Discussing Game Design Choices
ShrikeGames
Member
Hi everyone,
I've been putting a lot of thought into what and how I feel about the game and have heard a lot of mixed responses (plenty agree, plenty seem to have no/little issues).
** I'd like to throw out some talking points and get everyone's opinions!**
I'll try to include some sub-points that are obviously accepted and others that may more controversial.
Does the game feel too pro-active or "front-loaded" in the choices and decisions provided to you?
- Selecting groups of mercs ahead of time
- Selecting your squad ahead of time
- Having the vast majority of your gold at the start of the game
How do you feel about not being able to use all of the gold provided to you at the start of the game?
- Is having floating resources OK?
- do you think this provides enough sense of progression?
- Do you feel not using as much as possible all the time is a viable startegy?
- Is saving for mercs a significant decision you have to make? Does it have enough impact or is being down 5-10 supply for a short time in-consequential at certain points of the game?
Do you think playing better than the other team has enough impact on the outcome of the game?
- What about playing worse?
- Does the game drag out or end quickly when an advantage is gained?
- How many mistakes are tolerable?
- Do you feel rewarded enough for playing well?
- Do you feel overly punished for mistakes?
Does the start of the game have enough variations?
- Are fast expansions worth it? Should they be?
- Is being hyper-aggressive at the cost of taking bases or clearing camps viable? Should it be?
- Is interacting with your opponent shunned or encouraged at the start of the game? How do you feel about that?
- Do team compositions affect the "build order" or playstyle of the early game?
Are upgrades and charms fun?
- Do you enjoy using charms?
- Do upgrades change your playstyle when you get them?
- Do upgrades enhance your already defined playstyle when you get them?
- Do charms or upgrades encourage or enable you to do things you couldn't do before?
- Do you change your purchases of upgrades or charms based on the enemy team composition?
- Should upgrades or charms be more passive or active?
- Should they introduce active abilities first and then passive buffs second? Or vice-versa?
Does your base feel important or interesting?
- Do you feel attachment to your buildings or tech structures?
- Are you happy with minimal base management? Would you prefer it to be more meaningful? Is it meaningful enough as it is?
- Does the position of your base affect your playstyle? Are you encouraged to stay in, or avoid areas because of it?
- Should your base be destructible like every other building and unit? Is it special and should be unkillable?
Does territory feel significant and influential?
- Does gaining or controlling portions of the map affect your gameplay?
- Do you feel your amount of map influence increases over the course of the game? Decreases?
- How does territory feel early in the game? late in the game?
- how flexible does territory feel? Is it rigid and predefined or dynamic and influenced by the players?
Does mining and expanding match your expectations?
- Are expansions worth more or less than you expect them to be?
- Do you feel denying mining is significant?
- Do you feel destroying expansions is significant?
- Does getting XP from mining make sense to you? Is it intuitive?
- Do workers have a purpose or could they be replaced by smoke stacks?
Comments
Yes, on balance it is currently too front-loaded. You obviously need some structure and constraints but that's most of what they have right now. I think they could add the diversity through new mechanics and leave those ones as they are, but that runs a risk of over-complicating things.
Yes.
It works like a countdown timer, but it's not providing a feeling of positive progression (which could come from another aspect of the game).
Occasionally it makes sense, but it's rare. For example, if you have enough shell-men for shell-surround and already hit the caster limit (before unlocking armordillos at lvl 8) there's a time in the game where filling out supply on scuttleguards (or mercs that can't keep up) feels like you aren't getting optimal gold value. And since you'll lose all your scuttleguards when you make the team play anyways, you need to get good value out of your gold. Until your Vela ally who never lost a unit thanks to amazing tank skills is allowed to donate gold to you.
Actually, for me it's a pain because when I want juggernauts I have to suicide my squad in a way that I hope gives value.
Yes. It's mostly subtle positioning and is seriously lacking in emotional feel right now, but if you play better than you can more exploit their mistakes in positioning and whittle the gold count to your favor. Which is the core strategic value in most high level strategy games (until late-game).
Drags out forever, or until surrender, whichever comes first. I've had some close games where it goes to nexus, but a serious advantage means another ten minutes of snowballing before a gg.
