EPTZeroSpace Megathread - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Berstis
38 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7221 Posts
On February 16 2026 20:40 Berstis wrote: There are about 25-50 people playing this thing. Its pretty much done, isnt it? Why would you say that? This was a limited demo with 0 marketing (this is a problem TBH) There was supposed to be a small tournament. Anyone any info? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20332 Posts
On February 16 2026 21:21 Harris1st wrote: Why would you say that? This was a limited demo with 0 marketing (this is a problem TBH) There was supposed to be a small tournament. Anyone any info? It's on Artosis's twitch page (or was, at least) I have taken a quick look at the technical side of the game a few times, and i'm still a bit concerned about performance (comparing it to SC2). There's quite a lot of what looks like shader compilation stutter during gameplay, but hopefully they can iron that out. The unit count stuff looks promising. I'm mostly waiting for release-state campaign and co-op, + videos from GGG on the campaign :D Esports is and always will be just the icing on the cake of a good game. I don't really like to see a lot of emphasis on it too early in development, and personally all of my interest comes from understanding/analysing the game state and the decisions that the players are making - it feels meaningless to watch people play when i don't know all of the different units, buildings, stats/abilities etcetc. I don't feel particularly compelled to learn all of that stuff when the game is in an alpha state and likely ruin a lot of the experience for myself either, but looking forward to it. As for players, they are starting EA proper in ~Q3 with substantially more features. I wouldn't really bother looking at playercount until at least then. | ||
|
Berstis
38 Posts
On February 16 2026 21:21 Harris1st wrote: Why would you say that? This was a limited demo with 0 marketing (this is a problem TBH) There was supposed to be a small tournament. Anyone any info? You answered it pretty much yourself: There is 0 marketing, there wont be a budget for marketing. Who is their audience anyway? Everyone who had his fair share of Starcraft 2 is not gonna play a "Custom Map" version of the game. Everyone else could just play the Starcraft 2. Not too mention that it looks extremely like a china ripoff version of Starcraft 2 | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20332 Posts
| ||
|
Berstis
38 Posts
On February 17 2026 16:38 Cyro wrote: Advertising an alpha which isn't for sale would be a wild exception, not the norm. It is very much considered mid development right now, with the first "sellable" version (EA start) 6 months down the line. There are a couple of things wrong here: Its not presented as an alpha version Its pushed out as a demo They are (not) advertising their game on "steam pvp fest" I think its quite naive to assume that they are on some kind of scheduled develepment plan. They are simply developing on the run. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7221 Posts
On February 17 2026 06:57 Berstis wrote: You answered it pretty much yourself: There is 0 marketing, there wont be a budget for marketing. Who is their audience anyway? Everyone who had his fair share of Starcraft 2 is not gonna play a "Custom Map" version of the game. Everyone else could just play the Starcraft 2. Not too mention that it looks extremely like a china ripoff version of Starcraft 2 Visuals are not my cup of tea either. But I was like the only person to like Stormgates visual direction so I am not the norm lol. I hope as soon as the campaign is ready with the early access they do some sort of marketing. Be it via social media, twitch, reviews and whatnot. You don't need a lot of money for that TBH | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20332 Posts
Its not presented as an alpha version It is! They are (not) advertising their game on "steam pvp fest" It's a PVE-focused game in alpha. They're targetting one of the steam fests later in the year when they have content ready. It would do more harm than good to put all eyes on the game before it's even ready to go into the start of EA. | ||
|
Berstis
38 Posts
On February 17 2026 21:44 Cyro wrote: It is! It's a PVE-focused game in alpha. They're targetting one of the steam fests later in the year when they have content ready. It would do more harm than good to put all eyes on the game before it's even ready to go into the start of EA. It is not https://store.steampowered.com/app/1605850/ZeroSpace/ https://www.playzerospace.com/ There is nothing on steam that suggest "Please dont look too closely". It says: "Download our Demo!" Let me quote them: "Get access to our Open-Beta(2025) and receive exclusive updates on events and a chance to participate in our Closed-Alpha(2024). Enlist Today!" A demo is usually released to, you know, "demonstrate" your (almost) finished game. Its not a beta-test, or else they would call it that. But fuck it: The lines between alpha, beta, release-candidate, release-version have been terminated a long time ago. Since all those game are developed by indi-fan developer being their own bosses, they can just release whatever they feel like | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5461 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9439 Posts
