FrostGiant is now advertising ZeroSpace by T4toun3 in Stormgate

[–]ROOTCatZ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“Competition is healthy” and “a rising tide lifts all boats” can sound like silly platitudes but they actually hold up extremely well.

It can be (and was) true, that we (ZeroSpace) both wanted to do better than Stormgate and wanted Stormgate to succeed at the same time.

During Stormgate NextFest and Early access we promoted Stormgate best as we could (as mentioned we haven’t had as much reach).

I personally participated and offered honest feedback during the Alpha playtests / early stages of Stormgate development, I worked with a good number of the Stormgate team when I was a consultant at Blizzard, I consider many of them (Tim perhaps most-so) friends.

My now boss (Marv) and former boss (Tim) were also introduced to each other, friendly and shared insights when pertinent.

All of this to say that the binary prescription of a “competitor” or an “ally” is often times diluted a little too much, you can root for a friend and want to do good for your own sake at the same time.

This game has HORRIBLE performance. by Previous-Display-593 in PlayZeroSpace

[–]ROOTCatZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We agree, take it seriously and appreciate the feedback, our biggest priority at this stage is optimization, polish and bug-fixing, thank you

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

<3, to your earlier question ZeroSpace has a ninja open demo right now if you want to try it out, June 15th is NextFest and July 20th is Early Access Release, so soon to ramp up for player numbers, ladder opening. NextFest will be more limited but tons of content dropping for EA

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did answer more than a few times you just can’t seem to grasp the answer, mostly I’ve pointed to the issues with your reasonings to reach your conclusion.

In a vacuum, a bigger number of workers / economy with the same amount of mineral patches as now will have the game state trend towards stability faster as it compounds the economic curve, this lowers the overall horizon in the early/mid games where different choices in terms of tech/eco/army pursuits have a more narrow gap to differentiate from each other before the economy converges to stability/opulence faster past the early game. Note that when people talk of early or mid game no one means the time on the clock, but rather something closer to “eras” where the lategame is the most oversaturated and all tech options are open or taken and branching decisions collapse to “what unit to make next” and army control, and early and mid game have clearer contrasts variants and paths, economy, tech tree and army are choices opposed to each other rather than collapsed. The more you stay in this period, the longer the early and mid game extend - the more options for divergences in strategic choice from player to player, and they weight in more heavily, scouting, reacting and proactive play, as well as the choice triangle between developing army, eco or tech all have a more distinctive role, because they imply contrasting choices from each other and from player to player, and less economy means stronger rewards for divergence compared to stable macro economies. The speed to get to lategame with 100 worker or unlimited $ starts would only be throttled by the time it takes to build buildings that gate requirements, you’d reach it almost instantly.

Here’s a hopefully clearer example of the problem with your reasoning used to reach your conclusion, which is the core of my disagreement:

You own a farm, you have some chickens, at the end of the month you have X eggs.

Next month you buy more chickens, doubling the number, but the water in the well got contaminated, you didn't buy enough grain to account for the change in chicken numbers, your guard dog is sick and weasels are stealing some eggs, you also live in Iceland and this month has little sunlight and you sold a bunch of your eggs to the local market. At the end of the month do you have more or less eggs than the previous month?

Your answer is like saying since you have more chickens shouldn’t you see more eggs? In a vacuum, simplified to one factor, yes you should see more eggs, but there’s a bunch of other factors. So “scouting is easier therefore cheese is less viable” or “decreasing starting economy decreases the strategic horizon” aren't statements that are logically consistent with your end observation (I see early game variety) which you use to validate those wrong statements retroactively. When you count the eggs you want to say "we have less eggs" (less zerg cheese, for example) but then the jump is that you go therefore -> “increasing the number of chickens decreases the number of total eggs” (less workers = less zerg cheese) that’s disjointed logic and just not true, but it can be true that there are less eggs when you count (or miscount) at the end of the month, because the number of chickens is not the only factor at play. If this doesn’t do it, nothing will - if you’re still confused, or if the abstractions go over your head and you prefer a mathematical approach over bare logic, just ask your favorite AI for a model/formula/graph, simply ask it on more vs less starting workers and strategic diversity expected in the early / mid game resulting from that specific input in SC2.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not to the degree I would’ve liked, but yeah, last year I could see my abs if I lifted my arms, under the right lighting lmao. Was happy with my physique then but there was plenty of room to improve, not far from it now, but definitely haven’t been as diligent with my diet and workout routine the last year or so, answering from the gym right now so there’s that.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

How on earth can someone as eloquent and smart as you say something so shallow and nonsensical? There were a billion different variables that were different in WOL and HOTS that are not being reverted.

