I agree with what has been said already: The invites don't sound like the best idea, but a free multiplayer only edition (with tutorials) sounds great. It could only contain one race and exclude the highest graphics options as well. I can't recall how it's currently, but the last part of the included tutorial should be a replayable full on skirmish.
So, been away for a while.. But I totally hear you Sonar_Taxlaw :)
I share your concern about adding micro. However, I don't think formations would necessary lead to that kind of counter-counter micro situation. The units move so slowly that a formation change would actually take a while, and while reforming some units wouldn't be effective in the combat. In most cases changing formation during a battle probably wouldn't be beneficial, it would be more about setting up beforehand. I'm not completely sure about that spec
I numbered the items on my list to make it easier to reference them, like DanailLazov did. I think you actually missed #4 or #5 DanailLazov , but I agree with your thoughts, including the fact that #4 and #5 aren't a super cru
I think there's a massive gap between our interpretions of micro and macro management. I do think mine is closer to what for example wikipedia had in mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement_(gameplay) .. micromanagement are minor, detailed gameplay elements that must be manually addressed by the player.. Macro generally re
I share lots of your thoughts :). As you said, I think the city building / turtling is just something that happens in every RTS on lower skill levels. I think Ashes is actually doing quite well in discouraging it by making it a reasonably inefficient strategy. I personally haven't even seen much of the kind of annoying experience ruining turtling that I've seen in CoH and FAF. I also share your observations about the lack of ra
I like the idea of the armies, but as they currently stand, they're pretty useless and you'll have to break them a lot to get the units behave the way you want. Additionally, currently the combat itself is not very strategic and mostly just about throwing blobs of units at each other. So a few ideas to improve the situation: 1. Armies should have formations and facing. By this I mean being able to decide which kind of
Hotkeys are definitely a good idea as well. And I think I have seen someone suggest placing the upgrade button into the army UI for easier access without even selecting the dread. I think any action that only applies to a single unit, especially when it's timing is critical in margin of seconds, is definitely micro management in an RTS. In practice, when micro management is reduced macro management is pronounced as players naturally move their ef
I think the dread instant heal 'upgrade' should auto apply when the dread is about to die. However, to not make it OP, maybe it should only heal 50% of the max health. This way the annoying micro controlling experience of trying to hit the upgrade button at the optimal moment in middle of a battle would go away. The button wouldn't even be there, but if you haven't selected any of the (other) upgrades on a leveled up dread, and it&#
[quote who="Nojar" reply="28" id="3641758"] Quoting LoveIsAll, reply 27 I can't believe you guys let him go on and on. Suddenly I'm forced to play a race I don't like in a mode that I like. What bullshit is that? So because he hasn't heard something, it's automatically false. I enjoy playing v
[quote who="LoveIsAll" reply="27" id="3641751"] I can't believe you guys let him go on and on. Suddenly I'm forced to play a race I don't like in a mode that I like. What bullshit is that? So because he hasn't heard something, it's automatically false. I enjoy playing vs Substrate, because I don't like having to deal with Sentinel turret. How's that. This guy equates RUNNING AWAY FROM THE PROBLEM to SOLVING IT. How stupid can t
If both players decide to play exactly the same way every match, certainly the matches will be very similar in the same maps. It's understandable that especially the starts will be very similar in many matches, especially as air is limited and naval is missing. However, it would be completely failed faction design if it only has one viable sequence of actions to take during a whole match. Only thing multiple races would do in this case is, as you pointed out, that
I don't think there's a reason why one faction couldn't support all the play styles that multiple (balanced) factions can. I can certainly see picking a faction being a 'fashion thing' for someone, but is appealing to those players so important to Ashes that balance and strategic gameplay can be compromised. Also, maybe there are other ways to appeal to these players, like visual customization options etc. There would still be other, arguably more different, factions in
