Game Progression Rant
AceAl
Member
This is a written version of the rant on game progress which we had last Wednesday
Almost all military strategy games, from Chess to Starcraft, have some form of conflict over territory so that territory shifts over the progression of the game. This just isn’t happening in Atlas right now. In games like SC2, you can go for a game ending push at any time. Just started the game? Build zerglings! It may not end the game in your favor, but you have the option. In games like DotA, at any time you can get a kill leading to tower damage or destruction - an irrevocable demonstration of game progression.
Taking expansions gives a reasonable feeling of progression and territory in the early-game, and destroying healing towers and the mega-nodes provides some of that in the late-game. Making healing towers the only source of gold does drive some conflict as resources stretch thin (although I personally have never run out of gold). But the mid-game has none of this yet. And like a good story, you need a well paced build-up stretching across the whole experience to craft the best emotional journey for the reader.
In the mid-game, I don’t want to lie in ambush because I’m missing opportunities for collecting gems taking the hard expansions, and if either player in the middle thinks they’d lose a fight then they just walk back to their tower and get XP another way. Not to mention that you hang back on defense if you can't see them (and place wards the rest of the time), because if you get out of position then they can just walk down the middle and win at any time past level 10 (sooner, if all three coordinate). So you end up milling around the middle, grabbing gems and placing wards, until some player is out of position and their opponent capitalized on that. Even if gems become big enough an advantage that you will risk going out of position for them (currently I don't think it's valuable, it's just something to do), it feels like a broad and bland mid-game where nothing seems to happen. Doubly so as any win in the mid-game doesn't feel like it alters the end game, unless you immediately follow it with a game ending push (sometimes the only period that can be called the end-game).
As I said before, most games deal with this by having mid-game shift territory for a clear feeling of progression and a natural (but modest) reward for good performance. Something that makes the player feel like it is building up to eventual victory, but doesn't shift the balance so far that the underdog gives up hope. Territory is not the only way to do this, but the current "XP lead" approach with Atlas is just not giving me the same emotional kick as when creep covers half the map. Or when French flags cover half of Europe, if I'm playing Napoleon: Total War. Sure I could also view my progress in the size of my armies, or relative income compared to the other players, quantifiable metrics in that game as well, but I don't feel incipient victory because of a number like "500,000 men".
Onto the suggestions part, here's Burdock’s GENIUS IDEA: (10/10 Would write this idea down again!)
Prerequisite: A gold economy with lower starting gold and some amount of regular trickle (or mining)
To make taking towers feel impactful, destroying a tower gives you X gold (X=20 in remainder of example). So you have reason now to assault a tower mid-game for that burst of 20 gold and for an economic advantage.
As a counter-balance, the players losing the tower also gain X gold but over time. Their trickle is sped up so that they get 20 more gold over Y minutes (Y=5 in remainder of example). This gives a punchy feel of progress for the attacker, who gained an economic reward for their conflict, but if they don’t take advantage of it within five minutes then the defender has caught up and is not disadvantaged permanently; thus avoiding horrific snowballing a la DotA.
Comments
I somewhat agree with this: great plays are often going to feel half as impactful as a regular RTS because you have a MOBA's worth of options to explore beyond just expanding, harassing, or attacking. This is actually the reason MOBAs have largely replaced RTSes, being the victim of a great play doesn't feel as impactful because you have so many options. I'm loving Atlas so far, because its not as boring as MOBA, but not as stressful as an RTS.
As far as the genius idea, there's not enough to spend scrap on to make it worthwhile right now. HOWEVER, rewarding tower attacks or expansions with SUPPLY instead of scrap would make them worthwile, even if it was just a temporary boost to let you bloat out your army and get ahead in other ways (like Day9 says, when you're ahead, get more ahead).
This is my opinion after playing like 15 games. I understand that playing 15 games, doesn't equal an understanding of the game, but here's my opinion anyway.
I'm not a huge fan of orb collecting to get a juggernaut or w/e they are. Half the time it feels pointless unless the enemy completely ignores you. It kind of takes any feeling of the urgency of battle out of the game for me when I have to collect orbs.
I understand it's a unique control point that promotes fighting, but I can't help but think "why, what is the purpose of this?" It's hard to get a sense of the importance of collecting crystals when the outcome is that I can build a mediocre unit that can't actually fight in battles, but can hit buildings if my enemy actually lets it get close to their base. However, they still expire after x amount of time, so it feels like nothing is really gained from collecting orbs. And even then, if you were able to successfully get a juggernaut to your opponents base, that probably means you were the stronger army anyway, otherwise they would have been able to repel you.
To me, it seems very underwhelming,. Maybe if you're going to keep the crystals, give them more purpose, or explain why they are so important to collect.