On February 16 2026 21:33 Cyro wrote: It's on Artosis's twitch page (or was, at least) I have taken a quick look at the technical side of the game a few times, and i'm still a bit concerned about performance (comparing it to SC2). There's quite a lot of what looks like shader compilation stutter during gameplay, but hopefully they can iron that out. The unit count stuff looks promising. I'm mostly waiting for release-state campaign and co-op, + videos from GGG on the campaign :D Esports is and always will be just the icing on the cake of a good game. I don't really like to see a lot of emphasis on it too early in development, and personally all of my interest comes from understanding/analysing the game state and the decisions that the players are making - it feels meaningless to watch people play when i don't know all of the different units, buildings, stats/abilities etcetc. I don't feel particularly compelled to learn all of that stuff when the game is in an alpha state and likely ruin a lot of the experience for myself either, but looking forward to it. As for players, they are starting EA proper in ~Q3 with substantially more features. I wouldn't really bother looking at playercount until at least then. Competitive gaming is massive. It's what make people play the game over and over, e.g. CS, Dota, LOL. Yes you can get some players in by making a decent single player game, but if multiplayer isn't wowing people, it won't establish a stable player base. | ||
|
ETisME
12729 Posts
What I am bit conflicted is, I am not sure if it is worth all the extra time/resources. Polish is definitely ideal, like path finding, more visual and audio cues etc. The gameplay (in terms of XP tower, faction and merch, heroes etc) have been decent for a while now, ignoring balance side of things. I hope they aren't burning too much cash into gameplay changes, but more on delivering quality content. (the new PvE maps are decent enough) | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7221 Posts
On February 18 2026 04:25 Hider wrote: Competitive gaming is massive. It's what make people play the game over and over, e.g. CS, Dota, LOL. Yes you can get some players in by making a decent single player game, but if multiplayer isn't wowing people, it won't establish a stable player base. While true, this is not something you can or should bank on. These are unicorns which come around like every 5 years and are here to stay. Don't expect your game to be a unicorn. Don't build a game with only competitive modes in mind. Where is the incentive for people to even get into said modes. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9439 Posts
On February 18 2026 16:59 Harris1st wrote: While true, this is not something you can or should bank on. These are unicorns which come around like every 5 years and are here to stay. Don't expect your game to be a unicorn. Don't build a game with only competitive modes in mind. Where is the incentive for people to even get into said modes. I think I probably agree with you. My perspective, you can only develop a successful competitive game if you have a clear vision for how to create a significantly better competitive experience and how to attract a desirable target audience. You develop a proof of concept to test out your ideas at the lowest cost possible. All of these conditions must be met for the game to have any chance, but instead I think RTS devs suffer from the following: * They don't have a clear vision besides "better QoL" * They are not developing a quick prototype to test the hypothesis. It is a longshot to make a succesful competitive experience, but the costs of a small prototype has to be low. Don't hire 30 people until you have validated this. My hypothesis: RTS games have far far more potential for awesome micro opportunities. Current RTS games have only reached perhaps 30% of it's potential. If I nail micro, I believe a large percentage of the MOBA audience could be captured. I have several ideas for awesome micro opportunities I want to test. If I were to develop a game i would need to create a prototype to validate it (or invalidate it). It is essential that the feedback must be extremely positive, if it's "yeh i guess it was okay" - the game is DOA and needs to be redone. If the target group is not absolutely loving the micro mechanics it cannot work. My impression is that game-devs are not properly getting feedback and not changing course of directions fast enough. All of these games are just meh. It feels like they use feedback to fine-tune their existing ideas - whereas they need to be willing to start completely from scratch. But if you already built a large team maybe that is too late. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9303 Posts
It doesn't look like Zerospace is heading in that direction. It's supposed to have co-op, but just having co-op is not enough. The campaign and general lore looks way more promising than whatever Stormgate tried to sell, and we shouldn't forget that there's a significant group fo RTS players who are mainly (and sometimes exclusively) interested in the single player mode. I think the campaign and the 1v1 experience are going to be Zerospace's main selling points. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2740 Posts
