On January 31 2024 21:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: From the Zerospace thread...
On January 18 2024 21:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On January 18 2024 08:46 blunderfulguy wrote: And a game director managing the needs of the single-player side and the versus side. It seems like there is literally no design/development being done or barely considered for the single-player campaign or co-op modes, which seemed like what the majority of the Kickstarter was for (and is what the majority of players will play if those modes ever exist).
possibly misleading consumers via Kickstarter messaging? You could be correct, however, a more thorough investigation is required to make a determination on the issue you bring up here. Time will tell if consumers were mislead during the Kickstarter campaign. This time next year, we'll know what's up.
I don't get how people are always so charged up about instantly donating to Kickstarter the nanosecond it is offered. I am waiting until the last day of Stormgate's Kickstarter to decide whether or not to donate. My decision will be 10,000X more informed than the people who donated to Stormgate on day one. If I donate Frost Giant will have access to my money just as fast as anyone donating on day one of the campaign.
Kickstarter #s went up by ~3,000 in the last day. So I guess some people do employ the above strategy I mentioned. That is refreshing to see!
On January 31 2024 10:12 Fango wrote: Would people be in favor of automatically splitting marines when banelings come near? Because it's also a tough skill check? The answer should be no. If you aren't good enough, you're making a mistake trying to split last second if the first place.
That is an interesting point. in C&C you could auto split your infantry with the "X" button. Despite the "X" button, there was no shortage of micro things to do in C&C.
On January 31 2024 12:27 LunarC wrote: TL;DR: RTS can be more real-time simulation (like Supreme Commander) or real-time control (like SC). I think real-time control is more fun to play and watch (I think most SC fans agree). IMO real-time control gets a bad rap because games don't do a good job teaching people why macro and micro are fun. There are other genres RTS could learn from to teach new players.
If you must "teach" someone how something is fun ... that is a huge barrier to entry. No one had to teach me how SC1 , Mario 3 , Mario 64, or GTA3,4,5 or Fortnight were fun. My wife is loving Palworld. Zero "teachings" on "how to have fun". As soon as I stop having fun I play something else or do something else.
All of those games taught you how to have fun in them, you just didn't realize they were doing it.
Fortnite taught you how to have fun by giving you games of 100 'players' where only 20 of those were humans, and all of those humans were around your skill level.
Mario 64 taught you how to have fun by starting you in a hub world and limiting your exploration until you were ready for it. Much different experience if it starts you in a bowser stage or clock tower.
SC1 has a long and granular campaign that eases you in to the 'actual game' and paths you through faction tech trees piece by piece. It's part of why I maintain that a robust campaign in a new RTS is a must - it's way easier for a designer to teach the player how to have fun when they can control the variables, and it's hard to control the variables when your opponent is a human.
To get the semantics out of the way first... all teaching is self-teaching. The game can't do anything. The user drives their own mental and physical processes forward to acquire new skills and abilities. With that aside...
The 'actual game' isn't 1v1 competitive. SC1 isn't Pong. The "actual game" is the entire package. Campaign, custom PvE, etc. Most people never play 1v1. They are not part of an "on ramp" to 1v1. As soon as they stop having fun playing the campaign they quit and often that is before completing the campaign. Most people don't find 1v1 fun... so they don't play. Most people get a combination of bored and frustrated by the game long before getting to 1v1 or 2v2.
As soon as the game starts to resemble a job with explicit "teaching moments" most people quit and do something else.
Regarding the SC1 campaign. It was super fun. 60 great missions. At the end of it you were no where near prepared to play 1v1 versus humans though. You were prepared to play custom PvE stuff though.
Stormgate will only have a handful of campaign missions. It will be next to impossible for the game to attract a wide audience. The game's most significant innovation is not on the radar of most RTS players.
I'm personally very supportive of this change. It'd be difficult to balance brutes in low level vs high level play, and personally I'd rather spend my attention on multi-prong or on other aspects of the fight than trying picking out low-health Brutes in a chaotic battle.
As Monk points out, you're still incentivized to pre-split vs Vanguard to deny Veterancy so you can still play Brute Osu if you want
There was already an upgrade that made them auto split, so by the time you have 30 brutes or here's loads going on in the game you'd have it anyway. Or if a player was confident in their skill they could delay the upgrade and manually split. It seemed like a good cost/reward trade-off.
