Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
WARNO (which I play a lot of) is more of a competitive PvP RTS, and it should be built around 10v10 gameplay.
Remember when people who don't know what they are talking about used to stay quiet? Do you think players who got to the point where they are invested into PvP have not played a crap ton of just about everything there is to offer in the past? Maybe we should let people who buy the games, play the campaign on normal difficulty,. maybe a re-run on a higher difficulty have the biggest voices. Actually, it would fit in with modern society...
What you're talking about it is right at the tip top of RTS ladder/competitive play where yes turtle play is often inferior to a player who can take the map, keep maxing on armies whilst harassing. I assure you at the vast majority of play you can turtle (if you understand turtling should come at the cost of teching or a timing). As far as campaign goes, I prefer a one that has various maps/missions where rushing/turtling/agro based play can work and the allows players to find a way to win. Pretty boring if every map is just securing resources and pushing out with a maxed army.
Yes and all of those games have massive playerbases :)
I'm talking about game design in general here, where new RTS games are made where turtling even on normal modes of play or vs a human are practically impossible.
Also some players like having a "max" army, what's inheritly wrong with that?.
Are you a PVP'er at heart per chance?, you're making a lot of points for letting PVP'ers run the entire show and already downplaying one strat over another.
I've never heard a PVE RTS player make points for PVP players until you showed up, so I've cause for concern at this moment (i've also little to believe to go on if you even say you're a PVE only RTS player, because this is the internet, you can just lie to my face and expect me to believe you).
Don't blame the PvP players, they are in worse situation than PVE players. While there are sometimes good PVE games, PvP players are doomed to play a couple of old games.
Age of Empires 2 is like 15 years older or more than any other top played PvP game.
Just look in general how old PVP games are, they are old and getting older.
DOTA 2 is from 2013
Counter‑Strike: Global Offensive is from 2012
Team Fortress 2 is 2007
PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS is 2017
The way how Tempest Rising is designed, it is a modern rts, yes.
It's exactly the reason why it is going to fail and flop.
There is a reason why even such greedy companies like EA and Activision don't copyright RTS games. 1 They know down the line no developer has the guts to make a good game.
2 Activate layers would just waste money and would be the best PR for a game.
Funny enough, the biggest RTS on this very platform, has house-walling, strong defenses, offensive use of defensive structures, tons of building, and big armies.
In the demo, I liked how lethal the Flame Turrets were, it reminded me of how they were in Red Alert, in which they stopped Infantry so hard, you needed to abuse Rocket Infantry range to beat them.
Games need their strong defensive play back, instead of the uber-aggro rut they are stuck now with, because they weakened turtling, to make matches play faster, which itself made the gameplay either the ramp-fest that is Starcraft 2, or dead PvP a month in from launch.
Just look at the 2 games made by former Starcraft developers , IMMORTAL: Gates Of Pyre and Stormgate are already flops, nobody has interest into PvP.
Almost nobody did show up to play their betas for free.
And now we have ZeroSpace, made by former Starcraft 2 players, with single player focus.
After couple of days people did double fund their Kickstarter campaign.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/starlancestudios/zerospace
Again, people didn't even play the game, they did pay for it upfront.
You won't see something like this happen for "popular PvP" MOBA or battle royal game.
Shooting barrels was nice, but overall Tempest Rising Demo did play too much like PvP game. I hope developers/Publisher do in time realize they have to alter their core concept and what they need to change.
All I want is to be able to go back to the days of Red Alert 2, where I could focus on my economy, then focus my base strength and defensive measures, and once I can stop people spamming V2 missiles over my base, I know I'm good to get the armies rolling out.
Modern RTS games just don't facilitate good base defences, in that you can rely on them to keep your base safe, not even walls are enough to delay your enemy (walls in Red Alert 3 were a joke and were absent in C&C 3/4).
All I see in RTS these days is guerrilla, zerg rush, harvester harassment, or spam literally one unit, as today's tactics (well that and Korean level micro, which not everyone will retain going into their late 20's, as Koreans have proven). All I want if for turtling to come back as a means to disrupt the other tactics of today.
https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc?t=757
If the timestamp didn't work, head straight to 12:30 (spectacle timestamp).
