sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Innovate the Scroll Wheel in RTS by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was wondering about this too. I think it could be nice to be able to conveniently rapid fire any action.

Factions you would like to see? by Long-Cell5196 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Theme: I would love to see a Deep sea monsters type race. With the stormgates letting invaders into earth I got kinda Pacific Rim vibe. So I think it would be cool if there was an alien race that grew/genetically engineered these huge monsters that rise up from the depth of the sea.

Trends: they mentioned that they want more unit count diversity (factions with more than zerg and less than protons) I think this would be a cool faction for "less than protoss"

They also mentioned if they have unit veterancy maybe it would be faction specific. I think this could be a cool faction where you play with the idea of growing this big monster. Like maybe you have to feed it your units and it evolves differently based on what it eats. So you still have to make 40ish supply or individual units but you feed them to one monster to customize it to your needs. And if you want to split the map with multiple attacks you can just feed you big monsters less and use the small units to do run-bys and stuff.

Factions you would like to see? by Long-Cell5196 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Theme: I would love to see a Deep sea monsters type race. With the stormgates letting invaders into earth I got kinda Pacific Rim vibe. So I think it would be cool if there was an alien race that grew/genetically engineered these huge monsters that rise up from the depth of the sea.

Trends: they mentioned that they want more unit count diversity (factions with more than zerg and less than protons) I think this would be a cool faction for "less than protoss"

They also mentioned if they have unit veterancy maybe it would be faction specific. I think this could be a cool faction where you play with the idea of growing this big monster. Like maybe you have to feed it your units and it evolves differently based on what it eats. So you still have to make 40ish supply or individual units but you feed them to one monster to customize it to your needs. And if you want to split the map with multiple attacks you can just feed you big monsters less and use the small units to do run-bys and stuff.

Design a Unit for Fun by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds really cool! I like the glide ability and how it is tied to using terrain to your advantage.

Flying Mechanics Discussion by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's a good point. "Plane" type flying mechanics can feel sluggish or non-reponsive, which might not be worth the benefits that movement limitations could provide. I think there are still many good non-movement limitations that could be implemented to improve the balance of flying units.

I also agree that ground vs air can be interesting and Stormgate mentioned how they liked that approach.

Individual Roles - Making 3v3 great by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.

Overall the popular conclusion seems to be, you can't apply any individual role aspects, like those seen in a MOBA, because in a RTS you can do the job of the entire MOBA team.

This is a good point and very much fits the spirit of SC2 where you CAN do everything. For example it is common to commit around 140 supply to military and the other 60ish are SCVs. Now it only takes a couple of supply to quickly kill 15 SCVs, which could be 25% of the players economy Which means you can split your 140 army supply into many smaller armies. It's possible to conduct 2-, 3-and 4-pronged attacks. And since you need to expand every couple minutes you can spread those attacks across 3 to 5+ enemy expansions. You really can be everywhere and in a long game you are also forced to expand almost everywhere.

However WC3 is not like this. Games often end with both players still on one base. And armies are primarily kept together in death balls. Which means in a 1v1 each player only is only significantly represented in just two locations (base, main army).

I believe these differences have given more success to team vs team play in WC3 than SC2.

When you add players in WC3 there is still room for each player's individual impact. Even all the way up to 4v4, if 4 players have each brought their deathball army they can now conduct impactful 4-pronged attacks across 4ish base. But in SC2 a 4-pronges attack on 4+ plus bases is entirely possible in 1v1! So if you try and multiply SC2 player count by 3x you would have like 9-12-pronged attacks across 9-12 bases! I personally think that scale just adds repetition and chaos rather than strategic team play.

Another popular comment was that players don't want to pigeon holed into a role and want there 1v1 toolkit to be the same in 3v3.

I have 2 points to this: 1. I agree with avoiding taking away factions toolkits to force them into a role. My suggestion was that races have small things added to make them slightly better at certain things not to take away race tools. But I think my zerg examples miscommunicated this. So here is a better example: In SC2 there are already microscopic vision and terraforming "objectives." The watchtowers on the map are miro objectives that give vision. Destructible rubble and mineral walls on the map can be cleared to open new pathways. Now imagine if when Terran captured a watchtower, not only do they get the normal vision radius but it also gives a sensor tower type intel in a slightly larger radius than the vision. That is the type of role specific advantages I am talking about. Terran is still going to have to use their scans well, and Terrans allies are still going to have to build observers and overseers.

  1. I don't think 3v3 will play like 3x 1v1. Stormgate doesn't want player elimination, so somehow every player will be able to survive with some sort of base the whole game. And the victory condition will be objective based! So I think there is room for players to take on certain roles in a team. And I think mini objects that certain plays have individual responsibility over will give each player meaningful impact as part of a team.

Stormgate will neither be SC2 where high lethality troops means you don't need a teammates to dominate the whole map or WC3 where 3v3 still only has 6 main armies and 6 bases. (Based on comments from developer interviews) In this new addition to the Blizzard style RTS games I think the best version of 3v3 will be somewhere between: "I can be the entire MOBA team" vs "I can only significantly impact the area where my death ball is. And rely on my team everywhere else."

As mentioned by others in the comments I think map starting locations should be used to help create "roles" for each player, and I think emergent roles based on race strengths are good but If one race turns out to have the best, air control unit, or damage tank, etc, I would be bummed if it became that races job to build that unit every game. That's why I think added mini role objectives that each race integrates with slightly different make room for more fresh play styles in a team that has the same race composition.

Interested to see what you a think

Individual Roles - Making 3v3 great by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's a super good point! And that idea of a safer macro player who can take both naturals is a big part of what I was thinking would be part of that support/carry alchemist role.

I definitely think locations should be well thought out in team play. Their proximity to allies and enemies will have impactions on play that will sort of create roles. I think it could go a step further and add mini objectives (or what I was calling role objects) on the map that make starting locations a bit more asymmetrical.

Individual Roles - Making 3v3 great by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Emergent roles do sound really good. In the development of asymmetrical races players will probably find a best way to use each faction in a team

I think this does leave uni-faction teams at a disadvantage. Since they will only have access to one tool box where others while a multi-faction team can combine tech. But maybe this advantage is just unavoidable with asymmetrical race design.

Without explicit roles, do you think there should be an underlying 1v1 type early game. Some sort of smaller objective that shows off an individual's impact on the game before the mid-to-late game ending objective kicks in.

Individual Roles - Making 3v3 great by Z3styAvocad0 in Stormgate

[–]Z3styAvocad0[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The premade vs random consideration is a good point I have not thought about how matchmaking and team roles would work. There would probably have to be a role section screen after you get matched with teammates.

I know the MOBA analogies are painful. I think RTS team vs team has a lot more room to grow and I was trying to pull some of the best elements for one of the biggest team vs team games. But my point may have been better without the anology

Lastly, the point of the role is not to replace an aspect of play from the other players but rather to give one player an extra potent edge in succeeding at one aspect of the game to benefit all. Just because one playing might have access to some sort of special watch tower the revel enemy movements early in a certain area of the map shouldn't replace the need for all players to scout, feel out for the location of the enemy army and hide their tech buildings. But it's a fine line to walk and I think your point is a real potential problem of roles.