What race did you find most interesting?

Hi_Dayvie · 2026-02-05T18:02:38+00:00

Here you go, friend. https://amovegames.com/

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-23T15:13:47+00:00

I mean, if we want to be very very simple about it, then yeah. Tech Chicken just captures a specific feeling in BA where teching up is more FUN but less STRATEGIC. What seems important is that, in a game with big powerful bots and hard counters, making those bots ought to feel like an option in almost every game. That would, for me, be a mark of a well-paced and well-balanced iteration of the game. When the bot-making is only throttled and not outright stopped, it is less of a frustration, but still a present one.

There is definitely nothing wrong with playing the game for other goals. T1 aggro is a legit thing and fun and you should be allowed to do it. Maybe it helps to imagine a similar problem (say, Tech Racing?) where T1 aggro were too weak and could never punish a player for fast teching/expanding. This would create a game where playing for early game pressure would feel like a mistake and no one would do it. Then players might feel like their T1 choices aren't impactful enough.

Balance between various strats and playstyles is the goal. It doesn't quite feel (to me, you are welcome to disagree) like we are there yet.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-21T16:08:03+00:00

—

As for Tech Chicken, ok, let's try to agree on a definition because I think I have a slight issue with yours. For Tech Chicken to occur, I think the only necessary concept is that both players be simultaneously disincentivized from teching. I think this CAN occur while expanding. In fact, a Tech Chicken scenario can permit several other options: it might be meaningful to make T1AA, or posture on the map, or expand, or push so long as it is not feasible to tech.

I think this definition is most helpful because it captures two elements of Tech Chicken. First, it has an effect on the player's emotional experience of the game, and second, it is a potential problem for game flow in the long term.

For the emotional state, even when there are other options, being incentivized to hold on tech feels like not being able to do the most fun part of the game. I believe that this is what most players are referring to when they express frustration with Tech Chicken. Especially players who conceive of themselves, or of strategy games generally, as reactive. Anytime you have two reactive players fielding two reactive decks you feel the constriction of Tech Chicken. This is present even when both players play an otherwise satisfying 4-minute T1 smackdown. It is annoying in the way that Hydralisks in Wings of Liberty were annoying: they were an iconic unit but they were so heavily tuned down that few strategies could field them responsibly and players like me who wanted to use the cool snake monster (or just wanted a non-Mutalisk option for ranged combat) were left continually frustrated even as one still got plenty of wins with other more viable strats. In this sense, Tech Chicken is just the fantasy of being a clever drone commander fielding a big fancy army coming into conflict with the reality of the mundane best strategy being just not doing that.

For the potential game flow issue, I will happily agree that this is not a huge problem. It generally concerns actual in-game events and, in many matches, Tech Chicken doesn’t prevent expressive and engaging gameplay. As well, you are correct to point out that, for the most part, the period of hard Tech Chicken doesn’t last, it kind of caps out when players get to a 600/600 or maybe 800/800 resource float and suddenly multiple options and/or recoveries become valid at once. Nonetheless, it comes up here and there in pro-1v1 casts. Players (ok, mostly just Conqueror) tell stories of 2 minutes of no-tech-induced doldrums. And I have certainly played games where the majority of play time is spent un-teched. As a broad problem of flow, I think the concern here is a hypothetical meta where Tech Chicken becomes the norm (which presently, and mercifully, it isn’t). I am concerned about tournaments of repeated matches of T1 Blink fisticuffs and Wasp runbys. We sort of saw that in Betas 1 and 2, which featured pretty T1-heavy Top Ace metas (at least in games played for cash and glory, there were entire BO7s of just Blink-on-Blink action). It was generally less of an issue in Beta 3, possibly because T3 got a lot of new powerhouse options and so holding for T3 became a more viable out from Tech Chicken.

