edit: I am not going to speculate on if this is a good or bad idea, if it will or won't work, etc etc. It is too big a change to speculate on without putting it to the test with tons of competitive play IMHO. But please watch the videos before posting. I am seeing so many ignorant posts in this thread from people ruling out the concept entirely and stating reasons that are addressed in the first video.
Uhm, wow? No idea how this would play out, but it seems like a crazy interesting concept. It would be nice if some publisher picked this up and put some real money into it, since it will forever be condemned to idie-niche with it's obviously low-budget presentation.
edit: Need to highlight the mind-bending strategy coming out of this with this 'battle report' on their site:
Chris used a neat strategy against me in a memorable free-for-all game between him, Konrad, and myself. I launched a massive surprise attack on Chris's mining base, so he traveled back in time, prepared a large fleet to counter my attack and succeeded. However, in the present I acquired nukes and sent a nuke back to the end of the battle that destroyed his remaining fleet. Before it was over, he jumped back further in time, moved his mining base and undid his counter attack. Since his fleet had left the area and my army had conquered it, my nuclear blast from the future decimated my own forces! Right at that time, Konrad came at me with his forces, so I didn't have time to undo my nuclear blast.
"The Strategies Mar·16·2009 7:14pm by Mike Resnick, AI developer and gameplay designer
Chris used a neat strategy against me in a memorable free-for-all game between him, Konrad, and myself. I launched a massive surprise attack on Chris's mining base, so he traveled back in time, prepared a large fleet to counter my attack and succeeded. However, in the present I acquired nukes and sent a nuke back to the end of the battle that destroyed his remaining fleet. Before it was over, he jumped back further in time, moved his mining base and undid his counter attack. Since his fleet had left the area and my army had conquered it, my nuclear blast from the future decimated my own forces! Right at that time, Konrad came at me with his forces, so I didn't have time to undo my nuclear blast."
On March 28 2009 04:39 JWD wrote: This is a really interesting game dynamic, but I think it would be really difficult to pull off...I'll have to play around with this game before I'm convinced.
For example, based on the quoted text above, it seems like you can time travel to change the outcome of one battle an unlimited number of times? At what point does the "but then I went into the past and countered his time travel with X" stop?
Didn't you watch the multiplayer video? Time travelling costs resources!
Wow.. looks really cool, I'd love to play around with this ^^
On March 28 2009 04:39 JWD wrote: This is a really interesting game dynamic, but I think it would be really difficult to pull off...I'll have to play around with this game before I'm convinced.
For example, based on the quoted text above, it seems like you can time travel to change the outcome of one battle an unlimited number of times? At what point does the "but then I went into the past and countered his time travel with X" stop?
Based on the youtube video, time travel ability is a resource in itself (chronotime?) which regenerates as the game goes on, you cant keep spamming it forever. Also, just like in a regular RTS, you can only think/react/execute up to a certain speed and at a certain point regardless of how much 'time travel' there is, the better player should win.
On March 28 2009 04:36 mikeymoo wrote: O_O This is awesome! That would be great if someone picked this up! Although it may be a little bit complex for the "average" gamer.
Indeed, how awesome it may be, I really doubt it has any potential to the broad spectrum of players for it's 'complexity'.
Portal was kinda gamebreaking in it's own mechanics, this might be taking it bit too far, but damn this would be one awesome game to actually play.
I am starting doubting this (let's apply this concept for starcraft)
Let's say it's pvp. I rush for the time travel tech, and asap I send back my first zealot to the time where we only had 4 probes.
How isn't this insta win?
In that time, I stall his mining process and he won't have any resources hence I win.
Edit: Okay maybe this was a stupid question, because I believe that this will be the primary strategy, going back in time and taking away the opponent's resources.
That sounds like whoever has the largest apm can always one-up the other person by teleporting shit through time-portals, with people doing like 100 time changes a minute for 10 minutes against each other until one person fucks up or gives up.
Honestly, when I first came into this topic I figured this would be just another gameplay gimmick. But after watching the first Youtube video, "Time Travel Explained", I was really impressed.
I watched the other 2 videos as well.
So I looked further and read the FAQ, where I saw this:
Q. Dude, paradoxes?! You know, grandfather paradox, units fighting side by side? A. Paradoxes can exist, but since the window of time is limited (e.g, an 8 minute window) all events eventually fall off. A paradox will oscillate between its different states until one of the states reaches the edge of the time window, leaving the players locked into one of the two states. Example: in the case of the grandfather paradox (where you use a factory to build a tank, have the tank time travel to before it was built, and then use it to destroy the factory) you will play with the paradox until it 'falls off' the time window, at which point there is a 50/50 chance of either the tank lives and the factory is destroyed, or the factory remains and the tank was never created. All paradoxes are nicely resolved with time.
...
Q. My head is exploding already. Are you sure this is easy? A. Yes, though grandfather paradoxes are the most complicated aspect of the game, they don't tend to happen much in actual gameplay. ...
This concerns me. For example, suppose your opponent travels back in time and destroys your factories, but before the time waves reach the present, you counter-attack by travelling back in time to destroy your opponent's factories. What is going to happen when those time waves reach the present? The factories that created the units used in both attacks have been destroyed, but if those units disappear, then the factories would never have been destroyed in the first place.
I am curious to know how their game engine would handle such a scenario. I am also curious to know how their engine works in general. In particular, how many causality relationships it keeps track of.
E.g. Does it keep track of individual resources? E.g. if you destroy an opponent's mining base in the past, when those time waves reach the present, will parts of the opponent's current army or infrastructure disappear -- the ones built with resources mined from the now-destroyed base? I assume the engine does not keep track of what resources are used to build what units, because of the havoc it would cause.
So in general, the engine can ignore causality in certain cases to reduce the complexity of the paradoxes, but at the cost of simulating time travel less fully. I wonder where they draw the line. Judging from the example in the FAQ, the engine does keep track of which units were created by which factories, so I wonder how they handle cases like the one I described above.
lol apm? uhh don't count on apm in a game like this, but nonetheless it does seem well...kind of confusing even if you're aware of what you're doing and sort of what you're opponent is doing.I still don't quite understand how someone wins
On March 28 2009 05:26 Alizee- wrote: lol apm? uhh don't count on apm in a game like this, but nonetheless it does seem well...kind of confusing even if you're aware of what you're doing and sort of what you're opponent is doing.I still don't quite understand how someone wins
in this game you can only win if the opponent gives up
On March 28 2009 05:26 Alizee- wrote: lol apm? uhh don't count on apm in a game like this, but nonetheless it does seem well...kind of confusing even if you're aware of what you're doing and sort of what you're opponent is doing.I still don't quite understand how someone wins
in this game you can only win if the opponent gives up
On March 28 2009 05:26 Alizee- wrote: lol apm? uhh don't count on apm in a game like this, but nonetheless it does seem well...kind of confusing even if you're aware of what you're doing and sort of what you're opponent is doing.I still don't quite understand how someone wins
in this game you can only win if the opponent gives up
Source?
lol just joking :D
It's hard to tell, in the videos they say that the time traveling resource is regenerating if you are in the present, so you can't stop the opponent having it...
On March 28 2009 05:26 Alizee- wrote: lol apm? uhh don't count on apm in a game like this, but nonetheless it does seem well...kind of confusing even if you're aware of what you're doing and sort of what you're opponent is doing.I still don't quite understand how someone wins
in this game you can only win if the opponent gives up
Source?
lol just joking :D
And how the hell is anyone supposed to know that's a joke?
Besides, it's a legitimate question: how DO you win a game in this? It's not in the FAQ, afaict.
On March 28 2009 05:34 freelander wrote: It's hard to tell, in the videos they say that the time traveling resource is regenerating if you are in the present, so you can't stop the opponent having it...
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention my LOLZ when I saw how you could regenerate that entire bar in like half a second in the present.
The way they talk about it, you'd think chrono-energy is a resource that must be used sparingly.
What I wanna know is, what happens if you send a unit back in time, and it destroys the building that created that unit. Can you create a temporal paradox that destroys everything?
Now this is something RTS has been needing - a truly original, new concept.
I see tons of potential for this - moreso in single player however. Starting a stage in losing situations and being forced to constantly go back in time to rewrite the story (with more than one possible way to create a winning situation) would be fun and challanging.
Alright, I'm going to officially say I have too many doubts about this game to continue following it.
First there's the unit factory paradox I described earlier.
Then there's the fact that paradoxes are resolved by a 50/50 chance. This has the potential to ruin the game at a high competitive level, imo.
Finally, the fact that you can regen all your chrono-energy that quickly means they are encouraging high-level players to jump to and from the present rapidly in order to execute a large number of commands in the past. How can they not see this coming?
Their "about us" doesn't mention anything about how much these guys play games. It's possible that they have no competitive gaming experience at all. And the mind of a competitive gamer is completely different. The casual gamer plays to optimize their own personal fun, which generally means little or no effort is put towards breaking the game. The competitive gamer plays to win, which means reducing any game to the easiest possible way to win and developing it from there.
And if they do have a lot of competitive experience, then why don't they say so?
For me, this is the biggest indication that this game will probably fail at a competitive level. Honestly, it looks like fun... but only for a week or two, at which point I'd probably conclude the game is broken competitively and stop playing.
On March 28 2009 05:56 Luddite wrote: wow this game looks absolutely nuts.
What I wanna know is, what happens if you send a unit back in time, and it destroys the building that created that unit. Can you create a temporal paradox that destroys everything?
On March 28 2009 05:56 Luddite wrote: wow this game looks absolutely nuts.
What I wanna know is, what happens if you send a unit back in time, and it destroys the building that created that unit. Can you create a temporal paradox that destroys everything?
They answered that exact question in the FAQ.
Furthermore, I quoted it in this topic.
Learn to read.
Yeah i didn't see your post before. You're right, that's a terrible solution to the problem.
On March 28 2009 05:59 Bill307 wrote: Their "about us" doesn't mention anything about how much these guys play games. It's possible that they have no competitive gaming experience at all. And the mind of a competitive gamer is completely different. The casual gamer plays to optimize their own personal fun, which generally means little or no effort is put towards breaking the game. The competitive gamer plays to win, which means reducing any game to the easiest possible way to win and developing it from there.
And if they do have a lot of competitive experience, then why don't they say so?
For me, this is the biggest indication that this game will probably fail at a competitive level. Honestly, it looks like fun... but only for a week or two, at which point I'd probably conclude the game is broken competitively and stop playing.
Why does it matter toward the success of this game if its competitive or not?
There are plenty of fun multiplayer RTSs that suck as competitive games.
On March 28 2009 04:46 freelander wrote: I am starting doubting this (let's apply this concept for starcraft)
Let's say it's pvp. I rush for the time travel tech, and asap I send back my first zealot to the time where we only had 4 probes.
How isn't this insta win?
In that time, I stall his mining process and he won't have any resources hence I win.
Edit: Okay maybe this was a stupid question, because I believe that this will be the primary strategy, going back in time and taking away the opponent's resources.
you don't send shit back through time. you just go back into time to do things differently that you did.
for example, you go mass hydras ZvP and then go back in time to tech switch to mutaling.
after a few minutes in the present time, all your hydras turn to mutaling and y ou storm the fucking zealots gg.
On March 28 2009 06:14 Bill307 wrote: I am here to talk about whether or not this game interests me, and the other competitive gamers who read these forums.
It's obviously not meant to be a competitive game, why would you try to judge it as such?