As for Monk's comment, I don't think I agree with him. He said their internal testers couldn't play the game because opponents had better splits? Isn't that what you want? Lesser players getting bopped by those with good micro? Remember those with worse micro can split earlier instead of trying for the last second, and they'd lose an appropriate amount of DMG/HP during the fight because of it.
It feels, to me, like claiming an opponent having better blink micro in PvP or bane hits in ZvZ, isn't a good reason for them to win.
Once a ladder exists, players should be players others on the same skill level, and the more options they have to improve skills, the more they can improve. Making micro automated does nothing but take away.
Personally, I think there should be a 'middleway' where splitting manually gives some benefit (white health?) whereas the brute dying produces fields w/o white health.
The balance is between lower-skill players rarely even getting fiends in the early game (if they're bad at micro), and higher skill player losing skill expression against newbies.... providing some substantial benefit to manually splitting seems like the clear answer imo, and white health seems like a very strong/clear benefit in the early skirmishes with few units. Also, the fact it degrades over time means you wouldn't be incentivized to do outside of a battle.
This is also totally fine. But the way they've done it at least in this patch just makes it so there's no potential to even split micro to begin is definitely too far in that direction.
I still think lesser players should just split earlier to get fiends but making it so players who micro get a clear benefit (such as white health) works just as well.
I'm not gonna lie, Brutes not producing 2 Fiends unless manually casting Split doesn't make much sense to me intuitively. To be honest the whole visual design of the Brute doesn't suggest to me that it can turn into 2 Zerglings.
How about taking it a different direction entirely? The Brutes look bloated like they could explode right? Keep the current "Brutes will always produce 2 Fiends if killed" and "Split is performed by the lowest health Brute".
But turn Split into an ability with a 1 second wind-up delay that causes the Brute to jump a short distance and explode where it lands, dealing damage and slowing enemies in a small AoE. Perhaps add an upgrade where the explosion also Infests enemies. The damage doesn't need to be huge and the cast time means you can't just spam it or catch a retreating army easily unless you set up a smart ambush. And if you can focus down Brutes before they can jump you'll negate the damage and slow.
Split is just a very unsexy ability, even from first reveal. It's only interesting right now to people that like fiddly mechanics.
Wind up is cool in a MOBA where you mainly control one unit (Hero) but in an RTS with armies clashing it would feel incredibly clunky. Please no wind up. I do like the direction of giving a small bonus for micro by adding a little white health. And since it always selects the one with lowest health you can easily do it with a army as well. And if you want a specific brute to split, you are free to select the dude and do it. Seems to me this solutions is good for every level of play.
On February 01 2024 18:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [Regarding the SC1 campaign. It was super fun. 60 great missions. At the end of it you were no where near prepared to play 1v1 versus humans though.
Why not? You know you have to expand, you know the controls for at least somewhat effective mouse play, you know the goal: kill the opponent. If your human opponent has the same level of experience aka played only the campaign, this should be a even and fun match experience. Quite thrilling actually
I'm personally very supportive of this change. It'd be difficult to balance brutes in low level vs high level play, and personally I'd rather spend my attention on multi-prong or on other aspects of the fight than trying picking out low-health Brutes in a chaotic battle.
As Monk points out, you're still incentivized to pre-split vs Vanguard to deny Veterancy so you can still play Brute Osu if you want
There was already an upgrade that made them auto split, so by the time you have 30 brutes or here's loads going on in the game you'd have it anyway. Or if a player was confident in their skill they could delay the upgrade and manually split. It seemed like a good cost/reward trade-off.
As for Monk's comment, I don't think I agree with him. He said their internal testers couldn't play the game because opponents had better splits? Isn't that what you want? Lesser players getting bopped by those with good micro? Remember those with worse micro can split earlier instead of trying for the last second, and they'd lose an appropriate amount of DMG/HP during the fight because of it.
It feels, to me, like claiming an opponent having better blink micro in PvP or bane hits in ZvZ, isn't a good reason for them to win.
Once a ladder exists, players should be players others on the same skill level, and the more options they have to improve skills, the more they can improve. Making micro automated does nothing but take away.
Personally, I think there should be a 'middleway' where splitting manually gives some benefit (white health?) whereas the brute dying produces fields w/o white health.
