EPTBeyond All Reason
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
CicadaSC
United States1799 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1799 Posts
| ||
|
juztjghjztgh
2 Posts
| ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6174 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
On April 01 2023 17:41 CicadaSC wrote: no one playing this? looking for people to learn with I will be probably getting into it with some friends just don't know when exactly as I have quite a few other things on my plate now that'll take some time to wrap up. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
| ||
|
Eywa-
Canada4876 Posts
On April 01 2023 17:41 CicadaSC wrote: no one playing this? looking for people to learn with Forged Alliance Forever is probably a good community to look up if you're trying to find people who play this. Everyone who's a fan of Total Annihilation / Supreme Commander / BAR play there. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2578 Posts
| ||
|
Perfi2_0
Poland40 Posts
I would honestly recommend trying it out just to see the wonder that is drag move. It completely changes every assumption I'd had about unit micro. Active abilities are very scarce, but instead there's like, what, 200 units per faction? The official Discord is pretty active, and I've been helping out in onboarding new players there. If you'd like, hit me up - look for Perfi  | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
Most RTS had 12-25 units per faction, and even then often some of them quite overlapped and you'd usually use only the most optimal one and almost never the other one(s). To be clear - I'm not dissing B.A.R. or doubt that this works for the game. But I did always find tighter unit roster with more unique/charismatic units to be more interesting and easier to immerse myself into. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
On April 18 2023 20:11 ZeroByte13 wrote: Re: 200 units per faction... how is it even possible to make them all unique, recognizable and "charismatic" enough to have the actual reason to use them all, besides wanting to see them all at least once in principle? Most RTS had 12-25 units per faction, and even then often some of them quite overlapped and you'd usually use only the most optimal one and almost never the other one(s). To be clear - I'm not dissing B.A.R. or doubt that this works for the game. But I did always find tighter unit roster with more unique/charismatic units to be more interesting and easier to immerse myself into. The units themselves are not that much different (apart from a few "ultimate" units that give their faction identity). The main difference between factions is basically "a bit more speed and flexibility" vs "a bit more range and power" so on each side for the most part you have exactly the same units that differ in visuals and have slight variation in stats (a bit like WarCraft 2 for example). From what I've seen so far while you don't get to see every unit every game it looks like all of them have their applications in certain scenarios so pretty much all of the roster is being used. There don't seem to be any "useless" units that no one ever builds. Some are maybe not useful to go for out of the gate as your main focus but are situational hard counter to your opponent's current composition (since people tend to switch techs several times over the course of a game). | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
From what I recall, TA didn't have tech buildings like Blizzard RTS or Westwood RTS have. And B.A.R. uses TA model. As long as you have, say, T2 Air Factory - you're able to build all possible T2 air units, no? So they change army compositions, not tech per se. ...but I guess it's more of semantics thing. | ||
|
Perfi2_0
Poland40 Posts
On April 20 2023 20:07 ZeroByte13 wrote: Is there even such a thing as tech switch? Oh yeah, that's one more thing that really threw me for a loop coming from SC2. Let me start out by saying that yes, there absolutely are tech switches. For example, a common situation that happens in 1v1 or between two front line players is that the game turns into a stalemate - both players are hiding in a light laser turret forest and poking at each other with rocket bots, which have the highest range out of all T1 bots. Mobile artillery is extremely helpful, as it outranges rocket bots and has a decent bit of AoE, but you do need a T1 vehicle factory for it. Here's the cool part - the reclaim mechanic lets you destroy any unit or structure you or your enemies have built, recovering 100% of the metal cost (0% of the energy cost, and you do need build power available to quickly build and/or reclaim stuff, so build time is another hidden cost). This means, when you get into a stalemate like that, you can quickly reclaim your T1 bot lab and use it to fund the transition to vehicles. However, what's more... given enough energy and build power, there's nothing stopping you from getting a few of those mobile artilleries AND THEN quickly reclaiming the T1 vehicle lab again, just to transition into, say, air or T2 or whatever. So tech switches have the potential to be much more "transient", in a sense. Remember though that it's still limited by the resources your spending on energy and buildpower, so if you do too much flashy finesse stuff, the enemy might just roll over you. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
| ||
|
Perfi2_0
Poland40 Posts