On March 28 2009 04:46 freelander wrote: I am starting doubting this (let's apply this concept for starcraft)
Let's say it's pvp. I rush for the time travel tech, and asap I send back my first zealot to the time where we only had 4 probes.
How isn't this insta win?
In that time, I stall his mining process and he won't have any resources hence I win.
Edit: Okay maybe this was a stupid question, because I believe that this will be the primary strategy, going back in time and taking away the opponent's resources.
you don't send shit back through time. you just go back into time to do things differently that you did.
for example, you go mass hydras ZvP and then go back in time to tech switch to mutaling.
after a few minutes in the present time, all your hydras turn to mutaling and y ou storm the fucking zealots gg.
don't send shit back through time? man, have you watched the videos? .. if not... well..
the developer even said in the third one I think that you should be careful about the position of units when you send them back, to not be at the same spot..
On March 28 2009 06:14 Bill307 wrote: I am here to talk about whether or not this game interests me, and the other competitive gamers who read these forums.
It's obviously not meant to be a competitive game, why would you try to judge it as such?
1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
I could look at it from a casual gaming perspective if I wanted. Maybe if I was developing an RTS, or a game that involved time travel, I'd have a reason to spend more time analysing it for usability and other factors. But I'm not, so this is just some random game to me.
2. Because this is a forum where we discuss StarCraft: Brood War at a competitive level, so a lot of members are interested in playing multiplayer games competitively. Now when those members come into this topic wondering, "Is this worth my time?", they can go over my posts and see that no, it probably isn't.
On March 28 2009 06:33 Bill307 wrote: 1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
This is my point though. Why does it not being a competitive game preclude you (or anyone else) from enjoying the game? Just because you play Starcraft competitively doesn't mean you play every game competitively. As far as I know, most people on this site who actively play Starcraft also do play other non-competitive games.
On March 28 2009 06:14 Bill307 wrote: 1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
I could look at it from a casual gaming perspective if I wanted. Maybe if I was developing an RTS, or a game that involved time travel, I'd have a reason to spend more time analysing it for usability and other factors. But I'm not, so this is just some random game to me.
So if you have no interest in random casual games, why comment on it at all? Casual and competitive games are two very different things, criticizing a game for being one rather than the other is just silly. It'd be like me going to a topic about movies and criticizing all of them for not being books.
On March 28 2009 06:33 Bill307 wrote: 2. Because this is a forum where we discuss StarCraft: Brood War at a competitive level, so a lot of members are interested in playing multiplayer games competitively. Now when those members come into this topic wondering, "Is this worth my time?", they can go over my posts and see that no, it probably isn't.
It's hardly as if being a competitive gamer doesn't mean you can't have other interests.
@freelander: What you brought up shouldn't be an issue because changes don't come into effect instantly, so even if you go back and take out your opponent's mining base he'll still have resource flow in the future for a while, where he could raise an army, send it back and defend.
if the changes don't come into effect instantly, than it means that the casuality is just not right
Please take the time to watch the videos before commenting again, this is specifically addressed. Why would you even argue about something without understanding it?
I'm extremely impressed with the idea, but I don't think it'll be anywhere near a blockbuster. Just because the graphics and such is a little outdated by 15 years.
what if some guy takes 8 tanks to the past and wrecks his opponent's army... the opponent sees this and takes 8 tanks and positions them in the past right before the 8 tanks warp in.. so then the guy gets his 8 tanks and warps them right before the opponent's 8 tanks get there...
this makes me dizzy. better chronoshift an MCV then finish building barracks and tanya for some sniping
On March 28 2009 04:46 freelander wrote: I am starting doubting this (let's apply this concept for starcraft)
Let's say it's pvp. I rush for the time travel tech, and asap I send back my first zealot to the time where we only had 4 probes.
How isn't this insta win?
In that time, I stall his mining process and he won't have any resources hence I win.
Edit: Okay maybe this was a stupid question, because I believe that this will be the primary strategy, going back in time and taking away the opponent's resources.
What if I time travel back and block your initial nexus placement?
On March 28 2009 06:14 Bill307 wrote: 1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
I could look at it from a casual gaming perspective if I wanted. Maybe if I was developing an RTS, or a game that involved time travel, I'd have a reason to spend more time analysing it for usability and other factors. But I'm not, so this is just some random game to me.
So if you have no interest in random casual games, why comment on it at all? Casual and competitive games are two very different things, criticizing a game for being one rather than the other is just silly. It'd be like me going to a topic about movies and criticizing all of them for not being books.
On March 28 2009 06:33 Bill307 wrote: 2. Because this is a forum where we discuss StarCraft: Brood War at a competitive level, so a lot of members are interested in playing multiplayer games competitively. Now when those members come into this topic wondering, "Is this worth my time?", they can go over my posts and see that no, it probably isn't.
It's hardly as if being a competitive gamer doesn't mean you can't have other interests.
@freelander: What you brought up shouldn't be an issue because changes don't come into effect instantly, so even if you go back and take out your opponent's mining base he'll still have resource flow in the future for a while, where he could raise an army, send it back and defend.
Meh, I agree with Bill... and no it's not like going to a topic on movies and complaining that they're not books. It's like going to a topic about movies and complaining that the movies suck because they're cheesey/any other horrendous flaw...
And Bill's posts were good and provided a consolidated source of information about what I needed to know about the aspects of the game I was curious about so I could form my own opinion. Take or leave his opinion, I agree with it.
I've had enough experience with "indie" games and I've been playing games for far too long. I know what I like, and want to play. This game has potential, but the 50/50 on resolving the paradoxes is just plain silly. I'm also not a huge fan of how they executed some of their ideas on time travel and other aspects of the game.
Now It's not just that the game isn't wholly competitively viable... thuogh a lot of the aspects that make a game competitive are coincidentally also aspects that in my opinion make a game good (balance, post release support, and logical reasoning for the various aspects of the game come to mind). There are obvious exceptions, especially out of the RTS genre. But this happens to be an RTS... meh i'm rambling on... the game is still in alpha and does show good potential.... time will tell...
On March 28 2009 06:33 Bill307 wrote: 1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
This is my point though. Why does it not being a competitive game preclude you (or anyone else) from enjoying the game? Just because you play Starcraft competitively doesn't mean you play every game competitively. As far as I know, most people on this site who actively play Starcraft also do play other non-competitive games.
So you're wondering why I'm dismissing the game? Fair enough, I'll explain my point of view.
I play a game for one of three reasons: (a) for the story, (b) to overcome some challenge, or (c) to win against others.
Generally RPGs are the only games that really hook me with their stories, although some recent games like MGS4 might appeal to me a lot as well, if I owned consoles for them. In any case, we don't know anything about Achron's storyline, so I can't comment on it.
We don't know about what kinds of single-player or co-op challenges Acrhon might have, either. Right now, only the multiplayer aspect is being marketed. So again, I can't comment.
Arguably, maybe it won't be particularly good in either aspect, when so much emphasis is being placed on player-vs-player. But there is no point in debating that.
So this leaves me with one and only one reason to play Achron: to win against others in their acclaimed multiplayer. Which means playing competitively.
And as for other people, if they are going to enjoy Achron for different reasons, then why would my posts stop them? I'm directing my posts at people who want to play it competitively. That's all.
It's obviously not meant to be a competitive game, why would you try to judge it as such?
1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
obviously if a game is not based on something you are into or enjoy, you are not going to be immediately interested. the above bolded point contradicts itself. using this logic you would discredit a basketball video game because you are really looking for a football video game. take things for what they are, like this game is obviously not tailored for a highly competitive esports scene. the way i see this game is like bejeweled, or geneforge, games a small company makes simply because they want to. it's not a huge developer trying to get mass appeal or a competitive following. you don't ask a metal head to write a review on a rap album do you? it's all biased opinions.
The concept is interesting, but seems like it will be difficult to implement in a way that is simple and enjoyable. The explanations in the demo make the game sound boring and cumbersome to play.
It's obviously not meant to be a competitive game, why would you try to judge it as such?
1. Because that's what I care about. I'm not one of their employees. I'm not an investor. As far as I'm concerned, the only question I need to ask myself is, "Am I going to enjoy playing this game?"
obviously if a game is not based on something you are into or enjoy, you are not going to be immediately interested. the above bolded point contradicts itself. using this logic you would discredit a basketball video game because you are really looking for a football video game. take things for what they are, like this game is obviously not tailored for a highly competitive esports scene. the way i see this game is like bejeweled, or geneforge, games a small company makes simply because they want to. it's not a huge developer trying to get mass appeal or a competitive following. you don't ask a metal head to write a review on a rap album do you? it's all biased opinions.
Are you seriously telling me I shouldn't post my own opinion about the competitiveness of Achron? On a forum filled with gamers who play a particular RTS game competitively? LOL.
Or to put it another way:
"you don't ask a metal head to write a review on a rap album do you?"
If you post about a rap album on a metal heads website, then what do you expect?
Geez, this is like, Bill vs The Idiot Fanboi Bandwagon. Yes, Achron will definitely be a great financial success if it continues to attract idiot fanbois at this rate. I mean the Achron website isn't even a month old and already there are guys posting here defending it like it gave birth to them or something.
Honestly though I hope this topic doesn't get closed. (Except perhaps to make a better OP with a link to that Youtube video.)
I actually think the way they implemented time travel looks really cool for the most part, even if I question some of the details (like the whole paradox 50/50 thing). I am actually curious to try it myself and see how all the little details of their engine work (though probably not curious enough to buy it). So if this game gets a lot of publicity then I can't say it doesn't deserve it.
Ironically, if this topic does get closed then it'll be the fault of the fanbois who love it more than anyone else.
This reminds me of what goes through my head everytime I watch a movie/star trek episode or w/e about time travel.
If Picard goes back in time to prevent the tragedy, then the tragedy will never happen which means Picard won't go back in time and the tragedy will happen but then he'll go back iN FUCK FUCK ;alkdjfasdk;lfjas; MY HEAD
I imagine the way they simulate time travel is simple enough that it doesn't blow your mind (and your cpu), while complicated enough to make it useful and to see some of the cool time travel effects you'd expect.
If you ask me, this is probably the kind of thing where it's better to hand someone the game than to try to explain it to them.
On March 28 2009 08:14 A3iL3r0n wrote: The concept is interesting, but seems like it will be difficult to implement in a way that is simple and enjoyable. The explanations in the demo make the game sound boring and cumbersome to play.
Yep, exactly. I also think that while implementing the fancy features, they may forget to implement the basic stuff that makes the game feel nice such as responsive unit control etc. which is very important for competitive aspect.
Also the "command hierarchy" stuff is weird. The fact that it is costly to give the units individual orders in another time frame, yet you can link them together and give them group orders to conserve energy doesn't make sense.
How will resource gatherers be treated in this game? Wouldn't you be able to continuously send gatherers back in time to increase your resources in the present?
On March 28 2009 04:35 KaasZerg wrote: There was an Indiegame named Strifeshadow. It had a unit named a chronomancer. I never played it. So I don't remember the mechanics.
It had a playerbase from battlereports.com regulars.
That game is still badass.
The Chronomancer had the ability to stop time except for a few selected units, and those units would usually go and either shut down the enemy economy or snipe spellcasters before a battle. Was a really freaking awesome ability.
They keep saying that you can build units in the present to help you in the past. Is that logic reversed? How can some thing in the future effect the past. It do not make sense.