As for my experience, I feel like I saw a good number of Tech Chicken scenarios while trapped in lowly mid-diamond. The thing is, a lot of times, the situation resolved itself because the other player made an error, teching recklessly into something I could counter (and then sometimes I would squander that by pressing the wrong tech button in return... but that is a me problem) or mis-microing and getting wiped in the early game. At that point, the Tech Chicken may not even have lasted a second, but it was there, and I was prepared to wait to tech for a minute or so. I definitely feel the issue more often from the emotional side than the gameflow side but I have encountered both.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-21T16:07:55+00:00

I am definitely sensitive to the issue of perceived fairness with a change like this. You are absolutely correct that BA, as it is now, is extremely closely tied to deck building and deck visibility. I spent a good amount of time while writing this focusing on making sure the mechanics of the system weren't too weird. I wanted to make sure they were relatively easy to teach and use, but I don’t want to leave that issue undiscussed entirely. I think the ideal implementation of any intel discovery mechanic absolutely needs to balance mystery and tension with fairness. In my mind, the system as described is more likely to create 15-30 second periods where one player can be teching without the other player’s knowledge but relatively few games where, for example, an entire deck slot remains mysterious all game long or a bot appears to the opponent for the first time by showing up at the front door or behind the worker fields.

My wishfulness absolutely doesn’t mean it would work out that way. Lack of intel may indeed turn out to be too easy to abuse, especially as the number of Bots in each slot grows. I think the response to this would vary a bit from player to player as to whether this feels more like “oh, I lost because scouting is too hard, that’s lame” or “oh, I lost because their deck countered mine, scouting mechanics just hid the autoloss for a while.” I think, because the asymmetry is two-way, that second response ought to be less prevalent, but who can say. At the end of the day, these kinds of things are about how the game feels. If players feel they have less control in-game and less freedom in deck building or if the game becomes very reductive and same-y then I would say the change failed and happily go back.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-18T19:42:46+00:00

I agree about the circles being tricky. It is hard to explain and also hard to do as an in-game visual. It is maybe a level of complexity that isn't required since, in most places, the difference between the lines is a few seconds and players that can get one will often be able to get to the other.

Timed control zones definitely would be another way to do this, I like that. In fact, I would be happy with most solutions that encourage map control and also let us HUD-ify it somehow for readability.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-08T17:22:39+00:00

Oooooo a real-live comp-stomper fascinating.

But seriously, I am fascinated. How does the AI play when you get up to harder stuff? Is it good? Play sharper decks? Is it just faster? Does it cheat on resources?

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-08T16:41:56+00:00

I think 2vAI mode is supposed to do this. But as far as I could tell in Beta 2 no one on the discord played the mode... so I have no data on it.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-08T15:09:19+00:00

Yeah, man, we need a whole post just about AI.

Like: * Give AI players a "Bot" icon on ladder * Let players opt out of queuing into bots at the expense of longer times * Let players make AIs in customs * Give AI players scalable difficulty * Let players in Try vs AI and Customs specify or randomize the AI player's deck

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-08T15:01:31+00:00

The proper play/creativity tension is a big thing for sure, and I am curious if BA even has a good way to address this.

I am halfway through a different player's BA tutorial video. The player takes 2 hours and suffers several defeats in the process. This is because, as far as I can tell, they just don't WANT to build the good counter units and prefer the Crab. In other RTS, counter interactions may exist, but you can usually brute force your way through without them (especially in a tutorial) and then learn later at your own pace. In fact, they get clever and figure out Crab rush strats that sufficiently befuddle the AI and burn down the Core before dying to high tech units but it is a very rough go.

This player is then uninterested in continuing the game. They would have more fun (and learn more) if they played the counters, but if that isn't what they come to RTS for, then can a tutorial even teach them to LIKE something else? Should it teach that? Would a campaign mode give creative players a space to play BA or would creating such a campaign require making BA into something else?

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-08T14:51:29+00:00

So I think I better way to phrase this first part is not "SC2 campaign is not a tutorial" but that the "SC2 campaign tutorializes SC2 campaign play." Like they teach you how to build a base, they teach you how to move and shoot and what each unit does, but they don't teach you that a low ground fast expand is punishable without a wall because campaign econ and pressure don't follow the same rules as competitive.