On April 18 2023 20:11 ZeroByte13 wrote: Re: 200 units per faction... how is it even possible to make them all unique, recognizable and "charismatic" enough to have the actual reason to use them all, besides wanting to see them all at least once in principle? Most RTS had 12-25 units per faction, and even then often some of them quite overlapped and you'd usually use only the most optimal one and almost never the other one(s). To be clear - I'm not dissing B.A.R. or doubt that this works for the game. But I did always find tighter unit roster with more unique/charismatic units to be more interesting and easier to immerse myself into. Just to get back to this... it's just different. I'll be the first to admit I did get overwhelmed initially, but it's like... both factions have the same basic tools; and on top of that, bots, vehicles, hovercraft, aircraft and navy also share some of the same basic toolbox. For example, pretty much all of them have a constructor; a very fast scout/harassment unit; a direct combat brawler; something to punish static defense; an anti air unit. Once you start seeing the game in terms of these patterns, it becomes much less overwhelming. This also means there's no "Well, you're a Zerg without a lair, your only AA is a turret and a macro mechanic on legs" problem. But it's not all completely flat and mirrored either: T1 vehicles have relatively weaker AA options, but these double as long range ground poke/vision provider tools. And there is plenty of room for individual unit personality within that. Take the Hound vs Sheldon; both are mortar units, but Sheldons have a fair bit longer range and double as sort-of-snipers, but can be overwhelmed at close distances. Hounds are the Armada counterpart, but they're more mobile and can switch to a lower-dps, short range, high accuracy mode that lets them deal with fast raiders in a pinch. Or Cortex Fiends (firebats with constant stim that explode), or Armada snipers (just what it says on the tin, but with cloak). All immediately recognizable units that you just learn to respect after dying to them once. TL;DR: it's complicated, but in a good way. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
You could also add 50 more units in SC2 in a "marine but 100hp and 2x price" or "roach but attacks air" fashion. But then all the units would be less unique and charismatic than they're now. In SC2 most units have not one but many unique/defining features about them. There are no "just like X, but bigger" or "just like X, but faster" units, and I feel this is somewhat inevitable with 100+ units per faction. How do you even come up with 100+ unit designs per faction (200+ in total) so they all have multiple unique features about them? Or am I wrong? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
On April 20 2023 21:40 ZeroByte13 wrote: I wasn't saying all the units are the same, but more like - I'd guess a marine or a stalker or a HT or a siege tanks are probably much more unique both inside their respective arsenal and in overall game unit roster than any units can be when they're a part of 100+ unit roster. You could also add 50 more units in SC2 in a "marine but 100hp and 2x price" or "roach but attacks air" fashion. But then all the units would be less unique and charismatic than they're now. In SC2 most units have not one but many unique/defining features about them. There are no "just like X, but bigger" or "just like X, but faster" units, and I feel this is somewhat inevitable with 100+ units per faction. How do you even come up with 100+ unit designs per faction (200+ in total) so they all have multiple unique features about them? Or am I wrong? It's rather easy actually. If you consider different roles and then multiply them: constructor - bot, vehicle, air, water (different tiers of those too) short range brawler - bot, vehicle, air, water... You get the gist of it. You have a number of different roles that different units can perform and then you have to extrapolate it over different kinds of units and tech tiers which reduces the overall number. Basically, you shouldn't look at "different units" but rather the number of "different archetypes" and the number will be much more manageable. It might seem like a lot of redundancy but it's not when you come to think about it since different versions of the same archetype will have different applications (imagine if in SC2 you could build DT or flying DT). | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
Factions would be less unique if Protoss had flying DTs and Terrans had a BC with super high range mini-yamato (too similar to Tempest), or if Terrans had fast melee units (too similar to lings or zealots), etc. Yes, you could make all these units a little bit different from their counterpart, but still the overall uniqueness would decrease quite a bit. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
On April 20 2023 22:53 ZeroByte13 wrote: Flying DT is a banshee so it already exists But not within the same faction. The thing is, if you had both regular DT and flying DT as Protoss. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
Starcraft is known to have probably the most asymmetrical and unique factions in the genre, at least among popular games. In Blizz RTS (starting with SC1) every faction has a vastly different toolbox from other factions. TA / SupCom on another hand are known to have mostly similar factions and less unique units - but many, many more of them. In these games all factions has access to more or less the same toolbox with LOTS of tools, but they are not so different from their counterparts. Of course there's a lot of small differences here and there, and they often matter - but it's nowhere near the level of faction/units uniqueness of SC2, for example. It doesn't make these games bad, of course - they have their own set of strengths and features. | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
Also... if the units look the same to you in TA/BAR I think that's because you're not familiar with the game. I can understand that they look similar visually, but in terms of capability there're very few units that act particularly similar. It's like saying dragoons hydralisks and marines are basically the same unit. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