It would make more sense to just give player the ability to travel 5 second back in time per X amount of resources. Simple and clean, I am sure every one can understand that.
arg tried to logic out a few attack/counter scenarios but brain exploded. this game might just divide by zero somewhere in its time warping calculations and-
On March 28 2009 09:08 A3iL3r0n wrote: How will resource gatherers be treated in this game? Wouldn't you be able to continuously send gatherers back in time to increase your resources in the present?
LOL, I didn't think of that.
And people complain about having to manually send each worker to mine. Imagine having to send each new worker back to the past, then whenever a worker clone appears in the present (with the time wave from when you sent it back to the past) you send it back again. =D
I bet they implemented resources so that you can only gain resources from mining in the present. At least, that's how I'd do it. Otherwise you'd get silly strats like the above.
On March 28 2009 04:35 KaasZerg wrote: There was an Indiegame named Strifeshadow. It had a unit named a chronomancer. I never played it. So I don't remember the mechanics.
It had a playerbase from battlereports.com regulars.
That game is still badass.
The Chronomancer had the ability to stop time except for a few selected units, and those units would usually go and either shut down the enemy economy or snipe spellcasters before a battle. Was a really freaking awesome ability.
Off-topic, but how did this effect appear to the other player? Would the opponent see the whole game stop, except for that small group of units?
In that case, if you couldn't see the Chronomancers (esp. in an FFA), then wouldn't it feel like lag? ^_^a
Oh, I bet I know how it worked: would you tell those units what actions you wanted them to perform during the "time stop", and then when you let them go the effects of their actions instantly appear?
On March 28 2009 09:08 A3iL3r0n wrote: How will resource gatherers be treated in this game? Wouldn't you be able to continuously send gatherers back in time to increase your resources in the present?
But then that means if i kill one of your miners in the past/beginning of time, you would suddenly have zero economy in the present when the time wave hits. and if you built units with your now nonexistent minerals, do THEY disappear too? which then means you now have nothing to send back in time to prevent my ninja drone rape strategy.
On March 28 2009 09:08 A3iL3r0n wrote: How will resource gatherers be treated in this game? Wouldn't you be able to continuously send gatherers back in time to increase your resources in the present?
But then that means if i kill one of your miners in the past/beginning of time, you would suddenly have zero economy in the present when the time wave hits. and if you built units with your now nonexistent minerals, do THEY disappear too? which then means you now have nothing to send back in time to prevent my ninja drone rape strategy.
Unlike many of the initial posters in this thread, I believe that Achron can be consistent as well as strategically complex. Most of the concerns about paradoxes or strategic unplayability come from a lack of understanding of the game mechanics. I quote the following not to single out the person, but because I think Bill307 is the person I should convince first to turn TL's opinion of the game.
Bill307-- This concerns me. For example, suppose your opponent travels back in time and destroys your factories, but before the time waves reach the present, you counter-attack by travelling back in time to destroy your opponent's factories. What is going to happen when those time waves reach the present? The factories that created the units used in both attacks have been destroyed, but if those units disappear, then the factories would never have been destroyed in the first place.
I assume you want to destroy the opponent's factory before yours is destroyed, if so, the order of events is a) your units arrive in the past b) you destroy the opponent's factory c) the opponent's units arrive in the past d) the opponent destroys your factory e) both your and the opponent's units are created from the factories f) both you and the opponent send the units back in time
For c and d the orders are irrelevant so they might as well be simultaneous. Assume for simplicity that the events happen in a short enough time that one time wave will past through all the events before the next one does. As the first time wave passes through the events become a) your units arrive in the past b) you destroy the opponent's factory c) the opponent's units arrive in the past d) the opponent destroys your factory e) both your and the opponent's units are not created from the non-existant factories f) both you and the opponent send the units back in timeunits do not exist
(*1)Which immediately becomes (by the travel back in time rule) (the rule was discovered by analyzing the simple situation in the faq, the grandfather paradox, and finding something that would be consistent with their answer) a) your units do not arrive in the past b) you destroy the opponent's factory c) the opponent's units do not arrive in the past d) the opponent destroys your factory e) both your and the opponent's units are not created from the non-existant factories f) both you and the opponent send the units back in timeunits do not exist
As the second time wave passes through the event evolve further a) your units do not arrive in the past b) you don't destroy the opponent's factory c) the opponent's units do not arrive in the past d) the opponent doesn't destroys your factory e) both your and the opponent's units are not created from the non-existant factories after all f) both you and the opponent send the units back in time after all units do not exist
(*2)Which becomes a) your units arrive in the past b) you don't destroy the opponent's factory c) the opponent's units arrive in the past d) the opponent doesn't destroys your factory e) both your and the opponent's units are not created from the non-existant factories after all f) both you and the opponent send the units back in time after all units do not exist
Now, from here it repeats itself. The final state all depends on the phase the events are with respect to the time waves and the left cutoff. If odd waves pass through, then we have situation (*1), and there are no unit for either player, nor factories. If an even whole number of waves pass though, the we have (*2), and both player have units and factories. It could also happen that the last time wave passes through only the tail of the events, due to some of the earlier events falling off the left bound of the time window before the last wave arrives.
Now situation (*1) sounds odd, and in actual gameplay it would in fact be unusual, because the game is designed so that waves past through frequently with respect to the time scale of most battles. So most of the time it will be the fractional case rather than (*1) or (*2). In the fractional case, the following could happen: -- you have both units and factories, but your opponent has neither (start last wave at 1c) -- you have nothing, but your opponent has both units and factories (2c)
Strategically, a good opponent will plan so that an odd number of waves will past through his units' arrival in the past just before the arrival falls off the window. This will ensure that the last word is that his units do arrive and it's registered by a time wave before forever being untouchable. Since you cannot prevent such an opponent from destroying your factory and units by destroying his factory, to gain an advantage you will need to meet his units head on, in the past.
On March 28 2009 14:03 feathers wrote: I don't think its multi player
there is no way this would work with 2 people.
I don't even know how many times I saw people saying to watch the videos before posting in this thread, and you go off and say something like that.
It's an interesting concept, but I agree with Bill, it just won't work at a competitive level. I only see this being successful as a single player/coop game.
There are a lot of things that really don't make sense in this game already...
In the video about sending units back in time, they mention that the original unit must be at the teleporter thing when the time you sent it back to reaches the present, otherwise it won't be teleported back, but... what if it dies while I'm fighting in the past?
When that scenario hits the present, that means I'm instantly ousted 2 units (at least) in the battle in the past. Even though I've technically only lost one unit, but the clone not being in the past battle could change the course of the fight.
I actually LOL'ed when they said some paradox situations were solved by a 50/50 chance. How can you call something a strategy game when the ideas it's based on will often times be resolved by luck?
Nuada, the paradox situations are NOT solved by 50/50 chance. In the FAQ they mention that only as a simplification so that even newbies can understand. The paradox situations are resolved based on the phase of the paradox events with respect to the time window and the time waves. People who read through my post above will understand how the game mechanics actually work.
On March 28 2009 09:08 A3iL3r0n wrote: How will resource gatherers be treated in this game? Wouldn't you be able to continuously send gatherers back in time to increase your resources in the present?
LOL, I didn't think of that.
And people complain about having to manually send each worker to mine. Imagine having to send each new worker back to the past, then whenever a worker clone appears in the present (with the time wave from when you sent it back to the past) you send it back again. =D
I bet they implemented resources so that you can only gain resources from mining in the present. At least, that's how I'd do it. Otherwise you'd get silly strats like the above.
Sending workers to mine back in time would require unreal macro and sick timing senses, so it should be implemented.
On March 28 2009 09:08 A3iL3r0n wrote: How will resource gatherers be treated in this game? Wouldn't you be able to continuously send gatherers back in time to increase your resources in the present?
But then that means if i kill one of your miners in the past/beginning of time, you would suddenly have zero economy in the present when the time wave hits. and if you built units with your now nonexistent minerals, do THEY disappear too? which then means you now have nothing to send back in time to prevent my ninja drone rape strategy.
Actions in the past don't propagate to the present immediately. There are moving "time waves", and so if you I send units into the past when the game spawns to wipe you out, it won't affect the present until the time wave reaches the present. So you can jump back to the present before this happens and macro up and army, send it back, and defend your base when the game spawns. Then you would be able to rewrite the past.
I love the concept and I love the simple SC-reminicent graphics
"we allow the player to focus on the time travel gameplay rather than unit micromanagement by giving the units intelligence. " (from site) sounds scary but I can imagine it's still very APM intensive to multitask not only multiple fronts but multiple time zones.
I never imagined something like this, thank you for thread~
It seems the players move through time normally. They are always at the present.
Then one player changes the past. Then there are time waves. Say your opponent did something that will leave you with almost no units/buildings/resources. Until the time waves reach the present you still have all your stuff. So you can also change the past. Say you undo his whole attack in the past. Then what will happen is that the present is first normal since all time waves are catching up with the present. Then his time waves arrive from the past and you have nothing. Then new time waves arrive and cancel what your opponent did to you and the present switches back to how it was.
If their time waves already arrived the present then you are too late to sent back units. But you can still go back in time yourself and adjust orders, trying to undo your destruction.
If you always keep changing the past the game will never end and eventually you are both trying to change stuff in the initial moments of the game. Like your opponent time travels to the first second and kills your starting unit. Only way to counter that is to have your army arrive from the future at the exact same moment and either kill his starting unit or save yours.
But if you kill his time travelling army before it leaves, but time waves are already travelling because in the present your opponent already did his time travelling, you will create a paradox and then it's 50/50 if your army was never created or his units remain alive in the past without coming from anywhere since their future origin is no longer in any time. But they still exist without ever being created. Saves resources I guess. I wonder if you can use that to your advantage, trying to remove the origin of your own units.
If you fail to safe your initial starting unit and time waves affect the present then everything becomes undone. You are eliminated. Replay of the game shows you having your peon and it getting killed and losing in the first second. If both workers die those time waves arrive in the present everything is undone and you are both eliminated. Or you have the 50/50 paradox odds and you win or lose because of that. Since if your opponent kills your starting unit, your units killing his no longer have an origin. So either they exist without an origin or your starting unit was never killed.
On March 29 2009 01:08 RaptuhJeezus wrote: Im understanding the concept, but it would be almost unplayable without more limitation
We have just seen a demo video, for all we know the regen rate could have been enhanced and in a normal game it takes a minute to fully regenerate the bar.
Reminds me of the martial art "temporal fugue" from Roger Zelazny's book Creatures of light and darkness.
.. and some others practice a novel martial art called temporal fugue. A fighter, seeing that his enemy is ready to attack, projects himself behind his enemy — in space and in time — so as to strike him from behind. Of course, the enemy does the same thing. When both warriors use the technique, recursively, things get complicated. Each character is replicated over a hundredfold, at various times in the past and future, thus putting a considerable strain on the space-time continuum.
On March 29 2009 00:59 Diomedes wrote: If you always keep changing the past the game will never end and eventually you are both trying to change stuff in the initial moments of the game. Like your opponent time travels to the first second and kills your starting unit. Only way to counter that is to have your army arrive from the future at the exact same moment and either kill his starting unit or save yours.
I would assume that the game ends when one player is defeated in the present. This means that as the game progresses, it becomes less and less likely that time waves from the past will reach the present. Yes, you can go back to the beginning to try and undo your destruction, but your opponent might end the game before those time waves can reach the present.
