|
On June 18 2024 07:29 KingzTig wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. f2p is not necessarily p2w. Haven't spend a single dime on league.
I'm not talking f2p, I'm talking specifically p2w (I'm responding to Wombat here as well). In a system like LoL, which is also proposed for Battle Aces, you can definitely pay for an advantage. Whether you personally did it or felt the need to is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. Or lets say it's relevant in all the wrong ways. Firstly, it's just anecdotal evidence. None of the people I know who played Diablo Immortal spent a dime in that game, either. Does that mean that game is not p2w or not predatory in its payment model? No. It just means not everyone is affected the same way. Secondly, the mentality "I'm not affected so it can't be bad" facilitates the progress by companies to move to more and more predatory payment models in the grand scheme of things. This is how we got where we are now over the past 20 years.
To address Wombat's second point: Games are insanely cheap nowadays if you look past AAA titles. This is mostly due to technical advancements, which make it easier for small teams/indie devs to create games. The other side is that nowadays distrbution via Steam/gog is much easier, as broadband internet is readily available for a lot of people. Yes, f2p models have in advantage for you here. However, there are so many games you can buy for a few bucks on sale to try them out together with your son, I feel like f2p is not really that much of an advantage even in this regard.
|
On June 18 2024 08:03 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 07:29 KingzTig wrote:On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. f2p is not necessarily p2w. Haven't spend a single dime on league. I'm not talking f2p, I'm talking specifically p2w (I'm responding to Wombat here as well). In a system like LoL, which is also proposed for Battle Aces, you can definitely pay for an advantage. Whether you personally did it or felt the need to is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. Or lets say it's relevant in all the wrong ways. Firstly, it's just anecdotal evidence. None of the people I know who played Diablo Immortal spent a dime in that game, either. Does that mean that game is not p2w or not predatory in its payment model? No. It just means not everyone is affected the same way. Secondly, the mentality "I'm not affected so it can't be bad" facilitates the progress by companies to move to more and more predatory payment models in the grand scheme of things. This is how we got where we are now over the past 20 years. To address Wombat's second point: Games are insanely cheap nowadays if you look past AAA titles. This is mostly due to technical advancements, which make it easier for small teams/indie devs to create games. The other side is that nowadays distrbution via Steam/gog is much easier, as broadband internet is readily available for a lot of people. Yes, f2p models have in advantage for you here. However, there are so many games you can buy for a few bucks on sale to try them out together with your son, I feel like f2p is not really that much of an advantage even in this regard.
I challenge you to quantify the bolded (in LoL) to any meaningful degree.
If I start a new account and spend $100 on champions, the account's winrate would be WORSE than if I didn't spend any money and played one champ in one role I was familiar with.
If someone who has never played before started playing and spent $100 on champions, you'd be very pressed to prove their winrate is better than it would be otherwise, especially considering isolating variables (which champ/role you play) will make learning better.
This is why people have pointed to Hearthstone / MTG as better examples of what you're trying to communicate - you can very much start as a new player in MTG and spend $100 on cards to gain a meaningful advantage. If that's the case for Battle Aces, then yeah criticism is warranted. Calling it 'the same system as LoL' does not communicate that, because LoL's champion system is not pay to win. If you think it is, that is because you misunderstand the game, or the system.
|
With enough free to play units, the win rate difference is negligible imo.
and if you are like me, who play far more ARAM than the standard mode, then it matters even less.
Going back to the game design itself, I was quite disappointed when I saw it doesn't have buildings.
But the more I think about it, the more I like what it enables.
Instead of the unit comp being locked behind a whole building tree. E.g. depot to rax to factory to starpot, for the usual marine hellion medivac
It's a much simple tech path, but with a much bigger unit comp to build.
My only complaint is the games aren't all that fun to watch. It's short and honestly isn't too dynamic. But I can tell it will be very fun to play and I can grind the game without extreme stress like SC ladder
I watched a ton of games from all the big new rts (except gate of pyres), the only one that I would say produces exciting game is zerospace.
Hopefully this would get better with time.
|
On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays.
