The PowerPlay RTS/4X game in Steam Early Access runs on Unity.
On August 06 2026 22:36 Mrs Crabbleman wrote: In either case, why support it. It's like the last thing to support in this space: someone with 0 new ideas that is virtually preying on your weakness of being super nostalgic and having neurons fire at the sight of something familiar.
Hate me all you want, these games are trayish.
If an individual I will never meet, who lives halfway across the world is having fun playing a video game in his spare time... I am not going to question his motives. Meh.
"Why would you insult what someone sees as entertainment for themselves?", Jesse Ventura, Former Governor of Minnesota.
It's not about someone else's choice of entertainment. I don't care. But as I said, it's 1 of 2 reasons why we see these heavily derivative games so often. If you like them, play them. But people deserve way more in my opinion. I think it's fine to say it. If I come across as mean here, there's at least passion at the root of it.
All I really want is for us all to play the same game again. If everyone else is playing a RTS and I'm not, then my conception of what makes a great RTS might just be off. But so far people haven't really rallied behind something.
Regarding indie attempts at RTS, I would never bash someone's game that really went for it and tried to bring something new to the table. To me, that is truly mean. But it's different when it feels like a borderline ripoff of a previous title. It feels either cynical or low effort. Not my cup. Don't shoot me.
edit: I did call the games trash, and that was way too harsh. So my bad for that. Not necessary. It's true I should let it lie.
On August 07 2026 03:33 Mrs Crabbleman wrote: It's not about someone else's choice of entertainment. I don't care. But as I said, it's 1 of 2 reasons why we see these heavily derivative games so often. If you like them, play them. But people deserve way more in my opinion. I think it's fine to say it. If I come across as mean here, there's at least passion at the root of it.
All I really want is for us all to play the same game again. If everyone else is playing a RTS and I'm not, then my conception of what makes a great RTS might just be off. But so far people haven't really rallied behind something.
Regarding indie attempts at RTS, I would never bash someone's game that really went for it and tried to bring something new to the table. To me, that is truly mean. But it's different when it feels like a borderline ripoff of a previous title. It feels either cynical or low effort. Not my cup. Don't shoot me.
edit: I did call the games trash, and that was way too harsh. So my bad for that. Not necessary. It's true I should let it lie.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
If you make a nice campaign then you used used a proven vessel to tell a story/journey. I am fine if they make a carbon copy of the game mechanics as long as they use it to do anything new.
Most of the time they don't and I never play the title.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
On July 24 2026 12:57 Waxangel wrote:
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Not sure how to do this with macro. Maybe some tutorial/ contest map where you have to hit some timing checkmarks/ highscores. Micro is rather easy and Starcraft 2 had those challenges build in already i think. I remember something with Banshee vs marines Or those maps the PROs play marine baneling challenge etc.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Battle aces is quite sweaty, everything is sped up, and hard counter is harder than immortal going up against ultra. In many ways it's even faster than sc2
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
On July 24 2026 12:57 Waxangel wrote:
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Not sure how to do this with macro. Maybe some tutorial/ contest map where you have to hit some timing checkmarks/ highscores. Micro is rather easy and Starcraft 2 had those challenges build in already i think. I remember something with Banshee vs marines Or those maps the PROs play marine baneling challenge etc.
Obviously without a fun game no one's going to care or try to learn difficult shit. And in that way I think it comes down to core fundamentals, good design, fun and confident shit happening on screen. Like the design of the resources, your gatherer, his voice lines, and how it feels to box select them, move them, etc. The window dressing after that can be sliced a million different ways and figured out in closed testing, like whether it's a mode, map, baked into campaign, part of your first few ladder matches, etc. It sounds surface level and obvious to just say 'make fun thing' but what the fuck, doesn't it always come back to that? hah. As in, much less about any specific idea and more about the design acumen of the devs.
In painting, one of my teachers used to say "learn how to paint before you learn how to paint something." As in, your painting skill will unlock the ability to paint anything, but without it you won't be able to paint a single thing.