I played TA and SupCom quite a bit, they are great games and rightfully are 5th most important classic RTS family together with Blizzard, Westwood, Relics and AoE families. And units do differ of course - but Blizz RTS units differ much more, at least in my experience. The amount of diversity that Blizz RTS games share across ~40-50 units, TA/SupCom share across 170+. Marine vs Zealot or Marauder vs Stalker (same "positions", if such concept would even exist in SC2) feel significantly more different to me than any T1 units from TA. TA units of the same tier/role are different of course, and quite a bit, but not nearly as much in my experience. | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
That also goes top to bottom in terms of the hard->easy in dodging the projectiles. Each unit leads to a different opener direction and deals with each other (for mirrors/team matches) and their CORE counterparts in varying ways, including that the counterparts don't even necessarily have the same weapon/projectile archetype. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
TA has 85 units per side, and in a late game when you have enough production capacity and money, you usually use a small part of your arsenal and basically stop using many if not most T1 units, don't you? That's what I noticed for myself, at least. But I'm not a great TA player at all, of course, so I might be wrong and maybe most of these 85 units are actually used by good players thoughout most of the game. I might be clueless here, and can only speak from my own experience and my friend's. Who btw loves TA, SupCom and B.A.R. much more than he loves SC2, but his feeling about faction/units uniqueness is more or less the same as mine. (though FAF did quite a bit of rebalance to make it better). Then again, I saw a guy claiming (seriously) that factions in AoE2 are more unique than factions in SC2, so beauty is in the eye of beholder, I guess. | ||
|
Southlight
United States11768 Posts
BAR takes it further - as far as I can tell in the tournaments with "pro" players 80-90% of armies are comprised of T1 units... T2 tech happens relatively later in the game and generally creates specialized units that help strengthen or push a certain scenario (ie. hold a siege, break a siege, attempt a hail-mary bombardment, etc.). Edit: To add to that CORE Kbot thing, T2 Kbots were:
Not one of these are going to form the basis of your army late-game. Hence, the Storm and Thuds continuing to comprise the bulk of your army. | ||
|
ZeroByte13
772 Posts
On April 21 2023 06:54 Southlight wrote: Which is how I'd balance T1 and T2, so I like this approach.T2 tech happens relatively later in the game and generally creates specialized units that help strengthen or push a certain scenario (ie. hold a siege, break a siege, attempt a hail-mary bombardment, etc.).. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
On April 21 2023 06:54 Southlight wrote: It's a different type of game - but also BAR handles it better. With that said, ARM Kbots have a very distinct direction for facilitating expansion and skirmishing, which is never going to be a late-game centerpiece. Incidentally, the CORE Storm and Thud could hold their own late-game. The reason why comp TA players never really liked the transition to SupCom (and why stuff like Balanced TA remained popular) is because SupCom went much harder in terms of T2>T1, whereas TA T2 units tended to be more specialized. BAR takes it further - as far as I can tell in the tournaments with "pro" players 80-90% of armies are comprised of T1 units... T2 tech happens relatively later in the game and generally creates specialized units that help strengthen or push a certain scenario (ie. hold a siege, break a siege, attempt a hail-mary bombardment, etc.). Edit: To add to that CORE Kbot thing, T2 Kbots were:
Not one of these are going to form the basis of your army late-game. Hence, the Storm and Thuds continuing to comprise the bulk of your army. You forgot to mention that quite often cheap T1 units in BAR are being produced en-masse late game for several purposes: 1. creating a mobile patrol wall around your territory to warn you of potential flanking maneuvers 2. field saturation during bigger pushes so that enemy units that have powerful single-target shots need to be manually aimed as to not waste their shots against all the chaff 3. probing attacks to test enemy defenses, clear minefields etc. (I mean, if you manage to sneak even a few T1 units behind enemy lines and into their base they can wreck total havoc on their economy, especially in the later stages when you have massive chain-reactions when your eco gets blown up) From the games I've seen so far it's not uncommon for players to mass spam Ticks and such for those purposes. It even says so right on the main website: The Tick is a fast scout bot that's cheap to build and perfect for gathering intel on your enemy. Use a few of them to take out your opponents metal extractors at the start of a game. It's far from ideal for fighting other non-scout combat units, however, in large numbers a Tick swarm is an effective way to draw enemy fire or even take out unprotected expansions. | ||
|
ShloobeR
Korea (South)3812 Posts
in Supcom for example, if you had scouted a building but then lose radar coverage (or it's jammed), you lose the ability to target units but your units know where the buildings are. in B.A.R, unless I'm just missing something very obvious (and this is totally possible after only playing like 5 games) your units just completely forget what buildings are or where they are. It's kind of just a weird (and annoying) design choice. Also units don't have a 'target ground' function? Again I'm probably missing something but I was looking for it on my Navy units but I just couldn't find one. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2578 Posts
On April 24 2023 10:54 ShloobeR wrote: Also units don't have a 'target ground' function? Again I'm probably missing something but I was looking for it on my Navy units but I just couldn't find one. They do, it's just called "attack." Hit "A" and click anywhere, and your units will fire at that spot. | ||