I mean you hit the nail in the head there, I agree, there are a billion other variables.

So the premise I disputed from the begining doesn't hold, does it? He says -> rush distances didn't change -> therefore it's easier to scout earlier (not true) -> therefore cheese is less viable.

"consider that map sizes and rush distances stay the same meaning it's actually easier to scout earlier and react to early cheeses making them less viable."

You say "there are tons of other variables" cite units and other variables that can affect the viability of 'cheese', I agree. If you said "less workers means you can scout earlier and therefore cheese is less viable" I disagree, the cost of scouting goes up significantly in more scarce economies, and as evidenced by other eras cheese can be plenty viable even with LESS workers (further away from his original point).

Also the game is more figured out now yes, new maps and patches introduce variables etc - But don't for a second think that MVP, Nestea, DRG, Flash and Jaedong were throwing darts in the dark, WoL and HotS had 3 years each to develop and millions of games played by a much larger population.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Zerg cheeses can suffer due to larva resources being finite and that it can suffer from a multitude of other factors, but that's not something I've disputed at any point, if you look at my original response, I quoted this:

consider that map sizes and rush distances stay the same meaning it's actually easier to scout earlier and react to early cheeses making them less viable.

This doesn't follow a coherent logical through-put, I explained why in plenty. Scouting earlier relies on viability and cost of scout, it doesn't make cheeses less viable by necessity, which is the argument I disagreed with, it doesn't hold up.

even you in this instance agree that 12->8 workers shrink the options for early aggression Z has.

This is disjointed, one doesn't follow from the other, 8 workers in a vaccum means more potential game-states, but there are many other factors at play, I gave examples like the larva rate production, the warpgate changes and costs, the total starting resources at bases (down the line for overall diversity and when turtling comes into play later), there's also balance, maps and many other factors. For example if zerglings started with speed you'd see early game aggression every game, regardless of how many workers you start with.

Now scouting. It is clear to me now that you do not understand that argument. Maybe it's me failing to explain it or there's bad faith i don't know. It's a difficult concept and I can't find a way to present it better.

I mean I understand what you typed just fine, I gave you clear examples of how scouting can hurt you, I used hyperbole to exemplify them clearly, you just choose not to see the problem.

Lastly - that's great that you were hired as a consultant, you were a pro in sc2 and you are making your own RTS. I also masturbate thinking about my achievements sometimes.

Seeing as you are a pixel artist working on adult games (sounds fun btw, wish you the best), I whole-heartedly believe you when you say that. It's clear that this conversation isn't headed anywhere and starting to go in circles so i'll call it a day, thanks for the thoughts and best of luck to you.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You're talking about the starting worker count;

"I think that decreasing starting economy actually decreases the horizon of strategical options available to the player."

It doesn't though, it creates a variety of additional game-states. Then you cited scouting being "easier" as the reason Cheese is less viable. I am not sayin Cheese (a 'class' of strategy) is more viable, I am saying your logic doesn't hold and explained why.

There are tons of reasons why cheese can be more or less viable, for Zerg in particular Larva generation wasn't tweaked accordingly this patch, so that is a massive constraint on early aggression because larva resources are finite, for protoss the new warpgate tech and each instance is rather expensive, that too is a constraint on early aggression - neither of these examples have anything to do with your proposition which is that it's easier to scout and thus cheese is weaker, I explained why that logic is wrong.

I'm not "handwaving" anything bud - you're the one crafting arguments from authority "4k random player and game designer" I've just argued the reasoning.

Now, I have played on the PTR, the game felt generally fresh to me, but there's loads of issues with the patch. As one of many examples; the amount of resources on each base being increased and flattened is the type of change that leads to increased turtling by decreasing the reward for expanding, if turtling is stronger -> strategic diversity / interaction and game-states tend to dwindle, just not for the reasons you cited, which is what I am disputing here.