Combined with the idea of Nony, I don't find it as terrible if we say there is a baseline of 15-20 units included in the F2P and you can buy the other 30 units in a package for 40-50 bucks like you would pay for a P2P game.
I remember back in the day when Heroes of the Storm was kinda a thing it had the same model we assume here. I never had a problem there buying the new shiny toys. With quests and level boni and stuff I always had enough IG currency. This made me spend real money for skins and mounts just because I could and to support the game. Not because I had to
|
On June 18 2024 06:44 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. There’s a flipside to that, one I’ve experienced as a father of an 11 year old youngling which is if there’s an interesting looking game, we can give it a shot together, or he solo. Whereas when I was a youngster it was a case of shelling out 40/50 quid for a copy for myself. So I think the F2P model has a lot of advantages in outreach, the rest really depends on how the balancing of monetisation works
You should be old enough to remember old-school demo discs then.
The F2P model doesn't have any advantage in outreach over old-school demo discs, and similar outreach could easily be achieved using downloadable demos.
All the F2P model does is open up predatory payment routes.
EDIT:
And if I was still unsure about a game, I would rent it from Blockbuster so I could play the full thing for a few days.
I miss Blockbuster.
|
When is the upcoming showmatch between Parting vs Clem for Battle Aces according to Artosis's stream?
|
On June 18 2024 09:01 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 08:03 Miragee wrote:On June 18 2024 07:29 KingzTig wrote:On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. f2p is not necessarily p2w. Haven't spend a single dime on league. I'm not talking f2p, I'm talking specifically p2w (I'm responding to Wombat here as well). In a system like LoL, which is also proposed for Battle Aces, you can definitely pay for an advantage. Whether you personally did it or felt the need to is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. Or lets say it's relevant in all the wrong ways. Firstly, it's just anecdotal evidence. None of the people I know who played Diablo Immortal spent a dime in that game, either. Does that mean that game is not p2w or not predatory in its payment model? No. It just means not everyone is affected the same way. Secondly, the mentality "I'm not affected so it can't be bad" facilitates the progress by companies to move to more and more predatory payment models in the grand scheme of things. This is how we got where we are now over the past 20 years. To address Wombat's second point: Games are insanely cheap nowadays if you look past AAA titles. This is mostly due to technical advancements, which make it easier for small teams/indie devs to create games. The other side is that nowadays distrbution via Steam/gog is much easier, as broadband internet is readily available for a lot of people. Yes, f2p models have in advantage for you here. However, there are so many games you can buy for a few bucks on sale to try them out together with your son, I feel like f2p is not really that much of an advantage even in this regard. I challenge you to quantify the bolded (in LoL) to any meaningful degree. If I start a new account and spend $100 on champions, the account's winrate would be WORSE than if I didn't spend any money and played one champ in one role I was familiar with. If someone who has never played before started playing and spent $100 on champions, you'd be very pressed to prove their winrate is better than it would be otherwise, especially considering isolating variables (which champ/role you play) will make learning better. This is why people have pointed to Hearthstone / MTG as better examples of what you're trying to communicate - you can very much start as a new player in MTG and spend $100 on cards to gain a meaningful advantage. If that's the case for Battle Aces, then yeah criticism is warranted. Calling it 'the same system as LoL' does not communicate that, because LoL's champion system is not pay to win. If you think it is, that is because you misunderstand the game, or the system.
You are literally asking me to do the impossible. How would you even begin to "quantify" the p2w component of a game? By what metric? Again, I'm not saying LoL is the worst example out there, far from it. But you can pay for an advantage, there is no denying that. Why are you so defensive about that fact?
Yes, maybe I should have used MTG in my original post, as this game's monetisation is extremely p2w and predatory (and I love MTG as a game). However, I think you missunderstood the point I was making. I wasn't making a point about how much of an impact a particular game's system has on that game. I.e. whether MTG's system is worse than LoL's or how they compare to Battle Aces in this regards. My point was that I can't understand why players are defending companies for any of this shit because its not good for them unless they are literally being paid by that company. This just normalises these monetisation systems, which is inevitably moving us from more tame versions like in LoL to more predatory systems like in MTG in the grand scheme of things. Because in the end, the systems in LoL and MTG are based on the same ideas, just at different points of the spectrum.
|
On June 18 2024 23:09 covetousrat wrote:
When is the upcoming showmatch between Parting vs Clem for Battle Aces according to Artosis's stream?