Grant talks about what was missing over time in RTS's, that being the general spectacle, like having effective units in battle, but then with the shift to multiplayer PVP, some of that spectacle was pared back, like he mentions "when the design is for multiplayer first, you inevitably cut the things that should be selling your product", and then the following clip shows SC II devs showcasing campaign units that were really fun to play, but could not be balanced for multiplayer, but rather than cutting those units out entirely, they just never included them in multiplayer.
If you design an RTS for PVP first, you're only going to end up making it less fun over time, because some players always end up creating their own meta, the community follows and drives that meta into the ground with survival of the fittest mentality, and then the devs take a peek and see what's going on, see there is a massive disruption happening and then they nerf said unit or tactic into the ground and then it's rinse and repeat, until the game itself is hardly fun (like how Epic units in C&C 3/KW hardly feel Epic near the end of the game's lifespan of patches, and are super easy to melt down).
I know there was one lad who said in this thread before about how PVP'ers are "right" to run the show, but that only ends up becoming a long-term failure streak, because like I said, if you let PVP'ers run the show,you only end up driving away casuals and people like myself, who just want a fun RTS that doesn't involve Korean level micro'ing, or having to make tiny armies, or having wet noodle base defences, etc.
RTS's started out slow in their beginnings, but they still had good base defences and you could build relatively large armies to wipe the floor with someone who was just relying on harvester harassment back in the day, but today, today you get the zerg rush, the meta focus, and that just serves to drive back other players who aren't stupidly competitive.
RTS is Real Time Strategy and is meant to be fun, not a game where it's survival of the fittest and you have to sweat buckets just to win, because we aren't playing SCII pro league championships, and no casual player should really have to be put in that position. If anything, the hardcore ultra competitive players should stick to ultra specific private matches if they believe themselves to being too godlike, instead of going out there, pub stomping everyone and wanting the game balance adhered to their mindset of survival of the fittest", most players are just out there wanting a good zany and fun time, not a second job.
The only part SC II is really memorable for is it's campaign and arcade modes tbh.
Only PVP'ers are going to remember the Korean pro league championships, and those didn't outlast the PVE of the franchise lifespan (Hardly anyone is doing the championships anymore, much less talking about them compared to say, Apex or other BR games that took the whole spotlight).
Personally I don't expect Stormgate to do well, especially with it's apparent e-sports focus, and trying to make the campaign paid for and the MP free means that game is also going to have a loaded MT shop, and their campaign will likely be an afterthought at that (Frost Giant doesn't even have the whole SCII dev team either, only a fraction of it, so forget that game ever living or being close to SCII).
otherwise, people are going to confuse it for another dead in 1 month post launch PvP thingy and not buy the game.
Tempest Rising needs to be a game that pick-ups the torch from C&C and reignites it.
To do so, it needs a design, the single player people prefer.
1- Fog of War should be optional for Story and Skirmish matches, while you have shroud.
For various reasons, Fog of War a bad gameplay mechanic that simply makes the game uglier and worse to handle.
To actually benefit from Fog of War players need a massive skill difference, so it actually can have an impact on their play style. In single-player it has absolutely no purpose.
2 Unit limit needs to have more higher option and be possible to turn off.
3 The economy design should work and be reliable.
Resource fields should last properly, while each resource load should be as high as by Tiberium Wars, if even not more higher, considering average RTS player today is more skilled than 15 years ago.
Se setting income rate like 1400/ 2400 / 3400 is a must have, while have option to increase how much ressources to fields do give. At least all this should be in the game by beta.
"2 epic single player campaigns with between-mission cutscenes"
We will have a good campaign, now what next after campaign? Maps, a lot of maps because people will playing skirmish vs human and vs IA and some will be in online, most of the coh3 negative review Is the lack of maps, that game has 2 4v4 maps and that's the most played mode, of course people will be mad, hope tempest raising doesn't make this mistake, Also allow community maps to be official this will add s ton of life to the game.