In general, I think a really good start is strong audio-visual feedback for completing tasks or killing things. It's like Pavlov's dog. Also great animation, even way over-the-top. DORF had the right idea in their initial promos in 2023. Like a modern C&C on acid and speed. On a personal note, my enthusiasm for DORF has drained a bit. But they nailed the vibe that would, in theory, attract people to learn the game.
I don't think it needs to be too analytical, just whatever gets people very interested to play. Could be something unexpected.
Regarding dumb QoL stuff, a small thing I like about ZeroSpace that's good for noobs is the 'your production buildings are idle' alert. It's a bit of a hand-hold but would be cool in a tougher game with lots of multitasking. Resources and pop being above the minimap to get people looking at the minimap more also seems like the right call. I also had this idea for a bit, but ZeroSpace (I think) has implemented it.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
On July 24 2026 12:57 Waxangel wrote:
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Battle aces is quite sweaty, everything is sped up, and hard counter is harder than immortal going up against ultra. In many ways it's even faster than sc2
That does sound absolutely awful.
I am slightly interested in DK's Battle Aces redux just out of curiosity, but my expectations are basically in Hell. Also never understand why people don't launch with a very strong and clear plan to get noobs into their game, show them a good time, and prevent them from getting ass-bashed on ladder (resulting in their quitting after going 0-5). Especially this last part about padding the ladder experience and confronting people's anxiety. Devs just go hands up and hope for the best wtf. That never works lolmao. Battle Ace's solution was let you play against AI without you knowing it if you lost too much I guess? Splarf.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
On July 24 2026 12:57 Waxangel wrote:
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Not sure how to do this with macro. Maybe some tutorial/ contest map where you have to hit some timing checkmarks/ highscores. Micro is rather easy and Starcraft 2 had those challenges build in already i think. I remember something with Banshee vs marines Or those maps the PROs play marine baneling challenge etc.
Obviously without a fun game no one's going to care or try to learn difficult shit. And in that way I think it comes down to core fundamentals, good design, fun and confident shit happening on screen. Like the design of the resources, your gatherer, his voice lines, and how it feels to box select them, move them, etc. The window dressing after that can be sliced a million different ways and figured out in closed testing, like whether it's a mode, map, baked into campaign, part of your first few ladder matches, etc. It sounds surface level and obvious to just say 'make fun thing' but what the fuck, doesn't it always come back to that? hah. As in, much less about any specific idea and more about the design acumen of the devs.
In painting, one of my teachers used to say "learn how to paint before you learn how to paint something." As in, your painting skill will unlock the ability to paint anything, but without it you won't be able to paint a single thing.
In general, I think a really good start is strong audio-visual feedback for completing tasks or killing things. It's like Pavlov's dog. Also great animation, even way over-the-top. DORF had the right idea in their initial promos in 2023. Like a modern C&C on acid and speed. On a personal note, my enthusiasm for DORF has drained a bit. But they nailed the vibe that would, in theory, attract people to learn the game.
I don't think it needs to be too analytical, just whatever gets people very interested to play. Could be something unexpected.
Regarding dumb QoL stuff, a small thing I like about ZeroSpace that's good for noobs is the 'your production buildings are idle' alert. It's a bit of a hand-hold but would be cool in a tougher game with lots of multitasking. Resources and pop being above the minimap to get people looking at the minimap more also seems like the right call. I also had this idea for a bit, but ZeroSpace (I think) has implemented it.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
On July 24 2026 12:57 Waxangel wrote:
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Battle aces is quite sweaty, everything is sped up, and hard counter is harder than immortal going up against ultra. In many ways it's even faster than sc2
That does sound absolutely awful.
I am slightly interested in DK's Battle Aces redux just out of curiosity, but my expectations are basically in Hell. Also never understand why people don't launch with a very strong and clear plan to get noobs into their game, show them a good time, and prevent them from getting ass-bashed on ladder (resulting in their quitting after going 0-5). Especially this last part about padding the ladder experience and confronting people's anxiety. Devs just go hands up and hope for the best wtf. That never works lolmao. Battle Ace's solution was let you play against AI without you knowing it if you lost too much I guess? Splarf.