4 PM PDT
|
Northern Ireland22919 Posts
On June 18 2024 18:20 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 06:44 WombaT wrote:On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. There’s a flipside to that, one I’ve experienced as a father of an 11 year old youngling which is if there’s an interesting looking game, we can give it a shot together, or he solo. Whereas when I was a youngster it was a case of shelling out 40/50 quid for a copy for myself. So I think the F2P model has a lot of advantages in outreach, the rest really depends on how the balancing of monetisation works You should be old enough to remember old-school demo discs then. The F2P model doesn't have any advantage in outreach over old-school demo discs, and similar outreach could easily be achieved using downloadable demos. All the F2P model does is open up predatory payment routes. EDIT: And if I was still unsure about a game, I would rent it from Blockbuster so I could play the full thing for a few days. I miss Blockbuster.
Having just run/casted an SC2 tournament that acted as a dry run for a new dedicated LAN cafe/eSports venue opening shortly, F2P is an absolute godsend I imagine over sourcing a whole ton of licenses for various titles.
There’s certainly a place for demos too, I’d like to see more of them as well.
But I don’t think they’re that comparable to just having the actual game and be free to play the full shebang with your buddies or whatever, rather than some locked down trial version, see if you find it promising and only then properly jumping on to the full experience.
It’s very dependent on how it’s monetised and what that does to the overall game for me, and it’s only a model I really like for games built almost entirely for more competitive multiplayer experiences or what have you.
It’s just a model, it may work very well in some contexts, terribly in others.
SC2 and subsequently Stormgate have a pretty decent halfway house approach where if you wanna play the core multiplayer game, that is/will be free, but if you want the full single player experience you have to fork out some. I think it’s a good balance between ease of multiplayer entry, plus ensuring some degree of monetisation that is shorn of entirely being reliant on multiplayer microtransactions.
|
Northern Ireland22919 Posts
On June 19 2024 00:10 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 09:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 18 2024 08:03 Miragee wrote:On June 18 2024 07:29 KingzTig wrote:On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. f2p is not necessarily p2w. Haven't spend a single dime on league. I'm not talking f2p, I'm talking specifically p2w (I'm responding to Wombat here as well). In a system like LoL, which is also proposed for Battle Aces, you can definitely pay for an advantage. Whether you personally did it or felt the need to is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. Or lets say it's relevant in all the wrong ways. Firstly, it's just anecdotal evidence. None of the people I know who played Diablo Immortal spent a dime in that game, either. Does that mean that game is not p2w or not predatory in its payment model? No. It just means not everyone is affected the same way. Secondly, the mentality "I'm not affected so it can't be bad" facilitates the progress by companies to move to more and more predatory payment models in the grand scheme of things. This is how we got where we are now over the past 20 years. To address Wombat's second point: Games are insanely cheap nowadays if you look past AAA titles. This is mostly due to technical advancements, which make it easier for small teams/indie devs to create games. The other side is that nowadays distrbution via Steam/gog is much easier, as broadband internet is readily available for a lot of people. Yes, f2p models have in advantage for you here. However, there are so many games you can buy for a few bucks on sale to try them out together with your son, I feel like f2p is not really that much of an advantage even in this regard. I challenge you to quantify the bolded (in LoL) to any meaningful degree. If I start a new account and spend $100 on champions, the account's winrate would be WORSE than if I didn't spend any money and played one champ in one role I was familiar with. If someone who has never played before started playing and spent $100 on champions, you'd be very pressed to prove their winrate is better than it would be otherwise, especially considering isolating variables (which champ/role you play) will make learning better. This is why people have pointed to Hearthstone / MTG as better examples of what you're trying to communicate - you can very much start as a new player in MTG and spend $100 on cards to gain a meaningful advantage. If that's the case for Battle Aces, then yeah criticism is warranted. Calling it 'the same system as LoL' does not communicate that, because LoL's champion system is not pay to win. If you think it is, that is because you misunderstand the game, or the system. You are literally asking me to do the impossible. How would you even begin to "quantify" the p2w component of a game? By what metric? Again, I'm not saying LoL is the worst example out there, far from it. But you can pay for an advantage, there is no denying that. Why are you so defensive about that fact? Yes, maybe I should have used MTG in my original post, as this game's monetisation is extremely p2w and predatory (and I love MTG as a game). However, I think you missunderstood the point I was making. I wasn't making a point about how much of an impact a particular game's system has on that game. I.e. whether MTG's system is worse than LoL's or how they compare to Battle Aces in this regards. My point was that I can't understand why players are defending companies for any of this shit because its not good for them unless they are literally being paid by that company. This just normalises these monetisation systems, which is inevitably moving us from more tame versions like in LoL to more predatory systems like in MTG in the grand scheme of things. Because in the end, the systems in LoL and MTG are based on the same ideas, just at different points of the spectrum.