That depends on how good your opponent is. A perfect opponent will be able to grind you down after a single mistake. At wood league with me, you probably need to lose your army three whole times before you're doomed.
The "feels" is not there yet - for either side. But analytical evaluation of the mechanics and resource flows suggests that there is commensurate reward and punishment.
No and yes.
Yes and yes.
Current game balance seems to reward aggro play. Current social balance penalizes it. So if they didn't need zerg-rush jerks to give them a good suite of testers, I'd be ostracized out of the play test for my Alder rush build.
No, because we aren't coordinated enough as teams to do anything more than argue about whether "it's time" (for the doom push).
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Not really. Mostly for actives I have the "ult shield" and the "speed buff", which are helpful but not transformative.
No, but I probably should.
I like passive because I have enough to spend my APM on already. But active abilities give a higher skill ceiling. Like we have now, I'm in favor of a mix.
I think it should be more split between items. Like these items are "active" items and derive most of the value from the active so it comes first (e.g. rabbits foot) and these items are "passive" items and derive most of their value from the passive so it comes last (e.g. Blitz orb). Plenty of room to move around on that scale, so long as low APM players always have a decent set of passive charms.
No, and since when do we even have tech structures?
I would like more harassing options for the enemy base. I don't like to spawn camp, but unless they are all behind the nexus an unassailable camp feels wrong to me.
I would certainly like more defensive and positioning base management, but that might be solved with towers returning. Or support towers (like Protoss shield batteries). Meaningful macro-management is currently provided via the units, and I think that's sufficient enough that you don't need to add sim city.
Personally, I'd go so far as to have heroes spawn at the Nexus and that's your team's sole base. Heroes could build tech and other units (like the commanders in TA or Zhon in TA:Kingdoms), or they could be called into spawn points from an abstract UI (like Ground Control).
Nope.
If it is destructible, which I think it should be, that should tie into the win condition somehow. Like destroying a base is the same as destroying the nexus. Because as much as thematically I want it to be destructible and not special, once a player is out then it sucks so hard for them and the rest of their team that it should be "requeue time" ASAP.
No.
No.
No.
No. (Extrapolation: There is very little feeling of territory control which does not significantly change across the course of the game).
What territory?
Territory control is the single weakest aspect of Atlas right now. It looks like there's territory, superficially, based on towers. But the towers are so worthless that they cannot be said to control territory past level 1 (where half the HP of a tier 1 unit is a significant "ouchie"). With decent micro, you won't even lose a wisp if you run past a tower for any reason. I've seen doom pushes that ignored mega-nodes, I've seen healing towers sniped without bothering to clear the towers in front, and I've seen expansion raids that just escape past a tower virtually unharmed.
When it comes down to it, there are only two territory considerations that have an actual effect.
A} Towers are resources for the other team, so you need to defend them like a crippled NPC in an escort quest.
B} You have no ability to affect the map where you aren't; thus ward placement and vision is critical to aid (but not ensure) positioning. So vision of territory helps grant some tenuous "control" of the area behind it - maybe.
Less - often they seem just like the Towers. Thematically a bastion of your territory and a symbol of strength, yet mechanically a resource to be mined by your opponents. Which drives some players to just skip building them, and thus deprive their opponent of income.
More than mining.
More than building them.
It's not intuitive, but it quickly makes sense. You'd probably want to rename it to something more generic, like power. Mining raw power out of the earth is intuitive enough to me.
Right now, they are the resource and the vents are a clever ruse. So they are important to the raiding mechanic, but you could replace them with automated refineries and nerf raiding directly that way.
I think you should feel every upgrade and every charm. If you can't feel a change/choice, it's too small or too bland. Short-lived speed burst? Dramatic and apparent. Out-of-combat healing over time? Changes how you use your army!
Passive boost to generic combat stats for all units? Ehhhh.
This is my 1 hour impression. I tried 3 different heroes.
Does the game feel too pro-active or "front-loaded" in the choices and decisions provided to you?
How do you feel about not being able to use all of the gold provided to you at the start of the game?
Do you think playing better than the other team has enough impact on the outcome of the game?
Does the start of the game have enough variations?
Are upgrades and charms fun?
Does your base feel important or interesting?
Does territory feel significant and influential?