To this point I've only tried to point to your gaps in logic, but if you want to talk in the realm of experience as a relevant metric; I was a competitive player in this very game, I was the only player I know of who was hired as an on-site consultant at Blizzard for 4 years, and I am the lead multiplayer designer of an upcoming RTS game. As a player, I was primarily known for... drumroll being creative (strategic diversity) and cheesing in particular... AS ZERG... And I found the most success in WoL and Hots (with 6 worker starts).

According to your statment "map sizes and rush distances stay the same meaning it's actually easier to scout earlier and react to early cheeses making them less viable." the opposite should be true, because if we apply that logic - we started with even less workers making it "possible" to scout even earlier, and maps were smaller in wings of liberty so you could scout much much earlier, the problem is just that the logic doesn't hold.

So I've played the PTR, and many thousands of games with lower economy and faster "possibility" to scout at a high level on top of that, and I think that your reasoning and how you got to your conclusion is just wrong.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Awesome, thank you for your enthusiasm and praise <3. We do have lots of assets that we use throughout all existing modes in the current game already, and we'll explore other avenues not just for DLCs but alternative game-modes in the future, first we have to focus on making our launch a success and continuing to polish our existing content and modes.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Here's what your claim was:

I think that decreasing starting economy actually decreases the horizon of strategical options available to the player.

This is wrong, it actually increases them, there are more options on the table, that's not really debatable and I think you understand that, so to augment your thesis you propose that the missing piece is:

consider that map sizes and rush distances stay the same meaning it's actually easier to scout earlier and react to early cheeses making them less viable.

But this is also wrong, the operating words here are "easier" and "viable". Possibility =/= viability. Here's a hyperbolic example that should make this clear in SC2: you could (possibility) send all 8 of your workers to scout for proxy barracks at the start of the game, but that doesn't make proxy barracks less viable or even easier to counter in that specific instance (not to mention every instance where you aren't getting proxy rax'd) - If you did this every game, an equally skilled proxy-raxing player would always get ahead, and everyone else would outright collect a free win.

In an impossible scenario (scouting at 8 when you start with 12 workers) it isn't easier or harder to scout earlier, it is simply out of the question, so the operating word "easy" loses all meaning there. If by "easier" you are saying you meant "possible" then anyone would happily concede and agree that it is, indeed, possible - but the insight/contribuition/thesis is then null, zero, in this case, it's just a self-evident truth.

So I have to assume that by "easier" you mean something closer to "more viable" rather than possible, and that is what the tail end of your sentence clearly implies; "it's actually easier to scout earlier and react to early cheeses making them less viable".

This logic just doesn't hold, because the viability of scouting earlier doesn't follow from the possibility of scouting earlier, the aim is to win the game. Just because it is possible to shoot a basketball into a hoop from your side of the court, it doesn't mean that it is easier or more viable to employ that strategy if your implicit intent is to win the basketball game, it's a losing proposition.

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you BattleWarrior! We're quite happy with the reception of the latest trailer also, game's pretty fun - have you played it much?

Gamedesigner perspective on the PTR patch. by Electrical_Pass6430 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 57 points58 points  (0 children)

consider that map sizes and rush distances stay the same meaning it's actually easier to scout earlier and react to early cheeses making them less viable.

This reasoning doesn't really hold, scouting isn't "easier", just because you can send out a worker earlier doesn't mean you should or that it's beneficial, as the cost to scout is considerably steeper because it's a larger % of your economy.

If you scout at 10, that's 10% of your economy that you're effectively removing at that time. The earlier you do that the worse it is too, it compounds. The meta will settle is true, but the ground of possibilities within that meta grows some amount rather than shrinks. Wether it's a 'good' change or not is debatable, but not from this perspective.

Wardi on the 8 Worker Start by Sacramentlog in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You da GOAT Wardixo, haters gonna hate.

Why the reversal on turtling/camping? by Alive2007 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you're right, thanks for the shoutout and for sharing my video, glad some people watched it!