Does MTG not have the added complication of being a CCG, emphasis on the ‘collectible’ which is an entirely distinct segment of that community, indeed some solely partake in that aspect of the hobby.
I think the context of how models intersect with different kind of games is of much more import than a blanket concern over particular models.
A ‘P2W’ element in a game with a very high knowledge/mechanical floor of entry, where devs at least attempt to keep things balanced is going to have way less impact on one’s experience than a game with those barriers being lower, where the dev is actively encouraging imbalance to drive purchases. To take two rather obvious extremes.
We also have to look at alternatives on the table, and what do they offer, or what do existing models in use today offer.
So let’s take say, League, a game I have played exactly once but I’m pretty aware it’s a rather popular game. Its approach may have pitfalls but would it be where it is today using a different model? One bonus is players are incentivised to come back if developers work on a game over time, and devs have the monetary incentive to do this.
Whereas over the very long term, the old retail model tends to see that diminish over time, although it has advantages such as revenue not being tied to systems that affect balance, or visual clarity.
We’re far enough down the line to perhaps observe that at least in the ‘eSports’ space a heavy chunk of games with vibrant scenes and player bases in the 5-10 years+ all tend to have some degree of F2P + monetisation that is broadly similar.
There’s also halfway house options where games retail for a cheaper price than the average across the market, but augment income with other monetisation.
I think RTS has the issue that it’s not a genre that you can obviously lift monetisation methods from the successful titles in other genres. Skins can really impact visual clarity which is really critical as an element, and gating content means you’re not fundamentally playing the same game as opponents. Whereas a League or an Apex player not having a certain hero will cut their options, in an individual game you’re still playing on a level playing field, as opposed to an RTS commander missing units to deploy.
It’s almost never brought up but I actually think an employment of the subscription model may fit the RTS genre better. Or a hybrid of various approaches, but I think you can somewhat mitigate the ‘hm, idk if I wanna spend 50 quid on a game in a genre I haven’t played’ barrier to entry of retail for new players, but some of the pitfalls of getting monetisation + F2P working in that space being sidestepped.
For me my concern isn’t the models per se, it’s how they fit an RTS game specifically. Frost Giant are at least mitigating full reliance on F2P + monetising other content by charging for components as a retail purchase, whereas Battle Aces will be entirely reliant on multiplayer unlocks of various kinds.
|
BattleForge did the card RTS thing ages ago and it didn't feel great there. It was fine as long as you played the random PvE games and increased difficulty as you started to get complete meta decks.