Does mining and expanding match your expectations?
Thank-you for reading. I don't want to come across as too critical. The feel of this game is excellent. Units are responsive, micro is fun, spells are interesting. A lot of my criticisms are probably because the game is in alpha anyway, and I trust you guys will be able to flesh the game out in the future.
Does the game feel too pro-active or "front-loaded" in the choices and decisions provided to you?
Definitely, Heroes of the Storm does a great job of limiting your options at the start (actually, Starcraft does this as well). Because you begin with BOTH buildings constructed and both item shops open, the amount of data to crunch first game is overwhelming.
I think most of this can be solved with a great multi-step tutorial (like HOTS, but maybe twice as long, and hopefully funnier). However, limiting your first "real" game to JUST your own hero and units without any neutrals would also be a great way to ease people in.
How do you feel about not being able to use all of the gold provided to you at the start of the game?
Is having floating resources OK?
It makes keeping track of resources a pain in the ass, it also makes it more pointless to creep early on for scrap.
Mostly, I've been ignoring scrap and still end up supply blocked more often than resource blocked, so maybe this is a good idea: it makes resource management easier for newbies.
do you think this provides enough sense of progression?
No, I feel disconnected to my economy in this game, but it's also a relief because I can concentrate on units and micro.
Do you feel not using as much as possible all the time is a viable strategy?
No, you don't need scrap to expand, and I haven't seen fast-teching be worthwhile yet. If teching becomes better, then banking scrap and creeping will become important.
Is saving for mercs a significant decision you have to make?
You tell me. It goes like this: mental queue of what I want next > wait > actual queue of production > wait > figure out how to get them safely to my army. If all I do is choose a more expensive unit over a less expensive one and wait longer, does that count?
Does it have enough impact or is being down 5-10 supply for a short time in-consequential at certain points of the game?
YES. This is like the death timer in MOBAs, it teaches you why dying is bad and forces you to push different objectives, since you can't face anything head-on for a time. Fantastic mechanic, and one I want in more RTSes.
Do you think playing better than the other team has enough impact on the outcome of the game?
Yes, but when better can include strategy, tactics, micro, and objective management, it can be easy to feel otherwise. That's kind of the point of MOBAs, though, being able to concentrate on one aspect at a time and blaming your teammates if you don't win.
What about playing worse?
DEFINITELY. There are so many things to get wrong in this game (way more than a MOBA), that you will be aware (at least unconsciously) of where you screwed up.
Does the game drag out or end quickly when an advantage is gained?
Ends fast enough, but it also needs a chance for comebacks (I know that's hard to pull off).
How many mistakes are tolerable?
None. Without a strong comeback mechanic, you can only afford to screw up if you have an overwhelming lead.
Do you feel rewarded enough for playing well?
Absolutely. Finding the unit combo and strategy that feels natural and mastering every facet of the game is as rewarding as any APM-dependent RTS.
Do you feel overly punished for mistakes?
No, but I need more indicators of what I'm doing wrong. By the time I realize I'm low on scrap, behind on items, behind on units, or behind on geysers, it's usually too late.
Does the start of the game have enough variations?
Yes and no. I want hero killing to be a bigger threat so that early creeping is tense instead of mundane, but I also need to know I haven't blown the game if I get killed early on (again, I know it's hard).
Are fast expansions worth it? Should they be?
No, the supply cap is so low it doesn't matter. Because towers provide all the defense you need, fast expanding will never have the same risk/reward to expanding as in other RTSes, so probabaly not.
Is being hyper-aggressive at the cost of taking bases or clearing camps viable? Should it be?
No, and yes it should be or the early game will be boring. HOTS does a great job of this, with lots of early game aggression that often doesn't result in a kill but is still fun to play.
Is interacting with your opponent shunned or encouraged at the start of the game? How do you feel about that?
Shunned, it's too hard to get to them. I feel bored when I'm creeping because there's nothing else to do.
Do team compositions affect the "build order" or playstyle of the early game?
Yes, I might picks healers as neutrals, but build fewer or none of them if another player has melee tanks.
Early game is just creeping, so it doesn't affect my battles, just my build strategy.
Are upgrades and charms fun? Do you enjoy using charms?