|
ShloobeR
Korea (South)3812 Posts
On April 24 2023 13:35 AmericanUmlaut wrote: They do, it's just called "attack." Hit "A" and click anywhere, and your units will fire at that spot. oh god really? I swear I tried that multiple times  I'll try again I guess | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17373 Posts
The devs are talking about some upgrades they're making and polishing the game. They're also planning to release it on Steam but there's still work to be done before that and it's quite an undertaking. Considering the state some games release on Steam I think it's very admirable for them to pursue such high quality goals as a team of basically just volunteers. https://www.beyondallreason.info/development/steam-release | ||
|
PunkSkeleton2
Poland2 Posts
The unique things about BAR and other TA style games are macro, interface (this one is mostly BAR specific), moving shot and reclaim/ressurect. The resource flow is continuous not discrete. There are no workers bringing minerals, you build metal (mainly mines) and energy generating structures and they generate X amount of resource per second. When you build something you don't pay in advance - you pay continuously as the structure is being built. How fast you build depends on assigned build power (which is in fact 3rd resource which you must expand). The macro in BAR is not easy, maybe there's less clicking but certainly more thinking as you try to balance the 3 resources in the most efficient way. Add the fact that wind is usually the most cost efficient (depends on map) but changes during the game and you really have a puzzle to solve. The interface... Let me say that after I tried BAR I immediately considered StormGate to be obsolete. Uncapped camera movement, rotation and zoom-out (yes, you can zoom out so you see the entire maps and icons instead of units that are too small to see). Drag-move command that auto-split destination of your units. Grid build. Auto-repeat on factories. Working and easily assignable auto-grouping... Moving shot makes it that if some units sneak past defenses the damage can be catastrophic. It is impossible to catch them if your units are not faster. They don't have to stop when they destroy your mines, windmills etc. Units also leave wrecks when destroyed (unless there is a significant overkill but that does happen very often) which can be reclaimed using any construction units granting some metal back (I think it's 75% but I might be wrong) or resurrected with T1 reclaim/ressurection bots. Resurrection costs only 50% energy and 0 metal and does what the name suggests - you get the unit. Reclaim bots are not cheap and resurrection is rather slow but it is still just broken in my opinion. Fights over wreck fields often decide games. | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
They did some 160 player trial runs recently and it works somewhat decently, the lobby system having more issues than the game itself. 40vs40 actually works fine on a modern computer, surprised me in a RTS. Though even in 8vs8 you will hit stutters or FPS drops if you move 1k+ units at once. I think the game suffers from too many options when you come in. You have action queues, which you can add or remove things to if you know the hotkeys as just one example. Pages of options in settings, widgets for extra options and so on. Setting the default options and only showing the most commonly changed in the default views would probably be nice. No match making is both a pro and a con. Lobbies has the downside of causing a lot of delays on getting the games started and boosting the best player to kill opponents worst one faster than theirs kills yours. Which isn't really how you would normally play a team game but I find that challenge gives more variation than if everybody was at similar skill level. You have your part of the map, covering your weak player and supporting your strong player. Economy sharing from minute one works fine in random public lobbies but I honestly think it is a broken mechanic if it ever got competitive. Since higher tier units are more efficient than lower tier units it is strictly better to do "Archon" mode from SC2 than both players playing. Scaling that up you probably want 1 person going tech/economy per team in an optimal setup and building units for the entire team. Which would turn team games into something most RTS players would not enjoy since base building is part of the fun. | ||
|
sophisticated
59 Posts
On February 15 2025 07:51 Yurie wrote: Scaling that up you probably want 1 person going tech/economy per team in an optimal setup and building units for the entire team. Which would turn team games into something most RTS players would not enjoy since base building is part of the fun. I don't play but have watched some youtubes and afaik this is pretty much how 8v8s are played on what are called role maps: edit: or do you mean, like only one guy builds literally everything? That doesn't seem likely, though again I don't play. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10777 Posts
My main gripe is... Why play this over Supreme Commander FA? I just don't really see what this does really better? There seem to be more units on each tier than you would ever need or want? Subcom was a bit on the low side but this seems to go way too far? I just checked and one faction seems to have... 31 Bots, 22 vehicles, 20 flyers, 20 boats, 7 hovercrafts and ~30 towers/defenses?... The fuck? What i find most worrying is, that it seems to have the same issues as Subcom in 1on1/low player games with a big likelyhood of them just becoming T1 spam but somehow that issue seems to be even bigger and the macro part smaller? Please, sell it to me | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