I really enjoyed battle aces. It IS the very definition of easy to pick up and play, difficult to master. The issue is the player count were not high enough to get complete newbies in, and the game can get just as hardcore and multitask heavy. I find myself making a lot more on the spot decision making than many other RTS that are more second nature, because you need to react to their deck. When are their hard counter being unlocked for example.
Yeah I felt that for what I saw of Liquidation - it looks like it hits a lot of the fundamentals, but I was waiting for -any- new idea to arrive and it didn't look like there was much. Not a BAD game per se, in the same way a reproduction of the mona lisa wouldn't be a bad painting. That's fine if that's what you wanna make, but if you're not giving the mona lisa a funny hat or widening the canvas or bringing any new idea, then what's the point.
Yeah exactly.
Not for nothing but I am very eager to be positive in this thread. In fact in the beginning that's what I was all about.
On July 24 2026 12:57 Waxangel wrote:
Also, it's amusing to me that the Steam page for Crimson Freedom explicitly states "SINGLE PLAYER FIRST" and "LESS MICRO, MORE MACRO... ...Focus on commanding epic battles and crushing your opponents without the stress of resource micromanagement or high APM demands, allowing for a laid-back and enjoyable gaming experience." as part of its selling points. I've seen that sort of verbiage in a handful of other RTS games, and it makes me wonder how niche hardcore PvP RTS like SC2 has become.
Not even sure what is objectively hardcore anymore. I saw people saying 1v1 Battle Aces was sweaty, and you literally just attack-move units around. Guess it's just any type of fast paced competition.
Not wanting to play 1v1 competitive is one thing, but I wouldn't assume all these people also don't want a mechanical experience. Even if they are hesitant at first, or new to the genre, they could actually really like it once exposed to it.
There is a lot of room to show people that management is fun and rewarding, it's just that small hump in the beginning that deters people--they don't get to the fun part. But devs tend to excise these manually-driven components altogether instead of making any attempt to seduce people with something more mechanical, i.e. employing any number of clever solutions or tutorialization to get people over the initial hump. Pro players accomplish this for people already interested in RTS, because their play is so cool they inspire us to improve, but I haven't seen any devs try their own methods. And this excising of the mechanics, the "resource management" or the "high APM" demands is ironically a large part of what makes the game worth playing. If I'm incorrect on this then we will see one of these more streamlined, excised, automated games be heralded as 'great' at some point.
Not sure how to do this with macro. Maybe some tutorial/ contest map where you have to hit some timing checkmarks/ highscores. Micro is rather easy and Starcraft 2 had those challenges build in already i think. I remember something with Banshee vs marines Or those maps the PROs play marine baneling challenge etc.
I think the obvious answer for single player is RTS that have pause/play built in seamlessly, and you're expected to use it a lot. There's a lot of pseudo-RTS games that get mileage out of this like the Anno series or Sins of A Solar Empire. I think there's players who like that kind of game, but would just like the gameplay to skew more toward RTS than 4X or city-builder.
For multiplayer, it's just inherent to anything that resembles RTS we recognize that it's going to be sweaty as fuck. It's just the nature of the genre that any APM savings in one place will quickly get allocated somewhere else. Just like how BW-elitists complained that multiple building selection/production would make SC2 'easier', but in reality SC2 just became hard in a different way (a continuous harssment/defense multitasking test). Ultimately, your only choice is WHERE you want to be spending your many clicks and key presses.
Random side-bar from the above: I think one of BW's greatest strengths as a viewer esport is that players' decisions on where to allocate their APM was way more apparent for casual viewers, so it was easier to disintinguish ppl's styles as macro or micro players.
On August 12 2026 19:36 TelecoM wrote: Hopefully DORF comes out soon!
Closed Beta for kickstarter supporters is supposed to happen before the end of the year. Their estimates for a full 1.0 release are: Q3 2028 at WORST estimate, Q3/4 2027 for a more hopeful estimate.
EPT