Dunno, haven't figured out how to use them yet.
Do upgrades change your playstyle when you get them?
Never. Upgrades are always "make unit X better!" which means I get them when I'm massing that unit. The game needs upgrades that change the functionality of a unit horizontally, instead of just a vertical increase in power. Think of an anti-air unit getting a powerful ground attack, or a melee unit getting a slow effect on hit, or a healing unit giving a damage buff to its target.
Do upgrades enhance your already defined playstyle when you get them?
They let me be more aggressive, and let me do what I was doing before in more situations. In that sense, they're successful.
Do charms or upgrades encourage or enable you to do things you couldn't do before?
Not that I've seen.
Do you change your purchases of upgrades or charms based on the enemy team composition?
No. Why would I and how?
Should upgrades or charms be more passive or active?
Charms and hero-based things should be active, upgrades should be passive. Keeping everything spell-like tied to the hero is a great idea.
Should they introduce active abilities first and then passive buffs second? Or vice-versa?
Vice-versa, a new button is scary when you already don't understand the game.
Does your base feel important or interesting?
No, it doesn't expand, it doesn't change in appearance, it's simply where my new units pop.
Do you feel attachment to your buildings or tech structures?
No, mostly because the layout is preset and there is zero customization. At least let me choose between attachments like with SC2's Terran buildings.
Are you happy with minimal base management? Would you prefer it to be more meaningful? Is it meaningful enough as it is?
I want it to be customization, so you can tell what units and upgrades somebody went for just by looking at their base. If I had a healer add on instead of a second building, and a new add-on for every unit upgrade I chose, the base would begin to "look like me."
Does the position of your base affect your playstyle? Are you encouraged to stay in, or avoid areas because of it?
It keeps me far away from the enemy until it becomes time to geyser grind. It's okay for a newbie map, but feels like it's a little slow for advanced players.
Should your base be destructible like every other building and unit? Is it special and should be unkillable?
It should be destructible, but self-rebuilding (like the hero respawns). Unit upgrades should be represented as tech buildings that CAN be destroyed. Imagine taking out an enemy's range upgrade while they're in the middle of a battle elsewere!
Does territory feel significant and influential?
No, it feels like a MOBA map.
Does gaining or controlling portions of the map affect your gameplay?
The control of geysers is huge, but this is literally the only place where territory control matters.
Do you feel your amount of map influence increases over the course of the game? Decreases?
Stays mostly flat. Controlling a geyser is only worth it until the juggernaut spawns, then map control doesn't matter again.
How does territory feel early in the game? late in the game?
Territory feels too well-defined. Each time has its side and the only thing disputed are the geysers.
how flexible does territory feel? Is it rigid and predefined or dynamic and influenced by the players?
rigid and predefined
Does mining and expanding match your expectations?
No, it feels pointless, but it's also one less thing to worry about (I may very well feel different when I "git good").
Are expansions worth more or less than you expect them to be?
Less, far, far less.
Do you feel denying mining is significant?
No, you spend so much time supply capped that money only matters when you throw away your units.
Do you feel destroying expansions is significant?
No, better to go towers and get straight to the nexus.
Does getting XP from mining make sense to you? Is it intuitive?
No, it's hella counter-intuitive and feels like an obvious band-aid on the unfixed problem of expansions not mattering very much.
Do workers have a purpose or could they be replaced by smoke stacks?
I WANT very badly for worker kills to be as devastating as they are in SC2, but right now you could replace them with literally nothing and it wouldn't affect the game at all.
The squad decision feels fine. It's just like choosing a race or hero. The merc decisions can feel a little limiting. I felt like I wanted to pick my mercs based on my opponents team comp. Since you could see their comp before picking, I would just pick the safest option (I played Grath so I always picked Raiders for enhancers and blinders so I could engage ranged squads better). Having all the gold at the start doesn't really make it feel front-loaded, since there aren't that many strategic choices you can make with gold since the supply limit starts so low.
Floating resources is only bad if you're floating them when you could be spending them. I didn't care about floating gold since it was limited by supply cap, as long as I was always close to the cap. Scrap is the only resource that was bad if you were floating a lot. Even if you were supply capped and couldn't make any mercs, you can spend scrap on going up a tier or 4 different charms, so there was never a time where I felt like I couldn't spend scrap.