Of course, it adds a new dimension to the "hide a pylon and make your opponent hunt for it" idea. The more time you stall in the present, the more time you have to go back into the past and change things.
I can see this getting really hard to manage though.
Suppose you have 4 bases. What if your opponent goes back in time, and builds pylons to block the construction of your 3 command centers before they ever went up? In order to prevent this small investment from ravaging your economy, you'd have to go back and forth through time to destroy the pylons. Since the amount of time energy spent is related to how many orders you give, you expend much more energy ordering a bunch of units to destroy the building than he used to create it.
On March 28 2009 20:44 datscilly wrote: Nuada, the paradox situations are NOT solved by 50/50 chance. In the FAQ they mention that only as a simplification so that even newbies can understand. The paradox situations are resolved based on the phase of the paradox events with respect to the time window and the time waves. People who read through my post above will understand how the game mechanics actually work.
Eh, your post makes the paradox very clear, and the same paradox is mentioned in the FAQ, where the answer is "maybe you're pro enough to time it, but in the end you have a 50/50 chance"
Q. I am so good at RTS games that I have strategies named after me, and my head has not exploded. I wonder how the game would resolve this complex example: Player A sends units back in time and destroys player B's factories. Before the timewaves reach the present, player B sends his army back in time and destroys player A's factories.
A. This is definitely a paradox. It will oscillate between these two states. If you're as good of a player as you claim, you might be able to time everything just so such that the paradox falls off the timeline in your favor. At worst, it's worth trying, as you have a 50-50 shot of getting your units back. While I told the person whose head was exploding that such paradoxes aren't too common in games, they can definitely happen much more frequently in games between advanced players (if we crank up the AI difficulty to 11, this does happen frequently).
Here he also says that as the level of play increases, so do the the occurrences of paradox situations. Therefore increasing the number of 50/50 scenarios, therefore breaking the game on a competitive level.
I like the inclusion of the 8 minute window before paradoxes are resolved and events are 'set' in time, i think it'll prevent the game from becoming just end-game armies fighting over initial resource locations. Also I don't think there are moving peons like in other rts, judging from the videos. Maybe you get resources based on 'mines' constructed over resources, which give money at a set rate. (or something)
On March 29 2009 03:23 TaP.Nuada wrote: Eh, your post makes the paradox very clear, and the same paradox is mentioned in the FAQ, where the answer is "maybe you're pro enough to time it, but in the end you have a 50/50 chance"
As we've seen from Starcraft's history, game developers often underestimate the eventual level of skill that players reach. On the one hand paradoxes at higher levels occur more frequently, but at the same time, players might be more skilled at getting paradoxes to resolve in their favor. Its all speculation of course. Obviously we'd have to get our hands on the game to know how the timing actually works out.
On March 29 2009 03:25 Equaoh wrote: datscilly knows what he's talking about.
I like the inclusion of the 8 minute window before paradoxes are resolved and events are 'set' in time, i think it'll prevent the game from becoming just end-game armies fighting over initial resource locations. Also I don't think there are moving peons like in other rts, judging from the videos. Maybe you get resources based on 'mines' constructed over resources, which give money at a set rate. (or something)
I'll take the word of the game developers saying it's 50/50 over datscilly.
To answer the question about how fast you regenerate chronoenergy
Q. I see that the chronoenergy refills really fast in the demo videos. Does it refill this fast in the actual game?
A. No, it refills more slowly and is configurable. We made it refill fast to make the demo videos flow nicely and to prevent out-takes.
so doesn't this boil down to a series of coinflips in the end (in a competitive 1v1 scenario)? obviously anything constructed at time X is exponentially more powerful at time X-8, so as the game moves from time X1 to X2 X3 X4, etc, most of what's actually going to decide the outcome will be decided at time X-7 X-6 X-5 X-4, however due to the propagation of the waves, the results in X1 as a result of fighting in X-7 will, for one player, be either in a 'win' or 'lose' state. if they win at X-7, they will be that much stronger at X2 so that they can create a larger advantage in X-6
i suppose depending on how regeneration of chronoenergy is balanced, you might actually have to think which is the most optimal time to port to, as opposed to just porting to curTime-8 and trying to deal as much damage as possible. (however it seems it's always more effective to, say, have a larger army to kill templar archives before they can research storm as opposed to having an even larger army but also having to fight the templars)
i imagine this would make for some sick single player action, although for multiplayer, i'm not so sure o_O
This looks amazing if its executed properly; I've always wanted to do a time travel game but haven't figured out how to deal with it properly. The time waves seem to smooth out a lot of the problems with it.
Sounds like fun, and I would even want to give it a try. Single player wise, I can see this working very, very well, where the player has to solve RTS "puzzles" using the time warp concept.
I'm not so sure about multiplayer, though, as human beings are inherently not very good at figuring out movement through the 4th dimension. To have a thriving multiplayer community, you need a large number of people who understand a game and play it well. I don't know how many people will be able to do that with this game.
On March 31 2009 16:21 Abydos1 wrote: This looks amazing if its executed properly; I've always wanted to do a time travel game but haven't figured out how to deal with it properly. The time waves seem to smooth out a lot of the problems with it.
For an AI a fourth dimension is nothing strange, it can play with it like it plays any other game, while a player have no intuitive advantage in the fourth dimension.
Think like this, in a normal game the computer is advantaged by being able to be and see everywhere at the same time, imagine now when the computer is also capable of see anytime and be anytime at the same time.
On March 29 2009 03:25 Equaoh wrote: datscilly knows what he's talking about.
I like the inclusion of the 8 minute window before paradoxes are resolved and events are 'set' in time, i think it'll prevent the game from becoming just end-game armies fighting over initial resource locations. Also I don't think there are moving peons like in other rts, judging from the videos. Maybe you get resources based on 'mines' constructed over resources, which give money at a set rate. (or something)
I'll take the word of the game developers saying it's 50/50 over datscilly.
The developer didn't exactly say 50/50, it is 50/50 if you are not experienced with it but:
A paradox will oscillate between its different states until one of the states reaches the edge of the time window, leaving the players locked into one of the two states.
As such all you need to do is to make sure that the game is in the correct state when the 8 minute window passes and it will be in your favour.
Like, I kill his factories at -5.5 mins, he kills mine at -4.5, takes 1 minute for the waves of the positions to reach the other and thus producing counter waves, meaning that it takes 2 mins till we are in status quo again and at this time my even falls off the 8 minute time window and thus my event is seen as the correct one and thus him destroying my raxes never happened. (Now it doesn't matter how fast the waves travel since you just have to time it differently)
On March 31 2009 16:21 Abydos1 wrote: This looks amazing if its executed properly; I've always wanted to do a time travel game but haven't figured out how to deal with it properly. The time waves seem to smooth out a lot of the problems with it.
For an AI a fourth dimension is nothing strange, it can play with it like it plays any other game, while a player have no intuitive advantage in the fourth dimension.
Think like this, in a normal game the computer is advantaged by being able to be and see everywhere at the same time, imagine now when the computer is also capable of see anytime and be anytime at the same time.
If anyone could talk about how AI has advanced in general I would be very interested.
Standard AIs for games I know suck at spatial recognition, that is to say they can't recognise choke points, (Clausewitz's) centre of gravity, flanking etc. Until that changes, they won't figure out time travel either.
That's why I think single player could be interesting as a series of puzzle missions, but I'm not sure how the AI would work in a free flowing game.
But is AI now advanced enough to figure out how space works? That would be really cool.
On March 31 2009 16:21 Abydos1 wrote: This looks amazing if its executed properly; I've always wanted to do a time travel game but haven't figured out how to deal with it properly. The time waves seem to smooth out a lot of the problems with it.
For an AI a fourth dimension is nothing strange, it can play with it like it plays any other game, while a player have no intuitive advantage in the fourth dimension.
Think like this, in a normal game the computer is advantaged by being able to be and see everywhere at the same time, imagine now when the computer is also capable of see anytime and be anytime at the same time.
If anyone could talk about how AI has advanced in general I would be very interested.
Standard AIs for games I know suck at spatial recognition, that is to say they can't recognise choke points, (Clausewitz's) centre of gravity, flanking etc. Until that changes, they won't figure out time travel either.
They won't master time travel (Too much to keep track on to deal with it in the brute force method like they do chess) but since we are total noobs on time travel the AI will certainly whoop us kinda like how newbs have a hard time to beat regular RTS AI's.
And all I said that it won't be much different to the AI compared to any other dimension, not that the AI's suddenly have begin to play like good players.
On March 31 2009 16:21 Abydos1 wrote: This looks amazing if its executed properly; I've always wanted to do a time travel game but haven't figured out how to deal with it properly. The time waves seem to smooth out a lot of the problems with it.
For an AI a fourth dimension is nothing strange, it can play with it like it plays any other game, while a player have no intuitive advantage in the fourth dimension.
Think like this, in a normal game the computer is advantaged by being able to be and see everywhere at the same time, imagine now when the computer is also capable of see anytime and be anytime at the same time.
If anyone could talk about how AI has advanced in general I would be very interested.
Standard AIs for games I know suck at spatial recognition, that is to say they can't recognise choke points, (Clausewitz's) centre of gravity, flanking etc. Until that changes, they won't figure out time travel either.
They won't master time travel (Too much to keep track on to deal with it in the brute force method like they do chess) but since we are total noobs on time travel the AI will certainly whoop us kinda like how newbs have a hard time to beat regular RTS AI's.
And all I said that it won't be much different to the AI compared to any other dimension, not that the AI's suddenly have begin to play like good players.
Bill, it's an alfa, on the first sc2 videos mothership regenerated mana like shit, maybe they just have insta chrono energy regeneration for the alpha testing.
On March 31 2009 19:41 Telemako wrote: Bill, it's an alfa, on the first sc2 videos mothership regenerated mana like shit, maybe they just have insta chrono energy regeneration for the alpha testing.
Computers can't do pattern recognition in these kinds of settings and computers can't reason at all.
They can only calculate, add one number to another. Any AI has to think like chess engines do. Make a move, then make a counter-move, calculate the results. Do this 10 million times a second and decide on something. And they have to evaluate every possible move because they can't exclude any.
what happens when you say destroy the enemy nexus that built probes that contstructed your entire base. if they left it alone i wonder if the entire base would be destroyed
Thanks for pointing out this game, looks awesome. I can't hear the voice in the video's here, but it seems there are time waves.. well didn't understand that part but I hope I can see for myself in a year when this game is released. or so.
and about computer ai: it could cheat by computing so much so as to make the game lag for the human player... :-P and really, computer a.i. could always be written so that it beats any human, when you're talking about a game with such a multi continuous-dimensional amount of states (chess has a discrete space state). The trouble is that you want to make it look human (or alien, in this game).
On March 31 2009 23:47 UbOs wrote: what happens when you say destroy the enemy nexus that built probes that contstructed your entire base. if they left it alone i wonder if the entire base would be destroyed
I had this problem cause i didn't watch the video carefully enough.. probably like you
until that time-wave when the nexus got destroyed doesn't reach the present you have 'time' to react
I only read pages 1-3 in this topic, but someone said that the chronoenergy (time traveling resource) regenerates way too fast. This is false; the mechanic was changed in the test videos to make sure there weren't any outtakes. The FAQ explains this and says stuff about how chronoenergy regeneration time can be changed.