Basically it is a more modern engine with some different features and more modern graphics. It is still in development and thus will likely gain more there. It feels responsive but havn't done supreme commander in a while. Basically similar but feels fresh. A few of the maps are pretty much clones as well. So the major argument would be that it is a similar game with a hopefully better engine and feature set. | ||
|
sophisticated
59 Posts
On February 17 2025 17:40 Velr wrote: still unsure about buying it... Please, sell it to me it's free and open-source software, doesn't cost you a dime. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25826 Posts
However like, why are there so many units? There’s tons and tons of overlap. IDK I feel it makes it much more daunting to a newcomer without really adding a ton of variety | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
A tier 1 plant needs to have some type of skirmishing fast unit, some main line fighter, anti defence and some type of uniqueness to separate it out. They seem to want to have options inside each factory as well, so you end up with 6-7 units multiplied over 5 sets of factories. Where something like the mainline bot fighter loses against the mainline vehicle fighter but is better at flanking. Differences are there but I would agree are often small. The also keep a ton of unique units in. The entire EMP concept could for example be dropped to simplify the game and remove a ton of units. But then you lose your unique units, your SC2 storm or similar option. In tier 2 I agree they try a bit too much. Often 10 units per factory since there aren't as many types of factories and they still want all the unique stuff in there. Overall I think that is a sign of collaborate development. People have their favorite stuff that doesn't get removed. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25826 Posts
On February 23 2025 22:45 Yurie wrote: The separate factories and then separate tiers multiply units. If that is a good core design can of course be discussed, but for each to be viable they need to cover some basic things. A tier 1 plant needs to have some type of skirmishing fast unit, some main line fighter, anti defence and some type of uniqueness to separate it out. They seem to want to have options inside each factory as well, so you end up with 6-7 units multiplied over 5 sets of factories. Where something like the mainline bot fighter loses against the mainline vehicle fighter but is better at flanking. Differences are there but I would agree are often small. The also keep a ton of unique units in. The entire EMP concept could for example be dropped to simplify the game and remove a ton of units. But then you lose your unique units, your SC2 storm or similar option. In tier 2 I agree they try a bit too much. Often 10 units per factory since there aren't as many types of factories and they still want all the unique stuff in there. Overall I think that is a sign of collaborate development. People have their favorite stuff that doesn't get removed. Yeah for sure, I think you even see a bit of that in Stormgate as well, albeit in that case it’s devs trying to please everyone, versus that kind of direct collaborative development. I’m still overall pretty positive about the game for sure, there’s a lot right that’s in there! I think you see a lot of the strengths of the open source/collab approach in other areas. A lot of the UI stuff is top-notch for one. Want a feature? Well request it, or even build it yourself and if it’s good it’ll end up in the game. I think you see the benefits there for sure. More stuff, provided it’s good and doesn’t interfere with other things, is generally gonna be a good thing. This doesn’t necessarily apply to mechanics or components like units. That said I will add the caveat that I’m a relative newbie to the TA/SC lineage of RTS, perhaps for veterans this is way less of an issue. I’m just quite used to relatively small rosters of very divergent units. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
Since just about everything has a miss chance, can friendly fire, and is affected by terrain - and the battlefield changes shape with all the wreckage, which itself can be reclaimed for additional resources... Micro is definitely proportionally just as important as in broodwar. And the fact that higher-energy-yielding and metal-yielding structures are volatile / unstable, but can't be built quickly unless they're bunched together because they need to be next to build turrets makes it so games can end extremely quickly if a sufficiently strong group of units gets to your base. You still have to expand to take territory and make the most of metal deposits - but the skill ceiling is ridiculously high, just like in broodwar. And you can play massive team games without performance issues. I'll always love broodwar - but as far as what I actually PLAY... BAR has my heart. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25826 Posts
1v1 is fun I just don’t have the time to not absolutely suck ass at it, but there’s tons to love. Bigger team games suck IMO, but for differing reasons to me finding them underwhelming in SC and some other RTS games. It does feel very much that the game works in team contexts, rather than an awkward shoehorning of a game built for 1v1 being applied to a team game. On the flipside there are pretty understood ways on how to play, with quite specialist and restrictive roles. And woe fucking betide you if you don’t know how to play one. I could do a passable job at front, spamming units and microing a bit is kinda bread and butter for anyone who got even semi-decent at SC. ‘You’re too noob to play front’ ‘But I can’t play any other role!’ ‘Omg noob why can’t you play (insert other role)?’ In fairness many aren’t like that, but it really does strike me as a problem in a community that overall is pretty great. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10777 Posts