Economic progression felt mostly automatic, since it was largely controlled by supply cap. Even scrap income, which I had some sort of control over, was limited indirectly by the supply cap. What's the point of getting tier 3 for tier 3 units if I don't have the supply count to support them?
In some situation, I think not using as much as possible is viable. Mostly I think it would be when you are waiting on a tier upgrade to finish so you can make a bunch of higher tier units.
The decision making with saving for mercs was whether I should save for a merc or just get more squad units. Being down 5-10 supply while saving only lasts a couple units and is only worth a few units. You are certainly at a disadvantage while saving, but that's how it should be, and even then it is not a major disadvantage.
Playing better and worse definitely felt like it had an effect. I couldn't tell you exactly what the best plays are at every point in a game, but there were times when we crushed our opponents and there were times when we got crushed.
The games I played kind of tended to drag out. It is also possible, however, that people don't know how to properly end a game. There was one game that I played where 1 person basically single-handedly pushed up their lane to the enemy nexus and did a significant amount of damage (they were an experience player, daily tester).
Mistakes like losing your army early on or losing a tower put you at a disadvantage but were tolerable. Losing army late game, however, when you are low on stock was a significant blow. Also, the death of any healing well was a massive power swing since it provides so much to the team that kills it.
The reward and punishment mechanics feel alright. It feels good to get a good engagement and destroy someone's squad. It also makes sense that I should be wiped if I get flanked by two enemy squads.
I don't think the start has enough options. It's basically clear a camp or two for the first couple minutes of the game until gems spawn. Playing as Grath, I had the ability to take on medium camps immediately because stone form is really good for that, but even then it's just the choice between clearing a camp or going to the middle to get gems for the towers.
Expansions didn't seem to provide as much income as I expected. I think this makes sense for the expansion that's really close to the main base, since the opponents can't do much to harass it in the early game. However, the expansions that are farther out and harder to defend didn't give that much of a noticeable boost to income.
Aggression in the form of going for the tower gems immediately seemed viable. If you can get a few gems ahead of your opponent while they are expanding you can turn it into a big advantage if you can deny their gems and get up your juggernaut for tower pushing.
I thought charms were cool. They weren't actively "fun" since most of them are passive, but their effects were noticeable, and I like the fact that they are similar to statistical upgrades in other RTSs (like +1 attack, +1 armour) except they were customizable, so you could go all out for attack damage, or attack speed, or armour, or ability power, or some combination if you wanted.
Upgrades changed my playstyle marginally. At least with Grath, getting the healing out of combat upgrade let me be more aggressive since I could heal out on the field. Also the getting the upgrade that allows Energy Shackle to be used on ground units made me go in for high priority targets to snare them and pick them off.
Team comps would affect my purchases. Against a Vela, for example, I would get health and movement upgrades so I could engage/disengage without heavy losses.
I like the mix of passive and active charms. Passive bonuses are nice but active abilities allow for more skill. I think it makes sense that the passive abilities come first and then you get the active ones as you upgrade the charms.
My main base doesn't feel that interesting. It's just where I train units and get upgrades. This is something I don't mind that much though because it allows for more focus on the army control.
Where my base is positioned just determines which lanes I will stick to at first. Other than that it doesn't really matter.
Maybe bases could be destructible? They would have to be repositioned I think, since some players' bases are more exposed than others. You would also have to be able to rebuild your base, since otherwise losing it would be game ending. I don't see an issue with the current indestructible base though.
Territory in terms of positioning feels important. But territory in terms of physical presence feels lacking. Towers don't do that much in terms of zoning, it's easy to backdoor healing wells, etc. Map influence (disregarding army positioning) only seems to decrease over the course of the game since towers and wells can only be lost.
Territory feels rigid and not very controllable by the player. It would be cool if it were possible to set up zones from where you could stage attacks, or a more fortified position in an important part of the map.
Expansions are definitely worth less than I thought they would be. Destroying expansions and denying mining however did feel significant.
I didn't know I got XP from mining.
Workers seem less important because they are automated. If they could build more things (like supportive structures) other than just defensive towers I think they could have a lot of strategic depth.