On March 31 2009 23:47 UbOs wrote: what happens when you say destroy the enemy nexus that built probes that contstructed your entire base. if they left it alone i wonder if the entire base would be destroyed
I had this problem cause i didn't watch the video carefully enough.. probably like you
until that time-wave when the nexus got destroyed doesn't reach the present you have 'time' to react
yeah, i mean if the enemy left it alone.
I'm just wondering what the engine would do, i don't think it would happen in a real game too often.
edit: now that i think about it, something like this could be possible in many ways...
for example, one side could timewarp alot of damage dealing units that could take out a nexus like structure like cracklings into the past through a warp gate, link them all to a commander, attack move to the enemy base while in the present do something like destroy the enemy timewarp when they respond to your past attack...
nevermind.. you could probably do it though? i dont know honestly..
On March 31 2009 23:10 Diomedes wrote: Humans are really good at temporal thinking.
Computers can't do pattern recognition in these kinds of settings and computers can't reason at all.
They can only calculate, add one number to another. Any AI has to think like chess engines do. Make a move, then make a counter-move, calculate the results. Do this 10 million times a second and decide on something. And they have to evaluate every possible move because they can't exclude any.
Computers do pruning, they do not (and can't) evaluate every possibility. For example, in chess, bad moves are instantly thrown out and that whole tree isn't even considered; chess engines search very deeply but really only considered a small handful of possibilities.
As I said earlier, an AI dealing with time travel really only needs to be able to know about causality, that way its easy enough to counter players time traveling attempts. As for picking points in time to attack, thats just looking for weaknesses like it already does (for example, when an expo is first going up).
On March 31 2009 16:21 Abydos1 wrote: This looks amazing if its executed properly; I've always wanted to do a time travel game but haven't figured out how to deal with it properly. The time waves seem to smooth out a lot of the problems with it.
For an AI a fourth dimension is nothing strange, it can play with it like it plays any other game, while a player have no intuitive advantage in the fourth dimension.
Think like this, in a normal game the computer is advantaged by being able to be and see everywhere at the same time, imagine now when the computer is also capable of see anytime and be anytime at the same time.
Standard AIs for games I know suck at spatial recognition, that is to say they can't recognise choke points, (Clausewitz's) centre of gravity, flanking etc. Until that changes, they won't figure out time travel either.
...
But is AI now advanced enough to figure out how space works? That would be really cool.
AI can handle spatial relationships just fine, such as choke points, center of gravity, and flanking; the examples you've seen probably just have poor implementations (possibly on a large scale). It also depends on how much processing time the engine is allocating to the ai.
On March 28 2009 05:59 Bill307 wrote: Alright, I'm going to officially say I have too many doubts about this game to continue following it.
First there's the unit factory paradox I described earlier.
Then there's the fact that paradoxes are resolved by a 50/50 chance. This has the potential to ruin the game at a high competitive level, imo.
Finally, the fact that you can regen all your chrono-energy that quickly means they are encouraging high-level players to jump to and from the present rapidly in order to execute a large number of commands in the past. How can they not see this coming?
Their "about us" doesn't mention anything about how much these guys play games. It's possible that they have no competitive gaming experience at all. And the mind of a competitive gamer is completely different. The casual gamer plays to optimize their own personal fun, which generally means little or no effort is put towards breaking the game. The competitive gamer plays to win, which means reducing any game to the easiest possible way to win and developing it from there.
And if they do have a lot of competitive experience, then why don't they say so?
For me, this is the biggest indication that this game will probably fail at a competitive level. Honestly, it looks like fun... but only for a week or two, at which point I'd probably conclude the game is broken competitively and stop playing.
Seems kind of harsh to condemn a concept idea in two hours by basic theorycrafting imo... The issues you adress are generally really easy fixes in terms of balance (except the paradox thing which might need rethinking), so i think that it is a bit unfair... With that said, it is a concept. Something needs to evolve out of it. As it is now it is going nowhere.
I think if the game is tested and patched enough it could really work out, as long as the game itself is interesting and relatively balanced aside from the time travel stuff. The implications of the time travel mechanic are absolutely huge. I'm worried games could take fucking forever to complete though, as similarly skilled players would be easily countering, recountering, and uncountering eachother and whatnot. At any rate, this would have a huge skill hierchy like Starcraft does, maybe even larger.
I can think of a game where near the end of the game a player masses enough time travel energy and warps his entire army to the very beginning and snipes the other players first buildings, timed right before the time wave would catch up or something.
I just heard about this game today, I'm gonna page Bill back to this thread.
This is a pretty impressive concept. More importantly, it seems like they've really fleshed out a multiplayer method. Of course, the Chronoenergy regeneration rate was greatly increased for demo purposes, as explained in their FAQ. Additionally, they say that you cannot time travel your resource gatherers, which means all resource gathering occurs in the present, but resource spending can occur in any point in time. The concept of a time table spanning 8 minutes is interesting as well -- from what I can tell, events occurring 8 minutes or more into the past are cemented into history and can not be altered.
They also explain the "endless cycle" of constantly sending your troops back in time to multiply your forces. Doing this and issuing commands to your past troops will cost an increasing amount of Chronoenergy so it's not sustainable. I'm sure if resource gatherers could travel through time then the game would be so massively complicated that it just wouldn't be fun, but by binding them to the present you ensure that players will continue to return to the present time. Smart idea and good design decision.
I think we can all agree that this game will never become an e-sport simply because it's the polar opposite of "spectator friendly" and following what's happening in the game is very difficult if you're not the one making the decisions. However, it does seem really interesting and potentially a successful competitive game.
For everyone speaking about the graphics and UI, I wouldn't worry about it. They're an indie game developer that has put little to no resources into graphics and are basically selling their engine looking for a publisher to pick them up.
EDIT: And about the paradox scenario in multiplayer games, they explain that too (it's been covered in this thread as well). Each battle is basically decided by spendable resources versus available Chronoenergy for each player. You have a limited amount of time to travel around and each past command consumes more and more Chronoenergy, so either you will win because your opponent has not managed his Chronoenergy well enough, or because you will be ahead in the battle at the time when the timewaves shove all past events off of the timeline.
For everyone interested in giving this game a try: Since 1.1.2010 you can play a aphla demo if you reorder the game now. Its 20$ and you will be able to play all following alpha and beta game release up untill the final game is released. According to their release calendar they are aiming for 1.1.2011.
Achron Alpha Demo is now available for download to those who pre-order Achron!
By pre-ordering a license to Achron, you can download the latest alpha release, and all the upcoming future releases of Achron, including the full final game. Other pre-release programs available to those who pre-order include mod tools, tournaments, community artwork submissions, community level submissions, the Resequence Engine, and possibly third party Resequence time travel games. Please see our release calendar, frequently asked questions, and end user license agreement for further details.
The current release is an alpha build that includes a handful of single-player demo and tutorial levels. Achron is NOT a polished final game yet, but we are working toward that. Multiplayer modes, level editors, and further content will be released in the coming months.
Hi there TL posters. I'm currently working with Hazardous Software on Achron and since TL is such a huge hotbed for RTS players, I thought it might be a good idea to reach out to your community regarding our upcoming beta tournament. Players can register for free at the Achron site and apply to get into our beta tournament. If you are accepted, you will receive a free account for the duration of the tournament and may earn a free copy of the game for yourself and a friend if you play well during the tournament! We're working on securing other prizes at the moment, but we can't currently announce them.
I'd love to make sure some quality RTS players from TL get into this, so please post back here once you sign up and let me know your account. We're closing registration after 500 entrants though, so sign up ASAP!
*btw, I would have made a new topic for this but your forums blocked me from doing so because I am a new member. If the OP or a mod would like to update the topic title with the tournament announcement, that would be sweet.*
Are there any of you who want to give the game a try? I just bought it, and am looking for people who are total noobs like me to play with so i don't feel too stupid.
From what i have played so far, it seems to be a lot of fun. Also, there does not seem to be any randomness in it, which some people in this thread seem to think. Basically, stuff happens deterministic, but if you do not know what you are doing, it feels random. Which is usual for many things.
I remember reading about this when the thread first surfaced two years ago, and the concept both intrigued me and made my brain hurt. It seems really interesting, but since you zip back and forth in time, rearranging attacks and defenses all the time, does this not force the game to drag out for long as it's simpler to conserve units, and thus resources? Because from my point of view, it seems simpler to cancel an attack and hide things than to reorder an attack and find new enemy locations, thus making defensive gameplay easier on the chronoenergy thing.
Anyhow, as I said, it seems really interesting. Any more vids than the three alpha ones and the new trailer available? A full, "average" multiplayer game would be nice, so I can see the general game time for a match.
In one of the recent ones uploaded to youtube by the linked user, one guy started out with a rush build. Then the opponent started building defenses so the rusher went into the past, changed his race, and did more of an economy opening.
I think that is something that might be an artifact of this being a beta build, where you choose your race in the game, and not in a lobby beforehand. I don't really think it will stay like this.
I signed up as 'hype'. I always thought this was an interesting concept, although I was kinda sceptical from when I watched the initial pre-alpha videos a few years ago.
It would be interesting to see how the game plays competitively.
i came to the following conclusion: it seems fun to just play. "so..ill just teleport back in time and...oh wait crap im in a paradox."
on the other hand it is impossible to exist as an esport, sinply because it is just plain impossible to watch. imagine day9 and TLO commentating a match. oO
Anyone actually played the game ? I`m thinking of buying this in a couple of weeks . I`m amazed by the courage it took these guys to start working on such an ambitious project. I really respect them for that ! Congratz !
Played through the tutorial, it really wasn't a good tutorial. It didn't explain how population works, what the tech trees are, or anything other than the time mechanics. It's very nonintuitive.
On May 25 2011 00:41 ArcticVanguard wrote: Played through the tutorial, it really wasn't a good tutorial. It didn't explain how population works, what the tech trees are, or anything other than the time mechanics. It's very nonintuitive.
On May 25 2011 00:41 ArcticVanguard wrote: Played through the tutorial, it really wasn't a good tutorial. It didn't explain how population works, what the tech trees are, or anything other than the time mechanics. It's very nonintuitive.
On May 25 2011 00:41 ArcticVanguard wrote: Played through the tutorial, it really wasn't a good tutorial. It didn't explain how population works, what the tech trees are, or anything other than the time mechanics. It's very nonintuitive.
Maybe because it's the closed beta.
No kidding. I heard Minecraft's in beta too.
So?
Giving Minecraft as an example for a Beta is pretty ridiculous.
lol imagine: your protoss opponent goes for 4gate and you for 1 rax expand and can't hold the 4gate. so you go back in time and place a couple of bunkers and build more marines so you hold the 4gate. then your opponent goes back in time and cancel's the 4th gate and places a nexus too.
=> no more cheesy 5 min games or buildorder-wins lol.
Holy crap on a cracker its confusing. Once released though it looks promising. If they contiune it the way its going, might be a nice little esport in the process.
On May 25 2011 02:04 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Any game where you can say "Paradox resolution in my favor!" is by default awesome...
Wtf this game is brilliant, I saw it when it was just announced but didnt realize it then.
Q: How does one player beat another (when does the game end)? A: While we have a variety of end-game conditions for the single-player campaigns, we have two primary modes for multiplayer games. The first mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at any point in time. This yields interesting strategies where one player can be losing in the past, but rush in the present and still win. The second mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at the oldest position on the timeline, as it is impossible to recover from this. However, this second mode can obviously add time to the end-game.