The balance is between lower-skill players rarely even getting fiends in the early game (if they're bad at micro), and higher skill player losing skill expression against newbies.... providing some substantial benefit to manually splitting seems like the clear answer imo, and white health seems like a very strong/clear benefit in the early skirmishes with few units. Also, the fact it degrades over time means you wouldn't be incentivized to do outside of a battle.
This is also totally fine. But the way they've done it at least in this patch just makes it so there's no potential to even split micro to begin is definitely too far in that direction.
I still think lesser players should just split earlier to get fiends but making it so players who micro get a clear benefit (such as white health) works just as well.
I'm not gonna lie, Brutes not producing 2 Fiends unless manually casting Split doesn't make much sense to me intuitively. To be honest the whole visual design of the Brute doesn't suggest to me that it can turn into 2 Zerglings.
How about taking it a different direction entirely? The Brutes look bloated like they could explode right? Keep the current "Brutes will always produce 2 Fiends if killed" and "Split is performed by the lowest health Brute".
But turn Split into an ability with a 1 second wind-up delay that causes the Brute to jump a short distance and explode where it lands, dealing damage and slowing enemies in a small AoE. Perhaps add an upgrade where the explosion also Infests enemies. The damage doesn't need to be huge and the cast time means you can't just spam it or catch a retreating army easily unless you set up a smart ambush. And if you can focus down Brutes before they can jump you'll negate the damage and slow.
Split is just a very unsexy ability, even from first reveal. It's only interesting right now to people that like fiddly mechanics.
Wind up is cool in a MOBA where you mainly control one unit (Hero) but in an RTS with armies clashing it would feel incredibly clunky. Please no wind up. I do like the direction of giving a small bonus for micro by adding a little white health. And since it always selects the one with lowest health you can easily do it with a army as well. And if you want a specific brute to split, you are free to select the dude and do it. Seems to me this solutions is good for every level of play.
On February 01 2024 18:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [Regarding the SC1 campaign. It was super fun. 60 great missions. At the end of it you were no where near prepared to play 1v1 versus humans though.
Why not? You know you have to expand, you know the controls for at least somewhat effective mouse play, you know the goal: kill the opponent. If your human opponent has the same level of experience aka played only the campaign, this should be a even and fun match experience. Quite thrilling actually
B.Net did not have a way to get an opponent at your level. This is another reason why most people never played 1v1 in SC1.
I'm personally very supportive of this change. It'd be difficult to balance brutes in low level vs high level play, and personally I'd rather spend my attention on multi-prong or on other aspects of the fight than trying picking out low-health Brutes in a chaotic battle.
As Monk points out, you're still incentivized to pre-split vs Vanguard to deny Veterancy so you can still play Brute Osu if you want
There was already an upgrade that made them auto split, so by the time you have 30 brutes or here's loads going on in the game you'd have it anyway. Or if a player was confident in their skill they could delay the upgrade and manually split. It seemed like a good cost/reward trade-off.
As for Monk's comment, I don't think I agree with him. He said their internal testers couldn't play the game because opponents had better splits? Isn't that what you want? Lesser players getting bopped by those with good micro? Remember those with worse micro can split earlier instead of trying for the last second, and they'd lose an appropriate amount of DMG/HP during the fight because of it.
It feels, to me, like claiming an opponent having better blink micro in PvP or bane hits in ZvZ, isn't a good reason for them to win.
Once a ladder exists, players should be players others on the same skill level, and the more options they have to improve skills, the more they can improve. Making micro automated does nothing but take away.
Personally, I think there should be a 'middleway' where splitting manually gives some benefit (white health?) whereas the brute dying produces fields w/o white health.
The balance is between lower-skill players rarely even getting fiends in the early game (if they're bad at micro), and higher skill player losing skill expression against newbies.... providing some substantial benefit to manually splitting seems like the clear answer imo, and white health seems like a very strong/clear benefit in the early skirmishes with few units. Also, the fact it degrades over time means you wouldn't be incentivized to do outside of a battle.
This is also totally fine. But the way they've done it at least in this patch just makes it so there's no potential to even split micro to begin is definitely too far in that direction.
I still think lesser players should just split earlier to get fiends but making it so players who micro get a clear benefit (such as white health) works just as well.