On February 19 2026 05:39 Sent. wrote: I do not think many MOBA players want more micro in their games, especially the RTS kind of micro. If we wanted to focus on the MOBA audience (and I agree that's one of the most optimal directions) we should focus on developing co-op, team games and visually appealing unit skins. Releasing the game with super-casual modes similar to SC2's Desert Strike and Star Battle or LoL's ARAM should probably also be on the priority list. It doesn't look like Zerospace is heading in that direction. It's supposed to have co-op, but just having co-op is not enough. The campaign and general lore looks way more promising than whatever Stormgate tried to sell, and we shouldn't forget that there's a significant group fo RTS players who are mainly (and sometimes exclusively) interested in the single player mode. I think the campaign and the 1v1 experience are going to be Zerospace's main selling points. Agreed regarding "MOBA players don't want more micro" Historically in dota, multi-unit-control heroes are among the least popular, and LOL (historically the more popular moba) doesn't have meaningful multi-unit control. There's also something in RTS to be learned about *can* micro vs *have to* micro. I don't think WoL marine splitting vs banes was anyone's favourite thing, but the matchup virtually required it. Compare that to SC1 pesky probe micro or either SC ling vs zealot, where micro is beneficial but not mandatory. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9439 Posts
On February 19 2026 05:39 Sent. wrote: I do not think many MOBA players want more micro in their games, especially the RTS kind of micro. If we wanted to focus on the MOBA audience (and I agree that's one of the most optimal directions) we should focus on developing co-op, team games and visually appealing unit skins. Releasing the game with super-casual modes similar to SC2's Desert Strike and Star Battle or LoL's ARAM should probably also be on the priority list. It doesn't look like Zerospace is heading in that direction. It's supposed to have co-op, but just having co-op is not enough. The campaign and general lore looks way more promising than whatever Stormgate tried to sell, and we shouldn't forget that there's a significant group fo RTS players who are mainly (and sometimes exclusively) interested in the single player mode. I think the campaign and the 1v1 experience are going to be Zerospace's main selling points. There are different types of MOBA players that play for different reasons. My theory is that majority of MOBA players who play high skill cap champions with outplay potential in reality would prefer to play a well made 1v1 RTS game. MOBA's are just far better suited to their current needs becuase RTS games are so far off from their potential. IMO a lot of the outplay satisfaction you get from a MOBA is comparable to that you can get in an RTS. In a 1v1 you can control the experience so much better than in a MOBA though. Hence why I think it has a lot of potential. But ofc this is just a theory - hence my original point is that the theories needs to be tested ASAP, not assumed, which is the mistake I think all the RTS devs make. Historically in dota, multi-unit-control heroes are among the least popular, and LOL (historically the more popular moba) doesn't have meaningful multi-unit control. My point is actually somewhat aligned with what you are saying. Micro heroes in DOTA are not examples of micro I want. What I am thinking of: When I played Invokver in dota many years ago, it was awesome and he was a fun and rewarding hero. Felt comparable to Sc2. My point is to study some of the ability design by the most popular MOBA characters. What makes them awesome. WHy do the players love those? What type of concepts can an RTS be inspired by? You can split the MOBA audience into different groups, I am as previously stated looking at the players who like to play higher skill cap champions with outplay potential. If micro is done well in an RTS game it will enable players to be vastly more cost efficient than their opponent = An outplay, just like you have outplays in a MOBA. Timing abilities and moving you units/character around in reaction to the opponents action. All familiar concepts in both MOBA's and RTS games. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7221 Posts
On February 19 2026 05:02 Hider wrote: I think I probably agree with you. My perspective, you can only develop a successful competitive game if you have a clear vision for how to create a significantly better competitive experience and how to attract a desirable target audience. You develop a proof of concept to test out your ideas at the lowest cost possible. All of these conditions must be met for the game to have any chance, but instead I think RTS devs suffer from the following: * They don't have a clear vision besides "better QoL" * They are not developing a quick prototype to test the hypothesis. It is a longshot to make a succesful competitive experience, but the costs of a small prototype has to be low. Don't hire 30 people until you have validated this. My hypothesis: I have several ideas for awesome micro opportunities I want to test. If I were to develop