It's awesome if the positions are evenly matched. It's horrible if you get a big mismatch and your "tech/eco" guy is doing random BS while the opponent rushs a Nuke and the game is plain over. | ||
Waxangel
United States33452 Posts
On May 15 2025 07:55 WombaT wrote: It’s pretty great, I just wish there was some epic campaign to play right now. 1v1 is fun I just don’t have the time to not absolutely suck ass at it, but there’s tons to love. Bigger team games suck IMO, but for differing reasons to me finding them underwhelming in SC and some other RTS games. It does feel very much that the game works in team contexts, rather than an awkward shoehorning of a game built for 1v1 being applied to a team game. On the flipside there are pretty understood ways on how to play, with quite specialist and restrictive roles. And woe fucking betide you if you don’t know how to play one. I could do a passable job at front, spamming units and microing a bit is kinda bread and butter for anyone who got even semi-decent at SC. ‘You’re too noob to play front’ ‘But I can’t play any other role!’ ‘Omg noob why can’t you play (insert other role)?’ In fairness many aren’t like that, but it really does strike me as a problem in a community that overall is pretty great. impressed that they made an RTS with all the problems of MOBA  | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
On May 15 2025 07:55 WombaT wrote: It’s pretty great, I just wish there was some epic campaign to play right now. 1v1 is fun I just don’t have the time to not absolutely suck ass at it, but there’s tons to love. Bigger team games suck IMO, but for differing reasons to me finding them underwhelming in SC and some other RTS games. It does feel very much that the game works in team contexts, rather than an awkward shoehorning of a game built for 1v1 being applied to a team game. On the flipside there are pretty understood ways on how to play, with quite specialist and restrictive roles. And woe fucking betide you if you don’t know how to play one. I could do a passable job at front, spamming units and microing a bit is kinda bread and butter for anyone who got even semi-decent at SC. ‘You’re too noob to play front’ ‘But I can’t play any other role!’ ‘Omg noob why can’t you play (insert other role)?’ In fairness many aren’t like that, but it really does strike me as a problem in a community that overall is pretty great. The single player scenarios are pretty great in terms of preparing you for being good enough to clap ass in team games. If you can beat the 7th or 8th one where you're at the top of the hill and you're surrounded by 7 hostile commanders at the bottom of the hill, you'll definitely be good enough to carry noob lobbies on glitters. | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
On May 16 2025 01:43 Waxangel wrote: impressed that they made an RTS with all the problems of MOBA It is actually a bit interesting since it depends on the map to a large degree. You can have map designs where there isn't really any roles by making it small and open. Or you can have ones that promote hyper specialization by having choke points and other map features. If you turn off resource and unit sharing specialization also decreases. Even games with more limited sharing such as AOE2 end up with roles in team games. | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
Part 1 of a graphics overhaul. Back in our Season II announcement, we mentioned a 30% growth in daily active players. Well… scratch that. As of May, our daily active user count has doubled since the start of 2025, now surpassing 15,000 every single day! We also shattered our previous record with a peak of 3,025 concurrent players online in multiplayer alone—and we estimate just as many are playing in singleplayer! | ||
|
dyhb
9 Posts
The growth has is due to a great product and RTS streamers streaming this game. (Usual toxicity with high player count team games is pretty predictable. Nobody likes when one guy gets dominated and causes the loss for everybody else) | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
Some high-level players let me play with 100% and then 70% +resource handicap so I could get some games in with a chance of winning. They gave me advice the whole time and even congratulated me for winning the 2nd game - even though it was wickedly unfair. It plays like a mix of all the matchups from sc2. And it's also completely different. T1 usually lasts at least 10 minutes - sometimes 20 depending on the game and the map. The hardest first thing is figuring out how to defend your metal extractors from runbys, and how to split your units because any breach of the front line means a significant disadvantage - in that way it's like letting lings past your wall in PvZ. The macro game feels a lot like ZvZ in sc2. You can find moments to stop building units and focus on eco, and wisely switching between increasing macro power and powering units is far superior to just doing both at the same time without really committing to either. If you get past the early game, there are well-defined siege lines. In that way it's like TvT. There's also mines. Air units get pretty well dominated by g2a defenses, so they're not oppressive like Mutas in ZvT in sc1, or in ZvP in sc2. If an enemy is laying on the pressure and you survive, the wreckage is on your side of the map so you can reclaim it as a comeback mechanic. That feels amazing and makes for really dynamic games. (Or you can ressurect them if you have extra energy and don't need the metal right now.) At any point in the game, you lose if you lose your commander. In that way it's like chess. Bots climb things, are a little more maneuverable. Vehicles are stronger but don't climb and have more inertia. Air is unique - quite unlike sc - long swooping arcs and incredible speed, but highly squishy. Then there's also the hovercrafts, boats, and seaplanes that add yet more strategic optionality. Absurdly deep and fun game. | ||