I'm not gonna lie, Brutes not producing 2 Fiends unless manually casting Split doesn't make much sense to me intuitively. To be honest the whole visual design of the Brute doesn't suggest to me that it can turn into 2 Zerglings.
How about taking it a different direction entirely? The Brutes look bloated like they could explode right? Keep the current "Brutes will always produce 2 Fiends if killed" and "Split is performed by the lowest health Brute".
But turn Split into an ability with a 1 second wind-up delay that causes the Brute to jump a short distance and explode where it lands, dealing damage and slowing enemies in a small AoE. Perhaps add an upgrade where the explosion also Infests enemies. The damage doesn't need to be huge and the cast time means you can't just spam it or catch a retreating army easily unless you set up a smart ambush. And if you can focus down Brutes before they can jump you'll negate the damage and slow.
Split is just a very unsexy ability, even from first reveal. It's only interesting right now to people that like fiddly mechanics.
Wind up is cool in a MOBA where you mainly control one unit (Hero) but in an RTS with armies clashing it would feel incredibly clunky. Please no wind up. I do like the direction of giving a small bonus for micro by adding a little white health. And since it always selects the one with lowest health you can easily do it with a army as well. And if you want a specific brute to split, you are free to select the dude and do it. Seems to me this solutions is good for every level of play.
On February 01 2024 18:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: [Regarding the SC1 campaign. It was super fun. 60 great missions. At the end of it you were no where near prepared to play 1v1 versus humans though.
Why not? You know you have to expand, you know the controls for at least somewhat effective mouse play, you know the goal: kill the opponent. If your human opponent has the same level of experience aka played only the campaign, this should be a even and fun match experience. Quite thrilling actually
B.Net did not have a way to get an opponent at your level. This is another reason why most people never played 1v1 in SC1.
This is another point entirely and has nothing to do with the earlier discussion...
my point centred around players getting bored when having to be "taught" what fun is. it bled into something else i'm addressing that point. the SC1 product is not 1v1.
I'm personally very supportive of this change. It'd be difficult to balance brutes in low level vs high level play, and personally I'd rather spend my attention on multi-prong or on other aspects of the fight than trying picking out low-health Brutes in a chaotic battle.
As Monk points out, you're still incentivized to pre-split vs Vanguard to deny Veterancy so you can still play Brute Osu if you want
There was already an upgrade that made them auto split, so by the time you have 30 brutes or here's loads going on in the game you'd have it anyway. Or if a player was confident in their skill they could delay the upgrade and manually split. It seemed like a good cost/reward trade-off.
As for Monk's comment, I don't think I agree with him. He said their internal testers couldn't play the game because opponents had better splits? Isn't that what you want? Lesser players getting bopped by those with good micro? Remember those with worse micro can split earlier instead of trying for the last second, and they'd lose an appropriate amount of DMG/HP during the fight because of it.
It feels, to me, like claiming an opponent having better blink micro in PvP or bane hits in ZvZ, isn't a good reason for them to win.
Once a ladder exists, players should be players others on the same skill level, and the more options they have to improve skills, the more they can improve. Making micro automated does nothing but take away.
Personally, I think there should be a 'middleway' where splitting manually gives some benefit (white health?) whereas the brute dying produces fields w/o white health.
The balance is between lower-skill players rarely even getting fiends in the early game (if they're bad at micro), and higher skill player losing skill expression against newbies.... providing some substantial benefit to manually splitting seems like the clear answer imo, and white health seems like a very strong/clear benefit in the early skirmishes with few units. Also, the fact it degrades over time means you wouldn't be incentivized to do outside of a battle.
This is also totally fine. But the way they've done it at least in this patch just makes it so there's no potential to even split micro to begin is definitely too far in that direction.
I still think lesser players should just split earlier to get fiends but making it so players who micro get a clear benefit (such as white health) works just as well.
I'm not gonna lie, Brutes not producing 2 Fiends unless manually casting Split doesn't make much sense to me intuitively. To be honest the whole visual design of the Brute doesn't suggest to me that it can turn into 2 Zerglings.
How about taking it a different direction entirely? The Brutes look bloated like they could explode right? Keep the current "Brutes will always produce 2 Fiends if killed" and "Split is performed by the lowest health Brute".