a game i would need to create a prototype to validate it (or invalidate it). It is essential that the feedback must be extremely positive, if it's "yeh i guess it was okay" - the game is DOA and needs to be redone. If the target group is not absolutely loving the micro mechanics it cannot work. My impression is that game-devs are not properly getting feedback and not changing course of directions fast enough. All of these games are just meh. It feels like they use feedback to fine-tune their existing ideas - whereas they need to be willing to start completely from scratch. But if you already built a large team maybe that is too late. Yes it's basically GameDevs: Here is an early prototype: Tester: Meh, it's not that fun GD: Don't worry it will be later on. We'll make some minor adjustments GameDevs: Here is an alpha: Tester: Meh, it's not that fun and needs big changes. GD: Don't worry it will be later on. We'll make some minor adjustments GameDevs: Here is the beta: Tester: It's really not that fun and it needs a major overhaul. GD: Don't worry it will be later on. We'll make some minor adjustments GameDevs: Here is the (early access) release: Tester: Nope, still not fun. I don't wanna play this GD: Whaaaaaaaaaat?? Why didn't you say so ealier? Now all the money is gone | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2740 Posts
On February 19 2026 17:55 Hider wrote: There are different types of MOBA players that play for different reasons. My theory is that majority of MOBA players who play high skill cap champions with outplay potential in reality would prefer to play a well made 1v1 RTS game. MOBA's are just far better suited to their current needs becuase RTS games are so far off from their potential. IMO a lot of the outplay satisfaction you get from a MOBA is comparable to that you can get in an RTS. In a 1v1 you can control the experience so much better than in a MOBA though. Hence why I think it has a lot of potential. But ofc this is just a theory - hence my original point is that the theories needs to be tested ASAP, not assumed, which is the mistake I think all the RTS devs make. My point is actually somewhat aligned with what you are saying. Micro heroes in DOTA are not examples of micro I want. What I am thinking of: When I played Invokver in dota many years ago, it was awesome and he was a fun and rewarding hero. Felt comparable to Sc2. My point is to study some of the ability design by the most popular MOBA characters. What makes them awesome. WHy do the players love those? What type of concepts can an RTS be inspired by? You can split the MOBA audience into different groups, I am as previously stated looking at the players who like to play higher skill cap champions with outplay potential. If micro is done well in an RTS game it will enable players to be vastly more cost efficient than their opponent = An outplay, just like you have outplays in a MOBA. Timing abilities and moving you units/character around in reaction to the opponents action. All familiar concepts in both MOBA's and RTS games. Interesting! I personally don't get much overlap in feeling between dota and SC2. Dota feels like a massively slower and less intense experience than sc2, punctuated by plenty of 'fun skirmishes' that don't necessarily end the game. Sc2 (though I'm decidedly worse at sc2) felt more like wrestling - once you're locked in combat its hard to get out safely, and any small mistake could instantly lose you the match. I know for myself I don't want that intensity anymore. I don't know if that's true for everyone, and I don't think I'm target demo for 'competitive rts' anymore, but thats my thoughts on the subject. Regarding micro and dota, we'd have to iron out what we mean by micro / tactics / strategy etc. Invoker doesn't (by my definitions) have 'micro' outside of forge spirits, which you normally just amove anyways. I can obviously agree that choosing and casting the right spell at the right time is exhilarating and difficult, I just struggle to associate that with 'micro' I guess. | ||
|
Yurie
12096 Posts
Heck even something like Battlerite is just that combat part distilled and all those games lose players until they are gone. If they want the small choices snowballing experience instead why wouldn't they do grand strategy where the snowball is very long? Something that is important that can be brought over is that each game should tell a story and be unique enough. That is the major problem with RTS games for me, each individual game is too similar to a previous one. As that feeling settles I move on. It is also why I have preferred large team sizes as the random factors increase the experience difference is larger. I personally think no RTS will ever strike it BIG again due to competition. RTS is a mix of genres and if you find the part of RTS you enjoy the most there is another genre fulfilling that better. It is only if that exact mix is what you prefer that you stick around. Currently the social aspects of RTS is very weak, so that doesn't keep you there either (still need to get pulled in in the first place). I personally really liked what they do with a lot of AoE campaigns where you get to play out alternate history to a small degree. The story telling is what I care about there more than the game. | ||
| ||