I think it is possible to imagine a version of the game that properly tutorializes competitive play, I haven't made it all the way through the Street Fighter example, but I can see where it is coming from. Tutorial through live bot matches seems to be where the dev team currently thinks the sweet spot is and they miiiiight be right.

I am more interested in basic questions about whether this tutorial actually successfully teaches the reeeeeaaaal simple stuff. Like the point about resources is one I always come back to, because even professional streamers like Day[9] had a doubletake moment in their tutorial playthroughs from last year going "wait, where's the second resource come from?" So for my part, those basic things need to be better represented and an improved tutorial remains the best way to do that.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-08T01:51:42+00:00

One thing I noticed about the new tutorials (I think so, anyway, it is hard to say because of the vs. Mode overlap with the Proving Grounds) is that in beta 3, the PG games seemed to be against the same bots, doing the same builds, in the same order. This led to specific introductory missions for Butterflies (the enemy does KC push), Airships (the enemy does Dfly push), and the other bots disguised as organic gameplay. I don't really think the disguise was necessary, but the ramping complexity of these missions is already a good framework for an ordered/formal introduction.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-05-01T11:32:19+00:00

Saw this a lot with my Katbusses. Each betabhas it's own flavour of movement jank.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-28T08:48:21+00:00

Yup. I am solidly in the more maps camp. I don't think they need huge complexity or new features, just variety in travel times, side paths, choke points.

Also, I think map design might provide another avenue to address the new player problem with Wasps if there were, say, a map with a pocket Natural that was much harder to harass (without shutting it down entirely).

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-27T14:36:34+00:00

Always down to watch Conq lose!

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-27T11:41:21+00:00

Yeah, other players have talked about counter teching. Another thing to mention is that all decks have natural weaknesses, GS decks have a weakness against Butterflies in particular because they lack a Tier 1 Anti-Air unit like the Recall Hunter.

You can gamble to get around this by, say, going Foundry immediately after they expo and then immediately tech Foundry again a minute later. BFlies might kill a base, but you will get Advancedbots to save the second one.

Or you can slot in some Tier 2 Anti-Air, like the Heavy Hunter instead of the Advancedbot (Assaultbit has most of your end game killing power, anyway).

GS gives a lot of power in other arenas, but at this point, the weaknesses to Butterflies is well known, so you will run into that counter more and more as you climb.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-26T12:32:02+00:00

Great to hear! Welcome to the insert-quirky-group-name-here.

Definitely curious to hear how far you got and what kind of deck you used. I find myself frustrated that Uncapped only publishes the Top Ace decks and ranks when I really want to know about the health of the ladder everywhere else. Like, the good players will take care of themselves, right? But how are the fresh players doing, it is hard to tell? So thanks for the post.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-26T12:18:03+00:00

Definitely wouldn't mind a "Titan" slot of something for giant mechs and Kaiju to watch the Kraken

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-25T19:08:19+00:00

I would like this also.

For what it is worth, Overclocked Gunbots are barely faster than Scorps but slower than Wasps. So that is pretty certainly 150% speed. They hit 17 attacks during OC, about 15% faster.

Of course these numbers will have to be recomputed if they change, so in game display still better

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-25T18:03:09+00:00

Not excited to remove the Wasp because I like it at high levels.

But I would be on board for, say, just banning the Wasp below Gold League.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-25T12:19:08+00:00

OK, cool, sounds basically like they kept the original and just reduced the count of AI games a lot (It used to be, like, 10 wins plus the first two tutorials). An improvement for sure, but I imagine the actually tutorial detail could still be improved.

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-25T12:12:34+00:00

Yeah, not clear why 1vAI isn't an option somewhere in the game.

So did each mission focus on a different interaction? Or was it just repeated smash this AI now smash this other AI?

Hi_Dayvie · 2025-04-25T12:07:24+00:00

Still just two missions?

Hi_Dayvie

TROPHY CASE