So basically you need to get totally killed in-between a time wave? I don't understand...
Q: How does one player beat another (when does the game end)? A: While we have a variety of end-game conditions for the single-player campaigns, we have two primary modes for multiplayer games. The first mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at any point in time. This yields interesting strategies where one player can be losing in the past, but rush in the present and still win. The second mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at the oldest position on the timeline, as it is impossible to recover from this. However, this second mode can obviously add time to the end-game.
So basically you need to get totally killed in-between a time wave? I don't understand...
I'm going to assume it's like this: In the first mode, if you ever at any point in the timeline lose your ability to produce or attack, you lose. In the second mode, you're only dead when the final timewave hits you at a point where you can't produce or attack.
Q: How does one player beat another (when does the game end)? A: While we have a variety of end-game conditions for the single-player campaigns, we have two primary modes for multiplayer games. The first mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at any point in time. This yields interesting strategies where one player can be losing in the past, but rush in the present and still win. The second mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at the oldest position on the timeline, as it is impossible to recover from this. However, this second mode can obviously add time to the end-game.
So basically you need to get totally killed in-between a time wave? I don't understand...
It depends on the map, but usually it is set so that you win when your win falls of the timeline. Because anything that happens at that past is completely unchangeble, so when your enemy does not have any stuff then, it will eventually propagate to every point in the future, while alternate states will fall off as unrealized realities. So you not only need to kill your opponent, but you also need to protect that victory against any changes he may do by sending stuff back, for example. That other mode is also basically the same, because hunting for every single unit and building the enemy has takes long enough for the whole thing to fall of the timeline anyways.
Edit: To clarify, stuff obviously moves further into the past with time. You can usually watch stuff about 7 minutes back, and 1 minute in the future. The possibility to interact with different parts of the timeline differs, it is harder to do stuff the further back it is, and to some points you can not give direct orders, but you can still chronoport stuff back there. So your victory needs to be at the time 7 minutes before the present. This does not mean you have to wait 7 minutes after achieving victory to get your victory. You usually play a bit in the past anyways, and, as i said, you can still interact with the farther past, and then you can indirectly interact by chronoporting stuff back there even further. So, you need to protect your victory all the time until it finally falls of the timeline.
One example: I build some bombers, and kill the enemy base. However, 3 minutes later his base still exists because that change has not yet propageted, and he sends some interceptors back to kill my bombers, so his base never got killed. I only win if i kill his base in a way that he can not unkill it by changing stuff. One way is to send additional stuff back to fight his preinforcements. Another would be to attack in the future and prevent those units from being send back, for example by destroying his chronoporter. Or i could harrass in between, and thus he will never have had the money to build those units he will send back later.
But, as with any strategy game, the most common reason of winning is surrender of the opponent once he realizes he has no chance anymore.
Also, regarding the tutorial, they say that that is part of the singleplayer campaign which will be released once the game reaches retail. So no, at the moment it is not there. However, they have a very helpful and newbiefriendly community over there.
On May 25 2011 02:47 iCanada wrote: So wait... how do you win?
o.O
Q: How does one player beat another (when does the game end)? A: While we have a variety of end-game conditions for the single-player campaigns, we have two primary modes for multiplayer games. The first mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at any point in time. This yields interesting strategies where one player can be losing in the past, but rush in the present and still win. The second mode is: your game is over if you lose your ability to attack or produce units at the oldest position on the timeline, as it is impossible to recover from this. However, this second mode can obviously add time to the end-game.
So basically you need to get totally killed in-between a time wave? I don't understand...
I'm going to assume it's like this: In the first mode, if you ever at any point in the timeline lose your ability to produce or attack, you lose. In the second mode, you're only dead when the final timewave hits you at a point where you can't produce or attack.
So do you need to go through a whole time wave of being dead? Or any point in time where your opponent can kill all your buildings kind of thing? Sounds like it would open up scenarios in which the game would end while you still very much could be able to continue playing and win. Or even scenarios where both players could win/lose... what would happen if Player A sends his units in the past, and player B sends his units to the future (like it gives the example in the quote) and they both kill each other during the same time wave?
I think it is more saying in the second mode you need to be dead at the beginning of the eight minute window in time in which, which makes more sense to me. Seems to be a better competitive medium to me, and less of a catch your opponent with his pants down kind of thing.
EDIT: Oh, okay, I get it. That makes a lot more sense now.
Like i said above, it basically comes down to the same anyways. It is very hard to kill every single unit and structure an enemy has, and it takes a pretty long time, so surprising victories are not really realistic.And since the only way to make something stable is the point it falls of the timeline, that is also the only point where it is likely that a situation stays the same for long enough to wipe out every single unit. Generally, if the game were without the timetravel and stuff, it plays out much slower than, for example, SC2. Obviously, with having to fight at many different times it still gives you more than enough to do, and i think it would be impossible if it were much faster.
On May 25 2011 03:21 Simberto wrote: Like i said above, it basically comes down to the same anyways. It is very hard to kill every single unit and structure an enemy has, and it takes a pretty long time, so surprising victories are not really realistic.And since the only way to make something stable is the point it falls of the timeline, that is also the only point where it is likely that a situation stays the same for long enough to wipe out every single unit. Generally, if the game were without the timetravel and stuff, it plays out much slower than, for example, SC2. Obviously, with having to fight at many different times it still gives you more than enough to do, and i think it would be impossible if it were much faster.
Sounds pretty cool. I'm seriously contemplating spending the $30 on it.
i guess this game is too complicated for an e-sports game because a viewer who has never played the game before has to think a lot to understand what's going on and that can't be a requirement for an e-sports game. it has to be as simple as possible.
this looks sick, i like how you can win in one timeline but then lose in the next. has a lot of multitasking in it. watched the vods and i don't really know what happened, but looked really promising. not very expansion friendly from what i saw but it was really cool
When I saw the game, I really wanted to donate some art assets, because the game is horrendous looking. Then I read on their forums how they're really happy with the art style and the look the game has now is what they're going for - and I was heartbroken.
I want Valve hire the developers and remake the game like they did with Portal. The idea of it is so awesome and it looks interesting in a lot of ways. It just makes my eyes bleed.
this game looks so crazy. timeline stuff is so neat yet mindboggling. I THINK i kinda understand the basics, there's a timeline on the bottom that in real-life time moves forward, but you can go in between a window of about 5 real-life minutes and change anything? and eventually you can get tech to time-travel units so you can attack the past with units from the future, etc?
anyone whose been playing have any comments on the more RTS-ey stuff? it seems pretty weak from the videos ive seen, but that might just be becuase whoever I watched play wasnt very good (IE all the units seem pretty generic and REALLY slow and there's no micro, macro seems extremely basic/trivial). if only someone just made this as a mod for SC lol
On May 25 2011 08:15 KillerSOS wrote: From what I've seen the Micro is minimal. That's fine... there is so much other stuff to do.
Not true, unit micro is minimal but time micro is hair pulling annoying. You try cloning units without chrono fragging yourself.
Also as for the price it's worth it. You get access to the source code for the engine, and you can make you own games.
I was fortunate that I was one of the first 200 to pre order the game.
I should also point out that the dev's are awesome. When the game was new they responded to emails that people sent them quite fast. It's also one of the few games where the dev's made videos explained each feature.
Wow, this concept is insane. I'm not sure about the longevity of this game, but I haven't been this fascinated in a game for a veeery long time. Going to watch out for the release!
On May 25 2011 15:47 ArcticVanguard wrote: I just played my first multiplayer game. Who needs time travel when you can throw a 1000 resource army in their face?
for some reason my brain reads this way "who needs shenanigans when i have macro!":p
On May 25 2011 15:47 ArcticVanguard wrote: I just played my first multiplayer game. Who needs time travel when you can throw a 1000 resource army in their face?
for some reason my brain reads this way "who needs shenanigans when i have macro!":p
Well, actually, that's about how I meant it. The only time I use the time traveling (mostly) is for scouting, I don't actually send units back or to the future.
I haven't bought it yet, but I've been looking at some of the VODs on that YouTube channel posted earlier, and I still can't seem to wrap my head around the entire thing.
I'd give it a go if i could just play it like SC2 beta (i.e try it for free for a bit multiplayer wise) but i think its a bit too much for me to jump into a tournament
On May 27 2011 01:00 BrTarolg wrote: I'd give it a go if i could just play it like SC2 beta (i.e try it for free for a bit multiplayer wise) but i think its a bit too much for me to jump into a tournament
I'm on the same boat, it's either fucking awesome, or plain meeeeeehhh... I'm not sure how this tournament works, can we play the game outside the tournament? If not, most of us will drop in the first match since we have no expirience, and that isn't enough to test the game and decide whether or not to buy it.
From what I have read so far, the beta tournament is supposed to be entirely composed of new players but there is nothing to stop people who already have the game to register under a new name. Supposed to have access to the game throughout the entire tournament so you'll be able to play games outside the tournament and the matches are just to seed players for the real tournament which takes place after 12(not sure about this but too lazy to check) matches.
On May 27 2011 02:50 inf3rnus wrote: From what I have read so far, the beta tournament is supposed to be entirely composed of new players but there is nothing to stop people who already have the game to register under a new name. Supposed to have access to the game throughout the entire tournament so you'll be able to play games outside the tournament and the matches are just to seed players for the real tournament which takes place after 12(not sure about this but too lazy to check) matches.
There is a different Tournament for people who bought it before, and i think that they might converge at the final rounds, or lead to a tournament of the winners of both.
As far as the tournament goes, the first 8 weeks are pool matches for seeding in the bracket stages. For those 9 weeks you can't be eliminated. Once the brackets start, you can be eliminated, but you get to keep playing until the entire tournament is over anyway. Also, feel free to practice, as long as you play the required matches each week.
Also, w.r.t. the RTS mechanics: Races are varied and balance is quite solid (though from time to time there is a dominant strategy which is patched quickly). There aren't a huge amount of units, but that is largely to help ease people into the time travel aspect. Unit micro is also a little tricky, but it can pay off in certain cases (more re-targeting and positioning. Dancing doesn't exist). I haven't really shown any great FPVODs, because I wasn't being as serious as I could be, which would involve a lot more jumping around the timeline.
On that note, please let me know any specific issues you guys are finding with understanding the videos. I know the game is naturally confusing at first, but if there are specific aspects that are confusing, I can focus more on them in my commentary to help clarify them and how they are affecting the game.
For those who have played the game and have some experience, I wonder what the likelihood will be of the time traveling mechanics becoming less significant as players settle on macro styles. I know for me, I prefer to use the timeline for scouting and things like that. My question is this: what is the viability of a "traditional" macro-style game vs something that takes full advantage of the time traveling and teleporting mechanics? I can't speak as someone with a ton of experience in the game, but I think a macro-style will be very strong.
On May 28 2011 11:53 ArcticVanguard wrote: For those who have played the game and have some experience, I wonder what the likelihood will be of the time traveling mechanics becoming less significant as players settle on macro styles. I know for me, I prefer to use the timeline for scouting and things like that. My question is this: what is the viability of a "traditional" macro-style game vs something that takes full advantage of the time traveling and teleporting mechanics? I can't speak as someone with a ton of experience in the game, but I think a macro-style will be very strong.
In my opinion, zero.