But turn Split into an ability with a 1 second wind-up delay that causes the Brute to jump a short distance and explode where it lands, dealing damage and slowing enemies in a small AoE. Perhaps add an upgrade where the explosion also Infests enemies. The damage doesn't need to be huge and the cast time means you can't just spam it or catch a retreating army easily unless you set up a smart ambush. And if you can focus down Brutes before they can jump you'll negate the damage and slow.
Split is just a very unsexy ability, even from first reveal. It's only interesting right now to people that like fiddly mechanics.
Wind up is cool in a MOBA where you mainly control one unit (Hero) but in an RTS with armies clashing it would feel incredibly clunky. Please no wind up. I do like the direction of giving a small bonus for micro by adding a little white health. And since it always selects the one with lowest health you can easily do it with a army as well. And if you want a specific brute to split, you are free to select the dude and do it. Seems to me this solutions is good for every level of play.
Sure, I'm not pushing my specific idea. Here's my concern:
Before, Split was high skill floor with massive micro reward and no potential for counterplay by the opponent. Now it's a low skill floor with small micro reward and no potential for counterplay. It has to have a small reward because it's been changed to low skill floor.
I believe it should be kept at low skill floor for small reward, but add a bonus micro reward with a medium skill floor with potential for counterplay. My example will always give 2 Fiends (low skill, low reward). But it add a bonus AoE + slow that requires good timing that the opponent can dodge (medium skill, medium reward, counterable). The specific change doesn't matter as long it meets that criteria. Otherwise, it's really boring because the opponent can't do anything against Split. It's one-sided value extraction, super boring.
On February 02 2024 04:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my point centred around players getting bored when having to be "taught" what fun is. it bled into something else i'm addressing that point. the SC1 product is not 1v1.
You're thinking of getting "taught" like at school or a game tutorial level. That's not what I mean. Of course it has to be fun.
What I mean is starting players off with the basics, then over the course of several missions adding more stuff and increasing the challenge. All games do this. The problem is no RTS game designs its missions both to be fun and to get people interested and ready for competitive modes. I don't expect everyone that plays an RTS to be competitive. But the game should do everything it can to get casual players interested and prepare them.
The SC1 product is not 1v1. But if SG wants to be an esport, then it must do its best to get casual players interested in the competitive mode. Otherwise, there's no on-ramp for them at all. Your casual Fortnite player cares about their favorite hotshot streamer because they know what it feels like to compete in Fortnite and can recognize the high skill level of the streamer.
I'm concerned the current direction will get casual players invested primarily in the story and heroes, but those won't be featured in the competitive modes. Assuming SG esports will revolve around 1v1, there's nothing to hook casual players.
On January 31 2024 21:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: From the Zerospace thread...
On January 18 2024 21:39 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
On January 18 2024 08:46 blunderfulguy wrote: And a game director managing the needs of the single-player side and the versus side. It seems like there is literally no design/development being done or barely considered for the single-player campaign or co-op modes, which seemed like what the majority of the Kickstarter was for (and is what the majority of players will play if those modes ever exist).
possibly misleading consumers via Kickstarter messaging? You could be correct, however, a more thorough investigation is required to make a determination on the issue you bring up here. Time will tell if consumers were mislead during the Kickstarter campaign. This time next year, we'll know what's up.
I don't get how people are always so charged up about instantly donating to Kickstarter the nanosecond it is offered. I am waiting until the last day of Stormgate's Kickstarter to decide whether or not to donate. My decision will be 10,000X more informed than the people who donated to Stormgate on day one. If I donate Frost Giant will have access to my money just as fast as anyone donating on day one of the campaign.
Kickstarter #s went up by ~3,000 in the last day. So I guess some people do employ the above strategy I mentioned. That is refreshing to see!
On January 31 2024 10:12 Fango wrote: Would people be in favor of automatically splitting marines when banelings come near? Because it's also a tough skill check? The answer should be no. If you aren't good enough, you're making a mistake trying to split last second if the first place.
That is an interesting point. in C&C you could auto split your infantry with the "X" button. Despite the "X" button, there was no shortage of micro things to do in C&C.
On January 31 2024 12:27 LunarC wrote: TL;DR: RTS can be more real-time simulation (like Supreme Commander) or real-time control (like SC). I think real-time control is more fun to play and watch (I think most SC fans agree). IMO real-time control gets a bad rap because games don't do a good job teaching people why macro and micro are fun. There are other genres RTS could learn from to teach new players.