|
ETisME
12488 Posts
Incredibly fun in both 1v1 and team, even matches against AI doesn't get boring. Definitely one of the best RTS on the market now | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25826 Posts
On May 23 2025 10:24 ThunderJunk wrote: 8v8 is the most popular format, but honestly 1v1 is the most fun. There are only ever like 2 lobbies doing 1v1 at a time - but the community is super welcoming. Some high-level players let me play with 100% and then 70% +resource handicap so I could get some games in with a chance of winning. They gave me advice the whole time and even congratulated me for winning the 2nd game - even though it was wickedly unfair. It plays like a mix of all the matchups from sc2. And it's also completely different. T1 usually lasts at least 10 minutes - sometimes 20 depending on the game and the map. The hardest first thing is figuring out how to defend your metal extractors from runbys, and how to split your units because any breach of the front line means a significant disadvantage - in that way it's like letting lings past your wall in PvZ. The macro game feels a lot like ZvZ in sc2. You can find moments to stop building units and focus on eco, and wisely switching between increasing macro power and powering units is far superior to just doing both at the same time without really committing to either. If you get past the early game, there are well-defined siege lines. In that way it's like TvT. There's also mines. Air units get pretty well dominated by g2a defenses, so they're not oppressive like Mutas in ZvT in sc1, or in ZvP in sc2. If an enemy is laying on the pressure and you survive, the wreckage is on your side of the map so you can reclaim it as a comeback mechanic. That feels amazing and makes for really dynamic games. (Or you can ressurect them if you have extra energy and don't need the metal right now.) At any point in the game, you lose if you lose your commander. In that way it's like chess. Bots climb things, are a little more maneuverable. Vehicles are stronger but don't climb and have more inertia. Air is unique - quite unlike sc - long swooping arcs and incredible speed, but highly squishy. Then there's also the hovercrafts, boats, and seaplanes that add yet more strategic optionality. Absurdly deep and fun game. It’s a sick game, it’s just a shame the 1v1 mode is so sparsely populated so you can’t just pop on and play versus someone roughly your skill. I find it doubly frustrating because while 8v8 there’s a ton of spectacle, I think 1v1 or smaller teams are much more dynamic and the depth shines more when you’re somewhat trying to do ‘everything’ versus a specialist but limited role. But 8v8 games tend to be way, way more populated. If 1v1 was even like, Stormgate populated I’d play way more. I think the community can be great here for sure but I just wanna play sometimes versus making connections just to get a decent game. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
On May 23 2025 23:58 WombaT wrote: It’s a sick game, it’s just a shame the 1v1 mode is so sparsely populated so you can’t just pop on and play versus someone roughly your skill. I find it doubly frustrating because while 8v8 there’s a ton of spectacle, I think 1v1 or smaller teams are much more dynamic and the depth shines more when you’re somewhat trying to do ‘everything’ versus a specialist but limited role. But 8v8 games tend to be way, way more populated. If 1v1 was even like, Stormgate populated I’d play way more. I think the community can be great here for sure but I just wanna play sometimes versus making connections just to get a decent game. Yeah, implementing a matchmaking system would be huge for the game. | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
On May 24 2025 00:54 ThunderJunk wrote: Yeah, implementing a matchmaking system would be huge for the game. As far as I know that is in development but doesn't have a release date yet. A while ago they added playing as parties as part of that larger effort. | ||
|
dyhb
9 Posts
Each week, there's a new unit or a new look for one of your units or factories or buildings. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
They're looking at a big balance patch to redesign some elements of T1. Right now raider units (i.e. pawns, grunts, blitzes, incisors) are too strong, and oppress 1v1. The new balance patch looks like it'll fix that. https://gist.github.com/BAR-Neb/60b5051685891de93e0d697038ecae94#tweakunits-base64-string I played FFA a couple of times, and hated it. The player who wins is the player who takes some early game wins, then sits in a corner and camps the best. Ofc, starcraft FFA is also kind of dumb. Warcraft 3 has the best FFA experience ngl. 3v3 and 4v4 are really, really exceptionally good and fun to play. The fact that there are so many commanders and units everywhere reduces the power of pawn spam, and T2 happens as often as it should. Mark my words, there is NO BETTER GAME for small team RTS. 8v8 is the most popular format, but I don't like it as much as small teams. Once the balance patch drops, I'll get more into 1v1 again. __ The other day, I played a 4v4, and I had an awesome emergent gameplay moment when I realized I could build the crawling spider bombs, and I snuck 3 behind an enemy mace deathball and as my ally drew their fire, KABOOM. Knocked out 85% of them. Hovercraft flanks. Bomber defenses. That game had it all. And on an asymmetrical map. Totally unbalanced and better for it. There's more than enough fun to be had in this game. I'm wriggling with eagerness to play on the new patch. | ||
|
dyhb
9 Posts
8v8 feels like a crapshoot on quality of team. 15 minutes of equal fighting occurs before a single colossal mistake from a single player, and the game is over. Win if the other team did it, loss if your team did it. Typically you’re fighting in a loss for another 15 minutes under constant pressure to team resign. FFA I didn’t like in SC2 either, so no surprise here. The good news is that new features and new balance changes and new maps happen fairly regularly. | ||