While macro is of course, as always, important, at a similar level of macro the person effectively using the time mechanics has an incredibly advantage. If you ignore the possibility to use time changes to your advantage, your macro needs to be way better than your opponent because he will always attack when and where you are weakest if you refuse to change the past. And chronoportation is simply incredibly strong. if you ignore this possibility, you will not only have to fight your opponents current army, but also an army with units from 3 minutes in the future+ possibly even the same units twice. Sure, it costs money to chronoport them back later, but that does not matter if you win now.
So if you can be about 3 minutes ahead of your opponent by macroing good, you might win on macro alone. However, that also means that you are way better than your opponent.
And teleportation simply means having your stuff where you want it to be. Usually not gamebreaking, but very useful nonetheless.
the theory sounds great, but watching those videos it looked horrible.. Im not one to bash "graphics" but seriously... Better off making a 2D game with simple graphics like BW that moves clear and precise than a 3D game thats half-assed in polygons and blocky/slow..
could you imagine if something like this would be used in SC3? that'd make so much changes to the metagame lol
On May 28 2011 13:11 Skyze wrote: the theory sounds great, but watching those videos it looked horrible.. Im not one to bash "graphics" but seriously... Better off making a 2D game with simple graphics like BW that moves clear and precise than a 3D game thats half-assed in polygons and blocky/slow..
could you imagine if something like this would be used in SC3? that'd make so much changes to the metagame lol
You have to understand that this is a relatively small independent developer. They may not have the time or the money to churn out fantastic graphics. As well, there are engine limitations. A 2D sprite game may not work with the engine while a low-poly 3D game does. The engine is computing every given timeline all at once, and it's likely that high-poly graphics would make it lag even more than it does. Plus, in a statement by the developer, they like their art style.
I have to admit, the pathing isn't exactly fantastic, but I'd rather it be "average" pathing that performs well than "awesome" pathing that requires a powerful computer just to run. Same with the graphics.
On May 28 2011 22:54 teamsolid wrote: Small developer != Poor graphics. Look at a game like Sins of a Solar Empire, made by a very small company yet looks absolutely beautiful.
Like I said, it's not just because of being a small developer - there has to be a level of optimization due to the way the engine works.
On May 28 2011 22:54 teamsolid wrote: Small developer != Poor graphics. Look at a game like Sins of a Solar Empire, made by a very small company yet looks absolutely beautiful.
Like I said, it's not just because of being a small developer - there has to be a level of optimization due to the way the engine works.
While for the most part they are set about the design, they have asked for a couple critter models, no more than 1500 polygons and fully animated.
I'm not much of a modeller, but I would like to see PandaBearGuy in there.
On May 28 2011 22:54 teamsolid wrote: Small developer != Poor graphics. Look at a game like Sins of a Solar Empire, made by a very small company yet looks absolutely beautiful.
Like I said, it's not just because of being a small developer - there has to be a level of optimization due to the way the engine works.
While for the most part they are set about the design, they have asked for a couple critter models, no more than 1500 polygons and fully animated.
I'm not much of a modeller, but I would like to see PandaBearGuy in there.
I'm taking a 3D arts course next year, I might be able to see what I can come up with.
On May 25 2011 15:47 ArcticVanguard wrote: I just played my first multiplayer game. Who needs time travel when you can throw a 1000 resource army in their face?
Well the metagame needs to evolve with this game (and balancing of course).
Until then we won't know until this is useless or not. If time traveling is useless tweaks can be made easily.
So the game popped up on Steam yesterday. I'm really interested in trying it out, but the price tag is a bit hefty. 28€ (with 15% discount!) for an indie RTS is too much for me, guess I'll wait for a sale or something.
On August 30 2011 13:53 Shockk wrote: So the game popped up on Steam yesterday. I'm really interested in trying it out, but the price tag is a bit hefty. 28€ (with 15% discount!) for an indie RTS is too much for me, guess I'll wait for a sale or something.
On August 30 2011 13:53 Shockk wrote: So the game popped up on Steam yesterday. I'm really interested in trying it out, but the price tag is a bit hefty. 28€ (with 15% discount!) for an indie RTS is too much for me, guess I'll wait for a sale or something.
Trust me it's worth every penny.
Well I'd love to believe that, but there's not even a demo to test the game. And even if there was, 30 € is way too much for an indie game, sorry. Even if I wouldn't buy it via Steam but from the developer's homepage, where it's at 29 $ (which is ~22€), it's still a lot for an indie game.
Since Achron probably aspires to be an active multiplayer game with a thriving community, Minecraft's approach would have been much better: Start with a low price to attract customers and attention, increase price over time to profit from the growing and developing community.
The game looks cool, but like everyone is saying it's not worth 30 dollars right now imo. I will wait for the next steam holiday sale and pick up when it's on sale.
Since no one has said it yet, they released the official soundtrack to people who paid for the beta. It's really good, We Will Be One (the grekim theme) gives me chills every time.
On August 30 2011 13:53 Shockk wrote: So the game popped up on Steam yesterday. I'm really interested in trying it out, but the price tag is a bit hefty. 28€ (with 15% discount!) for an indie RTS is too much for me, guess I'll wait for a sale or something.
Trust me it's worth every penny.
Well I'd love to believe that, but there's not even a demo to test the game. And even if there was, 30 € is way too much for an indie game, sorry. Even if I wouldn't buy it via Steam but from the developer's homepage, where it's at 29 $ (which is ~22€), it's still a lot for an indie game.
Since Achron probably aspires to be an active multiplayer game with a thriving community, Minecraft's approach would have been much better: Start with a low price to attract customers and attention, increase price over time to profit from the growing and developing community.
Sometimes you just have to drop $30 for something and take a chance.
On March 28 2009 04:25 TheMango wrote: Interesting... quoted from the website:
"The Strategies Mar·16·2009 7:14pm by Mike Resnick, AI developer and gameplay designer
Chris used a neat strategy against me in a memorable free-for-all game between him, Konrad, and myself. I launched a massive surprise attack on Chris's mining base, so he traveled back in time, prepared a large fleet to counter my attack and succeeded. However, in the present I acquired nukes and sent a nuke back to the end of the battle that destroyed his remaining fleet. Before it was over, he jumped back further in time, moved his mining base and undid his counter attack. Since his fleet had left the area and my army had conquered it, my nuclear blast from the future decimated my own forces! Right at that time, Konrad came at me with his forces, so I didn't have time to undo my nuclear blast."
I really wanted to give the game a try, but it's bascially something like 20€ overpriced - especially considering how ugly the game is and how there's no demo available. I'm sure they would've sold a lot more, and made more money, if the game was reasonably priced.. oh well :\
I wasn't really impressed with the beta, thought it would have a bit cleaner and more efficient interface/control. I wonder if the full game has improved on that stuff, I'll check out some videos in the future.
On August 30 2011 13:53 Shockk wrote: So the game popped up on Steam yesterday. I'm really interested in trying it out, but the price tag is a bit hefty. 28€ (with 15% discount!) for an indie RTS is too much for me, guess I'll wait for a sale or something.
Trust me it's worth every penny.
Well I'd love to believe that, but there's not even a demo to test the game. And even if there was, 30 € is way too much for an indie game, sorry. Even if I wouldn't buy it via Steam but from the developer's homepage, where it's at 29 $ (which is ~22€), it's still a lot for an indie game.
Since Achron probably aspires to be an active multiplayer game with a thriving community, Minecraft's approach would have been much better: Start with a low price to attract customers and attention, increase price over time to profit from the growing and developing community.
Sometimes you just have to drop $30 for something and take a chance.
I'm all for supporting indie devs - most of my Steam games are indie titles - but I won't start shelling out money left and right to take a chance with a game I know little about and have no idea whether or not the gameplay will actually work out for me.
However, a demo will apparently be released soon for all those curious about the game but scared off by the price (like me). No idea why they didn't have this ready for release to avoid some of the trouble, but better late than never.
The demo will be coming out soon. All the pieces are done but I need to package it up. I'll be doing so when I get back at Hazardous Software HQ (I'm posting from an airport on a layover heading back from PAX).
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
As I recall starcraft received a rather weak response when it was first unveiled.
It basically received universal praise upon release, was applauded for the campaign, the interface, the gameplay and the multiplayer, and got some minor criticism about the mediocre graphics. The only critics / magazines that rated otherwise were those that would write non-mainstream reviews all the time anyway to "not go with the masses".
(I know all that because our cellar was flooded some weeks ago, I had to move everything out and took the time to read some old computer magazines, some of which were from 1998 and happened to include StarCraft reviews).
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
As I recall starcraft received a rather weak response when it was first unveiled.
It basically received universal praise upon release, was applauded for the campaign, the interface, the gameplay and the multiplayer, and got some minor criticism about the mediocre graphics. The only critics / magazines that rated otherwise were those that would write non-mainstream reviews all the time anyway to "not go with the masses".
(I know all that because our cellar was flooded some weeks ago, I had to move everything out and took the time to read some old computer magazines, some of which were from 1998 and happened to include StarCraft reviews).
He's talking about the first reveal when it was completely different from the SC that we know now, and people just brushed it off as a "warcraft in space".
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
As I recall starcraft received a rather weak response when it was first unveiled.
It basically received universal praise upon release, was applauded for the campaign, the interface, the gameplay and the multiplayer, and got some minor criticism about the mediocre graphics. The only critics / magazines that rated otherwise were those that would write non-mainstream reviews all the time anyway to "not go with the masses".
(I know all that because our cellar was flooded some weeks ago, I had to move everything out and took the time to read some old computer magazines, some of which were from 1998 and happened to include StarCraft reviews).
He's talking about the first reveal when it was completely different from the SC that we know now, and people just brushed it off as a "warcraft in space".
If that actually is the case (not sure about it - if not, what I've written above applies), then we're talking about comparing pre-alpha stage StarCraft 1 to already-released Achron ... which makes no sense at all.
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
To be honest, so far i have seen very few mediocre reviews. There are some saying this game is very good, and others saying it is very bad. But strangely enough not many in between.
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
As I recall starcraft received a rather weak response when it was first unveiled.
It basically received universal praise upon release, was applauded for the campaign, the interface, the gameplay and the multiplayer, and got some minor criticism about the mediocre graphics. The only critics / magazines that rated otherwise were those that would write non-mainstream reviews all the time anyway to "not go with the masses".
(I know all that because our cellar was flooded some weeks ago, I had to move everything out and took the time to read some old computer magazines, some of which were from 1998 and happened to include StarCraft reviews).
He's talking about the first reveal when it was completely different from the SC that we know now, and people just brushed it off as a "warcraft in space".
If that actually is the case (not sure about it - if not, what I've written above applies), then we're talking about comparing pre-alpha stage StarCraft 1 to already-released Achron ... which makes no sense at all.
Achron is made by a two man dev and community submissions. If they had a fraction of the budget blizzard had for SC2 then we'd see a different game.
The mechanics are there and it plays well enough to show that it works. all it needs is polish and a dedicated community then we'll see a revolution in gaming.
Most two-man indie projects don't charge 30 bucks for their product - and for good reason. Their game won't stack up favorably against other, more professional products in the same price range. It's much smarter to put your title in the "impulse purchase" range, which is more like 5-10 dollars/euros.
I played the beta and the gameplay was very interesting and unique, so it's definatly worth some money. However, i think it's just too complex for most people to understand it, which will frustrate most people that try it and produce bad reviews.
I don't know if it's worth that much money, i'd rather see it in the 10 euro range, but it's definatly not a bad game once you grasp the mechanics. However, i can't see a competitive scene developing for it due to the too complex time mechanics and uninteresting graphics.