If you must "teach" someone how something is fun ... that is a huge barrier to entry. No one had to teach me how SC1 , Mario 3 , Mario 64, or GTA3,4,5 or Fortnight were fun. My wife is loving Palworld. Zero "teachings" on "how to have fun". As soon as I stop having fun I play something else or do something else.
All of those games taught you how to have fun in them, you just didn't realize they were doing it.
Fortnite taught you how to have fun by giving you games of 100 'players' where only 20 of those were humans, and all of those humans were around your skill level.
Mario 64 taught you how to have fun by starting you in a hub world and limiting your exploration until you were ready for it. Much different experience if it starts you in a bowser stage or clock tower.
SC1 has a long and granular campaign that eases you in to the 'actual game' and paths you through faction tech trees piece by piece. It's part of why I maintain that a robust campaign in a new RTS is a must - it's way easier for a designer to teach the player how to have fun when they can control the variables, and it's hard to control the variables when your opponent is a human.
To get the semantics out of the way first... all teaching is self-teaching. The game can't do anything. The user drives their own mental and physical processes forward to acquire new skills and abilities. With that aside...
The 'actual game' isn't 1v1 competitive. SC1 isn't Pong. The "actual game" is the entire package. Campaign, custom PvE, etc. Most people never play 1v1. They are not part of an "on ramp" to 1v1. As soon as they stop having fun playing the campaign they quit and often that is before completing the campaign. Most people don't find 1v1 fun... so they don't play. Most people get a combination of bored and frustrated by the game long before getting to 1v1 or 2v2.
As soon as the game starts to resemble a job with explicit "teaching moments" most people quit and do something else.
Regarding the SC1 campaign. It was super fun. 60 great missions. At the end of it you were no where near prepared to play 1v1 versus humans though. You were prepared to play custom PvE stuff though.
Stormgate will only have a handful of campaign missions. It will be next to impossible for the game to attract a wide audience. The game's most significant innovation is not on the radar of most RTS players.
Yup! This was the person's point - RTS traditionally doesn't teach players how to have fun well enough to inspire most to delve into 1v1, which is part of why new RTS titles aiming for the 'esports angle' don't inspire too much confidence unless they address this issue. I think that was a fair point, and not one to be handwaved away with the idea that games cant teach you anything.
As to the 'semantics' (it isn't semantics) argument - If you wanted to be horribly specific, I suppose I could correct myself and say DESIGNERS teach you how to have fun in the game via the design of the game. I truncated that into 'the game' with the understanding that the message was implicit.
This is the same reason I put 'actual game' in quotes. You're trying to correct me on something that was already implicit in my statement. I'm aware that 1v1 isn't the whole game.
It seems to me that the RTS developers are just not confident that having a lot of "fighting the UI" could be enjoyable for average casual players, so they either reduce this aspect in general or fragment the gameplay experience in different game modes. You can see that in some of the newer fighting games too.
I'm worried about Stormgate. I just saw Artosis post some videos on it and all the comments are about how the game looks bland and uninteresting, calling gameplay an advertisement for SC2. It's hard to dismiss them as trolls when I agree with them.
I'm quite curious what the target market for this game is. Are we, RTS enthusists, the core demographic? I thought the cartoonish graphics were to appeal to younger children, but I'm not seeing interest from any community that isn't SC2-adjacent.
I hate to be negative but I don't see a clear path to success for Stormgate.
On February 02 2024 06:32 LunarC wrote: I'm concerned the current direction will get casual players invested primarily in the story and heroes, but those won't be featured in the competitive modes. Assuming SG esports will revolve around 1v1, there's nothing to hook casual players.
I think 3vE and 3v3 have those heroes and to be honest, I kinda hope that 3v3 will actually be the main competitive mode since I am old and slow and team games are just more fun these days They could even make a leaderboard for 3vE and that would get a lot of people hooked.
Just tried out 3 coop games to get a feel for the UI. Early thoughts:
* Coop is great and feels effortless * UI and interface are surprisingly good * Visual design needs work (we all know). Visibility during engagements is bad * Netcode seems good * Performance is "okay" but in no way bad. Just don't expect something revolutionary.
I need to figure out luminite saturation and all the small things to get a better grasp. Fundamentals are very good, but some areas need greater amounts of rework IMHO.
EPT