Yes, PA has certainly kind of died, but I don't think having just one faction was the reason. Chess is relevant, because it proves that a game with only one race and a handful of super simple units can have tremendous strategic depth and longetivity. I've certainly indicated that this one main race could, and should, be more than just either of the current races. Air options are definitely needed and obviously naval is missing complete
The oatmeal example is better suited for watching the same movie every day for example. No two games would be the same even with just a single race in 1v1. Again, take Zero-K, Planetary Annihilation, Chess or any of the dozen other strategy game examples. People can put thousands of hours into those without feeling bored. I've explained how asymmetric games actually offer players less Viable strategic options than symmetric ones. Don't you just agree with my reason
This topic is not really about which race is OP, or which would be the better pick to be the sole main race of the game. It's also not about any queue or match making issues and I'm not saying it would fix any of those. This topic is mostly about the things I listed in the opening post: To summarize<
Loosing to a clearly better player causes no dissatisfaction to me. Especially when it's obvious why he won. I've certainly enjoyed the matches against higher ranked (PHC) players more than those against lower ranked players. I'm perfectly happy with my win rate and it has nothing to do with the issue that asymmetric 1v1 matches just are inherently less strategic, less balanced, and less rewarding experience. I
[quote who="ASADDF" reply="10" id="3641525"] No way! There is no fun About it, The only thing that I can say about that is for you and everyone here to get better in the game with PHC and Substrate Practice will make you a Master, so get into it and play till you get better. That's my recommendation. And if you don't have the time so do not play ranked game at all or play for fun knowing that you may loose more than winning. [/quote]
Getting more players is definitely great! However, for the future of competitive play, some of the design choices made make me a bit worried. Could you drop in and give your thoughts on the discussions in the following threads: - https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/478254 - https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/478184 - <
[quote who="Freyja_Bjorn" reply="7" id="3640856"] I guess one thing you have to note is how long and successful any competitive play is in such games with multiple races, opposed to single ones. Pa is dead for example.. [/quote] True, but I don't think PA is dead because of it's one race policy. I think among other things, it was just trying to be too different with it's spherical maps. It should be possible to keep competitive play interesting pretty much foreve
Yes, it can be done. Multiple races don't always ruin a game :), but they do always increase the knowledge requirement to get into the strategic gameplay in asymmetric matches and do always take dev teams focus out of more important things. It's also questionable if even good implementation of multiple races really improves a strategy game. And even if it does, is it ever worth the pain and effort, or the cost of failing to get it right.</p
[quote who="Ekko_Tek" reply="2" id="3640782"] No. Having different units, abilities, playstyles, options helps keep MP fresh. Yes, RTS games, like many games, have a learning curve before you can reach some level of competency. Learning the game is part of the fun. 2 factions should really not be onerous for RTS fans to learn. [/quote] As chess again (and zero-k, and planetary annihilation) demonstrates infinite amount of strategic options doesn't require
[quote who="LoveIsAll" reply="1" id="3640768"] So: 1. The best way to solve the balance problem is to run away from it? 2. Acquiring extra knowledge to improve skills in a game is now a hassle and players who are "strategic" should not be bothered? 3. Every game has to be similar to chess to be a good game? 4. Since when symmetric matches are more strategic than asymmetric ones? [/quote] 1. Yes, if there's a no-e
I've written about this couple times in Steam forums and here, but wanted to start a new thread in hopes of starting some serious discussion around the issue. Apologies for mostly just copy pasting what I've written before, but I think it kind of gets the message across. Also, if you've read the comments before, you can just skip to posting your reply :) From <a href="http://steamcommunity.com/app/228880/discussions/1/35841520609496332
In case someone is not aware, the neutral node defenders currently spawn at 1 minute mark. Engineer takes 20 seconds to cap a node, so you'll be able to cap a node (or two) if you get your engineers to start capping within the first 40 seconds of a match. By using your first engineer to assist your base on producing a second engineer and by getting your timing right, it's possible in some maps (on some starting positions) to capture two nodes right at the beginnin