If Battle Aces is mostly focused on PvE in coop or solo I don't really mind a deck approach since that gives a sense of progression if done well. (To be honest I mostly play PvE in RTS games and then drop them, so a game focused on it has longevity for me.)
|
On June 19 2024 00:10 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 09:01 Fleetfeet wrote:On June 18 2024 08:03 Miragee wrote:On June 18 2024 07:29 KingzTig wrote:On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. f2p is not necessarily p2w. Haven't spend a single dime on league. I'm not talking f2p, I'm talking specifically p2w (I'm responding to Wombat here as well). In a system like LoL, which is also proposed for Battle Aces, you can definitely pay for an advantage. Whether you personally did it or felt the need to is kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. Or lets say it's relevant in all the wrong ways. Firstly, it's just anecdotal evidence. None of the people I know who played Diablo Immortal spent a dime in that game, either. Does that mean that game is not p2w or not predatory in its payment model? No. It just means not everyone is affected the same way. Secondly, the mentality "I'm not affected so it can't be bad" facilitates the progress by companies to move to more and more predatory payment models in the grand scheme of things. This is how we got where we are now over the past 20 years. To address Wombat's second point: Games are insanely cheap nowadays if you look past AAA titles. This is mostly due to technical advancements, which make it easier for small teams/indie devs to create games. The other side is that nowadays distrbution via Steam/gog is much easier, as broadband internet is readily available for a lot of people. Yes, f2p models have in advantage for you here. However, there are so many games you can buy for a few bucks on sale to try them out together with your son, I feel like f2p is not really that much of an advantage even in this regard. I challenge you to quantify the bolded (in LoL) to any meaningful degree. If I start a new account and spend $100 on champions, the account's winrate would be WORSE than if I didn't spend any money and played one champ in one role I was familiar with. If someone who has never played before started playing and spent $100 on champions, you'd be very pressed to prove their winrate is better than it would be otherwise, especially considering isolating variables (which champ/role you play) will make learning better. This is why people have pointed to Hearthstone / MTG as better examples of what you're trying to communicate - you can very much start as a new player in MTG and spend $100 on cards to gain a meaningful advantage. If that's the case for Battle Aces, then yeah criticism is warranted. Calling it 'the same system as LoL' does not communicate that, because LoL's champion system is not pay to win. If you think it is, that is because you misunderstand the game, or the system. You are literally asking me to do the impossible. How would you even begin to "quantify" the p2w component of a game? By what metric? Again, I'm not saying LoL is the worst example out there, far from it. But you can pay for an advantage, there is no denying that. Why are you so defensive about that fact? Yes, maybe I should have used MTG in my original post, as this game's monetisation is extremely p2w and predatory (and I love MTG as a game). However, I think you missunderstood the point I was making. I wasn't making a point about how much of an impact a particular game's system has on that game. I.e. whether MTG's system is worse than LoL's or how they compare to Battle Aces in this regards. My point was that I can't understand why players are defending companies for any of this shit because its not good for them unless they are literally being paid by that company. This just normalises these monetisation systems, which is inevitably moving us from more tame versions like in LoL to more predatory systems like in MTG in the grand scheme of things. Because in the end, the systems in LoL and MTG are based on the same ideas, just at different points of the spectrum.
How would you quantify? Easy! How much you PAY and how much you WIN! It's in the name P2W. The reason it is impossible, even though champion winrates and prices are exposed, is 'cause you can't pay to win.
I'm defensive because League's champion system is not pay to win, and people asserting it is are misunderstanding its system. There are tons of predatory P2W models to draw from as examples, so deflecting you or others away from LoL's feels like something I should do, given I've got (unfortunately) a bunch of experience in it.
As someone else mentioned with HOTS, LoL is 'pay to experience new toys', not 'pay to win'. It's worth comparing THAT model to what Battle Aces is doing, because we can hope that's the goal, and not something more MTG. I do think there's value in LoL/HotS style character restrictions, though I'd never wish that on DOTA.