|
Yurie
11899 Posts
But in maps with very wide fronts where everybody has to be at them you often end up in scenarios of who collapses first due to the difference in player skill. I think large team games are popular because you can try out some slightly subpar strategies and still win. You are also not clearly the reason a game was won/lost in most cases, meaning it is less demoralizing to play. Similar to a Moba, there is a reason the 1vs1 modes never hit a large popularity, which is why it is surprising to me that RTS seems to push for that still. I would strongly agree that it becomes less competitive due to more random factors as player count increases. General gaming trend seems to state that is a good thing for player retention/fun. | ||
|
dyhb
9 Posts
High OS lobbies have a selection of 5-20 "meta" strategies that evolve over time. Pooling resources or "commie" builds that push the map's available income into one or two players to tech rapidly or produce an overwhelming stream of low-tech units. A sister to pooling resources is building economic production buildings for allies deliberately at high cost to yourself. On Supreme Isthmus, this comes in several flavors, including building and trading tidal generators to allies in order to get their army online earlier and win their lane. The basic meta is almost taken for granted as the way to play the game. One player sacrifices all his resources and commander to tech up rapidly, another player distributes air transport to get his tech (advanced T2 constructor) to allies, and you can have an 8v8 where 6 players fight and win the game and 2 players support from afar. One downside to 8v8 is that one team may impoverish more players in order to boost a single player, and that player is simply good enough to dominate 4-6 players for 10 minutes and give the entire team a huge advantage. The opponents realize further struggle is pointless very early in the match. The enemy will simply scale their armies and economies too quickly to be matched. You aren't playing from behind, you're simply delaying the inevitable. So the calls come out for a group surrender 2 minutes after the first attack of the game, followed by quits if the vote to resign does not succeed. Another downside is catastrophizing players that are at a playable disadvantage, but verbally berate and cajole allies to vote for a team resign. They had a bad start, or they got ganged up on and lost a significant amount of invested metal, and they don't want to struggle as another player comes in to cover their front while they rebuild or tech. This is a primary source of toxicity. Who's really to say that their setback isn't game-losing? But very MOBA-like toxicity here. Yet another downside is that one player that is in an unfamiliar role or is well below the median skill of the team. The opponents either get lucky enough to focus their effort on that player, and it's strength versus weakness, or his role is critical for whole-team effectiveness, and the entire team struggles without support. In either case, allies and enemies verbally berate the poorly performing player until the loss. Sometimes for several minutes at a time while players play on. So I try to balance 8v8 with 1v1, 3v3, 4v4, 4vAI and 8vAI to blow off steam. It sucks to put in 12 minutes of narrow defenses or attacks that slowly beat the enemy back, where that one player forgot something critical and 7 players lose instantly. As a final note, the ability to make your own AI and load them into the lobby is absolutely incredible. AI authors have been cranking out very challenging AI strategies with boosted AI income that require intense team coordination. Having 6 players you know in the 8vAI lobby is almost a requirement for victory. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
They gave metal extractors and constructors a bit more hp so raiders aren't quite as oppressive. Generally it's a big improvement to 1v1. | ||
|
Lysteria
France2280 Posts
I should take a look at the latest patch notes. Any other major change? | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
• [Conbots] +15% hp • [T1 turrets (not aa, not popups)] -10% buildtime • [Commander] 25 -> 30 energymake • [T1 factories] -150 metalcost, -250 energycost, -1500 buildtime, 100 -> 150 buildpower • [Missile trucks] taller hitbox • [Grunt] -2,5% costs • [Blitz] 99 -> 101 speed • [Starlight] 13500 -> 18500 energycost • [Bull] 65.1 -> 60 speed • [Jaguar] 320 -> 300 range, -10% dps (lightning) • [Tzar] 22000 -> 28000 energycost • [Sprinter] -10% costs • [Termite] -10% costs, 48.3 -> 50 speed • [Juggernaut] 33.6 -> 37 speed • [T2 AA bots] - New weapons. - Longrange (1300) missile + flak for Cortex - Longrange (1200) missile + shortrange missile for Armada - ~Double health - +30% energycost • [Flagships] - Reduced firerate on big gun, slightly increased damage per shot. Together, ~25% dps nerf - Bigger AoE and Impulse on big gun, reduced edgeeffectiveness to 0.15 - +17% costs | ||
|
dyhb
9 Posts
I never really felt the flagship change. Legion keeps getting closer to fully polished. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States703 Posts
I've been enjoying 1v1 a LOT since the patch dropped. Raider units still dominate the early game, as they should, but it actually does become a winning move to transition away from them. Having more hp on the mexes and cons makes leaking a little more forgiving - so eco builds stand up a lot better to aggro builds. Also, LLTs are more spammable - and they're good against raiders. Lower factory costs make tech switching more attractive all around. The T2 unit changes are more relevant in team games. The T2 AA bots are still largely ignored though, since spamming T1 AA covers more of the map. | ||
| ||