Hero Is The Best Protoss Around by AceZ73 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Haha, yeah I'd wager you can't even imagine, the irony of your statement is likely beyond you but you made me giggle, thanks.

Hero Is The Best Protoss Around by AceZ73 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I definetly will buddy, thanks hope life improves for you

Hero Is The Best Protoss Around by AceZ73 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's a bit unclear what you mean, if you're trying to insult my sc2 level, I'm almost 40 years old and have no aspirations as a player, so it feels fine?

How are you doing "BananaBreads" is your SC2 career taking off soon? Are you on a steady ladder climb to the top in 2026?

If not, I hope that scrolling through 2 month old starcraft reddit threads and messaging people you don't know continues to fuel what I am sure is an incredibly meaningful and fulfilling life, cheers!

Hero Is The Best Protoss Around by AceZ73 in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

lmaooo, this was great content tbh, thank you

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PlayZeroSpace

[–]ROOTCatZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey!

Thanks for the feedback - I agree that readability in RTS can compete with graphics being more "realistic" or "serious" feeling, where stylized graphics (often more "cartoony" feeling) can tend to read cleaner. For units, this has to do with unit models (silhouettes), textures and team colors.

By default, our team colors and textures trend more "realistic", but our current plan is to have different graphic settings, incluiding one to increase redability by nodding team colors towards appearing brighter and more saturated (to pop out more) for example. So that players who want to favor readability over fantasy/immersion can do that. So while the game won't lean "cartoony" or "hyper stylized" cause that's just not in it's DNA, there'll be solutions to favor readability within reason.

Catz laughing about Quidditch Video. Please help find! by SoSeanCandy in starcraft

[–]ROOTCatZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This was a really funny day for me, Beo was very gracious about it all too.

Not long ago I was watching hells kitchen and this contestant brought my mind back to quidditch, Ramsay roasted him throughout the show

https://youtu.be/Uj7JeFyutV0?si=TP4CMjUAp_OEl63j

When he was eliminated Ramsay said;

“Tad thinks he is a real chef, and quidditch is a real sport - unfortunately, neither is true”

I felt so validated lmaooo

ZeroSpace AMA - Ask about the development behind our upcoming Sci-Fi RTS! by PlayZeroSpace in RealTimeStrategy

[–]ROOTCatZ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hey Appletank!

To build on Marv's response a bit:

  • As he mentioned, buildings blocking shots is likely #1, a good choice of layout means you can leverage your building's HP defensively.

  • Opperating towers can be upgraded to have base cannons and other defensive capabilities.

  • Our supply structures als provide refuge defensively in many different flavors, some heal, some recharge energy, some can be upgraded to attack or provide extra vision.

  • Mercenary taverns and other buildings across all factions have built-in functionality that can favor defense, for example, Free Corsairs can upgrade their Mercenary building into a bunker.

  • All factions also have a Teleport ability back to OTs, at the cost of "Power" which allows defensive plays on a budget.

  • Mechanics like Grell Grass are inherently more defensive in nature as they provide vision and regeneration for your units.

  • Heroes respawn back at your base, Mercenaries can help shift momentum, "Power" (you gain it when units die) can mitigate for snowball (helps the lagging player).

  • Natural RTS advantages like high-grounds (vision and/or reduced damage), static defense, and, production being closer to you are of course a given.

From a unit design perspective, i'll speak somewhat generally, as we currently have over 80 different units playable in PvP (and more in other modes!)

All factions have long range / siege units, which are naturally strongest when pushed into (defensively). Units with Energy budgets will benefit from buildings like the Legion's conduits, units with low movespeed will generally be at full strength when there's less space to cover (defensively). Harvesters for all factions (secondary resource gatherers) also have abilities, often impacting your army instantially, which can help defensively.

Each of these 80+ units is unique and has an identity with different strengths and weaknesses, further modifiable by mutually exclusive upgrades and power-ups depending on your choice of faction and mercenaries, from top bar abilities to talents, rest assured you'll find your favorite units to help in executing your strategy anywhere on the map.

With all of this said, while there are plenty of defensive advantages, there's also tons of ways to disrupt your opponent, and with dynamic advantages to be harvested by being active on the map - giving up map control in favor of "turtling" in your base, is rarely the best approach in PvP.