On June 18 2024 18:20 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2024 06:44 WombaT wrote:On June 18 2024 05:49 Miragee wrote:
I honestly find it pretty sad that people are at a point where they are defending companies for p2w monetisation models. Like, what do you gain from that as a player? Right, nothing, it's simply bad for you. How bad it is obviously depends on the system and not every p2w system is equally destructive. There are a lot of different shades of grey. None of them is _good_ for the players though, they are just different levels of bad. We have been on this slipery slope for too long and if we continue I'm fairly sure in 10-15 years we will reach the current state of p2w common in eastern games nowadays. There’s a flipside to that, one I’ve experienced as a father of an 11 year old youngling which is if there’s an interesting looking game, we can give it a shot together, or he solo. Whereas when I was a youngster it was a case of shelling out 40/50 quid for a copy for myself. So I think the F2P model has a lot of advantages in outreach, the rest really depends on how the balancing of monetisation works You should be old enough to remember old-school demo discs then. The F2P model doesn't have any advantage in outreach over old-school demo discs, and similar outreach could easily be achieved using downloadable demos. All the F2P model does is open up predatory payment routes. EDIT: And if I was still unsure about a game, I would rent it from Blockbuster so I could play the full thing for a few days. I miss Blockbuster.
I still remember my HEAD 2 HEAD demo disc that had a demo of WC2 and some other stuff! Played the hell out of it with my brothers, tho iirc most of those demo discs came 'free' with magazines or pizza or w/e.
|
Clem vs Parting about to start, I was in the last test and these guys both have a lot of experience. they laddered a ton. Parting was the #1 ranked player last testing phase. Clem was also very good. Should be about to start on Artosis' stream
|
Alright I watched the PartinG vs Clem series. Don't think I could watch any more of it because every game was pretty much identical and there just isn't a lot going on. But it does look very fun to play
|
On June 19 2024 09:54 Fango wrote:
Alright I watched the PartinG vs Clem series. Don't think I could watch any more of it because every game was pretty much identical and there just isn't a lot going on. But it does look very fun to play
it kind of felt like youre watching a mirror matchup, i wish they would add races and varied unit identities than just mechs.
|
On June 19 2024 10:01 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2024 09:54 Fango wrote:
Alright I watched the PartinG vs Clem series. Don't think I could watch any more of it because every game was pretty much identical and there just isn't a lot going on. But it does look very fun to play it kind of felt like youre watching a mirror matchup, i wish they would add races and varied unit identities than just mechs.
The problem with mirror matchups is that builds because same-y and figured out so quick. I don't see a world where every Battle Ace game doesn't look exactly the same.
Even if the units are slightly different between the players, the gameplan is always gonna be the same.
|
United States32919 Posts
|
They deserve serious credit for debuting this and getting it out to people super fast.
Seems like no NDAs on the beta either, right? They said they want to see people running tournaments immediately, so it would follow that there will be immediate streaming of the game.
(EDIT: This is confirmed.)
Also interested that there will be an 'Events' type mode where they test different derivations of gameplay.
|
On June 19 2024 10:37 MegaBuster wrote:
They deserve serious credit for debuting this and getting it out to people super fast.
It's been in development for 3+ years, about the same as Stormgate for comparison (albeit with only 1 gamemode). They just waited until it was playable to announce it.
|
Northern Ireland22919 Posts
On June 19 2024 10:08 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2024 10:01 CicadaSC wrote:On June 19 2024 09:54 Fango wrote:
Alright I watched the PartinG vs Clem series. Don't think I could watch any more of it because every game was pretty much identical and there just isn't a lot going on. But it does look very fun to play it kind of felt like youre watching a mirror matchup, i wish they would add races and varied unit identities than just mechs. The problem with mirror matchups is that builds because same-y and figured out so quick. I don't see a world where every Battle Ace game doesn't look exactly the same. Even if the units are slightly different between the players, the gameplan is always gonna be the same.
Yeah, especially if you cut out build order gambits and other shenanigans that see even mirrors have some deviation (and can lead to frustration) in your more traditional RTS titles.
Perhaps variety can be achieved with really funky maps, given the core design looks like it could be less restrictive in terms of constraints mapmakers have to work around.
I must say, granted I had it muted and only briefly poked my head into the Artosis stream of Clem versus Parting, but I did legitimate think Arty was showing a replay of the previous game at one point.
But hey, it may be one of those game that’s a blast to play, but just not that engaging to watch and it would hardly be lacking company there
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