What a cool idea. I would play this game. Curious how this type of RTS would perform on a competitive level. Seems like it would be a logistical nightmare to try and balance around that.
If the dev can expand his company and hire some artists this game could get picked up by a big publisher and grow into something awesome. But i think the dev will need some dramatic steam sales to help him do that sort of thing.
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
As I recall starcraft received a rather weak response when it was first unveiled.
It basically received universal praise upon release, was applauded for the campaign, the interface, the gameplay and the multiplayer, and got some minor criticism about the mediocre graphics. The only critics / magazines that rated otherwise were those that would write non-mainstream reviews all the time anyway to "not go with the masses".
(I know all that because our cellar was flooded some weeks ago, I had to move everything out and took the time to read some old computer magazines, some of which were from 1998 and happened to include StarCraft reviews).
He's talking about the first reveal when it was completely different from the SC that we know now, and people just brushed it off as a "warcraft in space".
If that actually is the case (not sure about it - if not, what I've written above applies), then we're talking about comparing pre-alpha stage StarCraft 1 to already-released Achron ... which makes no sense at all.
He said it had a weak response when it was first (keyword) unveiled. And no that wouldn't make sense. What also doesn't make sense is why you are putting words in his mouth.
Can't believe how many of you are holding out because of its 'hefty' price tag. Will be picking this up asap.
Can't believe you're willing to shell out your hard 'earned' money on a game with such mediocre reviews.
As I recall starcraft received a rather weak response when it was first unveiled.
It basically received universal praise upon release, was applauded for the campaign, the interface, the gameplay and the multiplayer, and got some minor criticism about the mediocre graphics. The only critics / magazines that rated otherwise were those that would write non-mainstream reviews all the time anyway to "not go with the masses".
(I know all that because our cellar was flooded some weeks ago, I had to move everything out and took the time to read some old computer magazines, some of which were from 1998 and happened to include StarCraft reviews).
He's talking about the first reveal when it was completely different from the SC that we know now, and people just brushed it off as a "warcraft in space".
If that actually is the case (not sure about it - if not, what I've written above applies), then we're talking about comparing pre-alpha stage StarCraft 1 to already-released Achron ... which makes no sense at all.
He said it had a weak response when it was first (keyword) unveiled. And no that wouldn't make sense. What also doesn't make sense is why you are putting words in his mouth.
When Starcraft 1 was first "unveiled" it was the pre alpha version (SC1 was using the WC2 engine with purple graphics for the most part) hence it's weak response. They then changed it to its own engine and updated the game immensely from that point on (so that it was no longer just purple Warcraft in Space).
Unfortunately, due to a decision back in 2009, we were obligated to release the game at the price that we did. Since 2009, the price of games has changed a bit, and we wanted to release it for a bit cheaper, but couldn't. Instead, we're doing what a few other game companies have done recently: give you a second free key for a friend when you buy a license to Achron. This is already live on our site (but not well-documented yet - we're going to do that later today) and should be live on Steam soon too. If you've preordered, already purchased Achron, or will be purchasing it in the near future, you'll get the second key.
The reasons for doing this are two-fold: 1) to put Achron at the price that we wanted to charge for release and 2) put Achron into more peoples' hands socially so they can experience multiplayer. Multiplayer is where Achron shines.
Indeed. Price seems to be the major thing holding this game back so this should help out quite a lot.
EDIT: I would also recommend that anyone who wants this game but isn't willing to pay $30... use this thread to find someone to split the cost with. I'm sure there are plenty of people on TL willing to go 50/50 on a purchase to knock the price down to $15.
Officiall press release is up. Basically, as mentioned earlier they're giving a second copy to anyone who purchases the game (effectively making it only $15 if you find someone to buy it with) and they released a patch that improves pathfinding and a few other things (this was released yesterday on their website... I believe it's on steam now, also, which means I'll announce the winners of my contest tomorrow and get those copies out)
12:00 EST 9/7/2011. Hazardous Software is pleased to announce the incorporation of a giftable copy with every purchase of its new time travel RTS "Achron", available at achrongame.com and Steam.
Additionally, a new patch, version 1.0.1.0, has been released on achrongame.com and Steam. It fixes a critical pathfinding bug where units would not move intelligently, among other improvements.
Spawn game functionality is something our fans have been asking for for a long time. We chose to go a step further, by including a free gift code for Achron with every purchase. This offer is retroactive to all purchases from the beginning of Achron's preorder release. It also lowers the bar of entry to many in the PC gaming community who have expressed interest in exploring Achron's well-received time travel mechanics.
"We believe in supporting the multiplayer community and enabling community growth, including the pathfinding patch released yesterday, which marks a noticeable improvement in Achron's gameplay.", said Shawn Stonesifer, Achron's associate producer.
Would anyone be interested in a tourney of this? Was thinking about putting something together.
On September 08 2011 09:38 Serejai wrote: Officiall press release is up. Basically, as mentioned earlier they're giving a second copy to anyone who purchases the game (effectively making it only $15 if you find someone to buy it with) and they released a patch that improves pathfinding and a few other things (this was released yesterday on their website... I believe it's on steam now, also, which means I'll announce the winners of my contest tomorrow and get those copies out)
Would anyone be interested in a tourney of this? Was thinking about putting something together.
A tourny of Achron sounds hell'a fun. I need to pick it up asap so I can figure things out. Grekim strong!
EDIT: I played the 1.0.0.0 version of the game, supposedly they fixed pathing in 1.0.1.0. I'll check it out as soon as I have time (and access to my friend's acc), but if they really did fix it, scratch everything I said below and go buy Achron now.
I played a bit on friend's account, will consider purchasing when and only when they fix unit pathing. You cannot imagine how bad it is. And by "bad" i mean you will be praying for BW unupgraded Goon AI, as it would be a SIGNIFICANT improvement over the clusterfuck that it currently is. And because of the chronoenergy system, it's very hard to have enough energy to micro all the units bit by bit and therefore circumvent the problem manually (and if you assign the group a commander unit, the pathing gets even worse).
It's really a terrible shame, as the game is in my book almost perfect in every other aspect (I even like the graphics), and it would be an even bigger shame if the game fails because of it.
And I'm not overstating it; I have a very high tolerance for screw-ups if the rest of the game holds together (for example, I consider Alpha Protocol to be one of the best games of all time, despite all the complaints and unfixed bugs), but in an RTS game, especially one where every command is important as it spends your chronoenergy, this really is a deal breaker for me.
Just putting it out there as a warning to others, and hope the devs do a good job of fixing it (which they should, considering their work up until now; I've been following Achron's development for quite some time).
really looking forward to trying it! Anyone already has? I read that the game is not yet well adapted to multi core machines, not taking advantage of multiple cores to handle the multiple games going on at the same time (because of multiple timewaves). Is this true? How bad is it?
On September 09 2011 20:23 valaki wrote: Are those colors really that blue and red? Because I'm color blind and can't tell anything apart.
They are. Very rich tones of color with little actual details on the units - it's very basic.
After receiving a copy of Achron via the recent giveaway (thanks to the additional gift copies), I've managed to play the first campaign missions and a skirmish against AI.
I think this game has great potential, albeit for a niche community. I consider myself a solid RTS veteran yet the time travel component makes it a totally different game, and I've had and still have difficulties grasping all the implications on gameplay and metagaming.
Since we're no longer talking about "real time" strategy it doesn't even fit that genre. It plays a bit more like a turn based game since you have to anticipate moves, time travel changes come at fixed intervals from the time "waves" and the level of planning for simple maneuvers can become huge.
What the game (desperately) needs right now is some polish; the pathing issues have already been mentioned but there's more work to be done. This game is a raw jewel; with a dedicated and motivated team behind it, it could become an amazing strategy game.
On September 08 2011 09:38 Serejai wrote: Officiall press release is up. Basically, as mentioned earlier they're giving a second copy to anyone who purchases the game (effectively making it only $15 if you find someone to buy it with) and they released a patch that improves pathfinding and a few other things (this was released yesterday on their website... I believe it's on steam now, also, which means I'll announce the winners of my contest tomorrow and get those copies out)
Would anyone be interested in a tourney of this? Was thinking about putting something together.
A tourny of Achron sounds hell'a fun. I need to pick it up asap so I can figure things out. Grekim strong!
I've been playing a few nights now with a friend, and I think I finally grasp this game enough to play other people. So a tourney would be superb! Let's throw something together! =D
Everyone: The achron community as it is right now congregates at #achron on irc.coldfront.net. This would be the easiest way to find games.
Also, Temporal Anomalies Season 2 will be starting sometime in October most likely. There will be announcements closer to the signups, which should be opening on the 29th of September, and that should be exciting.
For those who aren't familiar, Temporal Anomalies is a tournament series organized by myself and another community member (Merlvingian), and presented with 4 Best of 3's per week on Saturday evenings, with Bo5 finals in the last week. These are cast to www.twitch.tv/temporalanomalies, and the games are also uploaded to YouTube, currently to my channel (www.youtube.com/Shadowfury333). The games themselves are either live or from replays, though it is likely we will be using only replays for season 2.
If people want to do tournaments other than that, feel free. Please post the replays to gamereplays.org and/or achrongame.com/forums so that we can all watch them, and I can cast them should my schedule allow (which it most likely will).
On September 15 2011 13:28 Shadowfury333 wrote: Everyone: The achron community as it is right now congregates at #achron on irc.coldfront.net. This would be the easiest way to find games.
Also, Temporal Anomalies Season 2 will be starting sometime in October most likely. There will be announcements closer to the signups, which should be opening on the 29th of September, and that should be exciting.
For those who aren't familiar, Temporal Anomalies is a tournament series organized by myself and another community member (Merlvingian), and presented with 4 Best of 3's per week on Saturday evenings, with Bo5 finals in the last week. These are cast to www.twitch.tv/temporalanomalies, and the games are also uploaded to YouTube, currently to my channel (www.youtube.com/Shadowfury333). The games themselves are either live or from replays, though it is likely we will be using only replays for season 2.
If people want to do tournaments other than that, feel free. Please post the replays to gamereplays.org and/or achrongame.com/forums so that we can all watch them, and I can cast them should my schedule allow (which it most likely will).
I just watched like 12 of your youtube videos and am about to buy this game. If anyone wants my second key you should PM me and we can likely work something out. Most of my friends cannot understand how to play Starcraft, so I am not going to bother with this .
I just bought this game today and I have played about 3 games so far. My first impression is that it is not very user friendly or intuitive at all. My first game was against a friend of mine and neither of us had really made units until around the 10 min mark and I just figured out how to make tier 3 units while watching the replay of my last game. But once I have spent more time with the game it seems like it will be pretty fun.
Though there are two glaring flaws that I see in the game. One is that units look really similar when you are zoomed out marines and special ops look exactly the same. Also as other people have stated the unit control is really slow and the unit pathing is really bad, it is almost impossible to micro.
Also I have the steam version of the game and in the main menu there is a red warning telling me to update the game by going to the website but I couldn't find anything on the website about updating. Does anyone know how to update the steam version?
This episode covers the two post-release patches so far, the upcoming Temporal Anomalies Season 2 tournament, and some theorycrafting on the use of chronoported Grekim units to build resource processors.
EPT
sorry people
![[image loading]](http://lexlibertas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/i-divided-by-zero.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://msti.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/scanners-headexplode.jpg)
