variation/unpredictability/tension, but gotta be balanced like anything else.
|
On July 15 2023 01:40 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 16:51 Harris1st wrote:On July 14 2023 04:53 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
Regarding fields of vision I'd say something like units generally being able to see farther than they can shoot (or some of them being that way, or maybe being low damage units that can both shoot and see farther than usual), would help make scouting more practical and keep luck factor in check especially early game, while various early attack options may exist. Again for the FoV part I think war3 is generally just like that except maybe at nighttime for non-NightElf. Okay that is interesting. Couple the vision with weather, day/ night effects. No idea how that'll play out but it sounds fascinating. Or the weather influencing the walking speed of units (terrain gets muddy). Or a river/ stream that is there and can't be crossed at the 5min mark, but it's a sunny day and at the 11:30 mark the riverbed is dry and can be crossed. That's cool. Show nested quote +On July 14 2023 23:24 Hildegard wrote:
1v1 games don't feel good because humans tend to be happy with a win rate of 65-70%. Without teammates or RNG to blame losses on, the experience might prove too unforgiving. That makes sense, I think luck factor doesn't need to be 0 but a game can get weird and have really high luck factor with a lot of early game cheeses, I think at many points SC2 could be kind of like that. It's nice if a lower skilled player can have some chance to fight a better player, but with a high luck factor games at any skill level, even equal, can feel random.. well obvious stuff I guess, luck factor isn't a terrible thing, can even bring variation/unpredictability/tension, but gotta be balanced like anything else.
I think luck is important in games to make each game unique. The longer the game itself is the more luck factors you can introduce into it while allowing the better player to win. Poker is a good example since you have high variance per round but usually play many of them in a sitting, lowering its impact overall.
Warcraft 3 has a lot of luck factors in it but certain players still dominate. So interesting luck factors might be a pro and not a con in the game.
|
any thoughts on the new progression system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
