Question on scale vs control/agency

from AshesoftheSingularity Forums

First off, and I generally hate people who do this, I am very appreciative that a game like this is being made.  Good to know their are like minded people out there. Thanks for making this game, basically. 

So my main question about where the game is going, is how is it envisioned that players are to feel more responsible or involved with their units (or if such a change is envisioned)?

To illustrate, while I appreciated what Sins of a Solar Empire was trying to do generally, if you ask me, combat in that game was kind of a non-entity, and I can't help but feel like that is a bad thing, and I can't help but feel combat in this game currently feels like combat in Sins. Please tell me if I am wrong about this, because I may be...I am not very good at this game.

When you are dealing with a game of this large a scale, it make a great deal of sense to take the reigns away from the player a bit. However, when you take them away too much, the game loses the sort of visceral appeal games like Company of heroes, Forged Alliance, and Deserts of Kharak have.  When you do that, an RTS feels more like a real time, competitive puzzle game; it appeals more to those on or close to asperger's spectrum disorders, rather than those closer to obsessive compulsive disorder (like me!). Arguably, all RTS fans are spergs or obsessives, if you ask me, haha. Something like Starcraft is better suited for Spergs, something like FAF is more suited for obsessives.  I digress...

Now, I'm not quite one of those super fans of FA who wants this game to basically be FA, but I sincerely hope that this game makes some moderate, measured moves towards the complexity of something like FA.  As the game stands now, I do quite like it, but I think without some abilities, some more potential for micro, the game will feel more like a logistic simulator than a visceral game that truly takes advantage of its good looks and dynamic potential.  I understand the game shouldn't be as micro intensive on a unit-by-unit level as something like Company of Heroes, but please, for the love of all that is holy, keep this from being Sins's bland combat where unit composition and Capital ship/dreadnought abilities are essentially what determines the victor.  Doing this would completely miss the strengths game's engine and aesthetic appeal.

Also, what is the idea behind including creeps?  I mean, I like the idea of early combat with an npc.  Right now they just seem like an annoyance/hinderance to taking territory.  Are their plans to make them more dynamic? So I feel i understand and appreciate the game's philosophy of being "pick up and play" but including a MOBA feature seems strange, and under-cooked at present.  

Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts.  Make the game you want to make, and while I very much understand not making this a FA remake, and not making this came absolutely byzantine in its complexity...but I think the game needs to lean towards complexity to really get a visceral investment from players like me.  

24,893 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Hmm you kind of lost me at "Sins combat was a non-entity". There was quite a bit of potential for micro and it wasn't just about unit composition. The units also were not strictly rock-paper-scissors - it was a little  more complex than that. Focus firing was important. Timing of use of capital ship and unit abilities (like on Guardians) was important. Units responded and moved quickly and in a predictable way so you knew what you could get out of them and when. Ashes does not really remind me of Sins all that much. Things move at a slower pace than Sins (well at least the fastest speed that was standard in MP games) and there is not much in the way of microing units. It pretty much is unit composition and how you advance across the map and how you support your units with structures and orbital abilities. It could use a little more complexity and depth but it is never going to be "visceral" like company of heroes or involve much unit micromanagement. It is more abstracted and puzzle like by design.

Reply #2 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Alright, fair point, to an extent: i did overstate the issue when I said that "Sins combat was a non-entity." Sins did have dynamics to its combat, but it's combat wasn't really what I would call fun, probably not what I would call engaging, and absolutely not an ideal fit for a game like Ashes . To be fair to Sin's, it kinda worked in its case for two reasons: 1. the player has other priorities in Sins outside of just "base building" (like the expansive tech tree, diplomacy ect.) and 2. Sins, while pretty in its own way, was not very visually dynamic.  By this I mean, ships, outside of fighters anyway, would just sit there and shoot and duke it out and it was relatively boring to look at.  Compared to the likes of Homeworld, it was like watching paint drying.  



Now Ashes does not have this problem, it's graphics are pretty (outside of some over reliance on hover tanks), it feels dynamic, shots are simulated (I believe?) ect.   If you have a game that is pushing the frontier of graphics like this, does it really make sense that it be so abstract/puzzle like? I'd argue that many indie games could do that kind of combat, without having the neat/dynamic engine this game does. Seem like Ashes hasn't found a great way to really take advantage of its engine.

So, Sin's isn't so so much like Ashes, but it is the closest comparison I can think of when it comes to the level of player control over the specifics of combat.

To me, what makes an RTS great, what is really gratifying, is when you feel like you have bested your opponent through cleverness, guile, and maneuvering.  In company of heroes it was when you circumvented a well entrenched position to cut your opponents resources or when you you infiltrated a unit behind enemy lines to take out a machine gun so that your main force could come in without being suppressed.  In FA, it was things when a player would nuke the charred remains of an experimental spider tank to keep the other player from reclaiming the resources.  Stuff like this was what made players feel empowered, and so far, the global abilities, dreadnought experience upgrades just lack the sexiness and thrill that those systems had.

Should Ashes be different? Sure! but when I win a battle against an evenly matched opponent, I want to feel like I out clever-ed him or her, not that I was just better at the games dynamics.  Ashes feels a bit to much like a well animated card game at present, and I feel it could really benefit from the more emergent elements I was talking about.  

So, in short, The biggest change I hope to see with Ashes, is that it makes me feel clever, and that battlefields feel like places that you can "make your own" rather than places to show your opponent you know the game's mechanics better than they do.  I would very much like it if creativity, spontaneity , and risk were better rewarded.

And this is all meant more as a suggestion than as a critique. 


Fundamentally, I would like to know, is this game meant to be a heatpounding war of guile and smarts, or a a clinical affair unit shuffling and logistics.  I feel like the game hasn't made up its mind on the issue, and this is an identity crisis I would like some clarification on. 

 
 

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

I do know what you're saying. I would say Ashes does not have the amount or degree of player agency as those games you mentioned at this point. I say this as someone who enjoys the game too. The skill ceiling is fairly low as far as I can tell at this point in beta. Most players, once they learn optimal economy balance and unit compositions and keeping their engineers building, should all be able to compete on nearly the same level. It doesn't require the APM of a Starcraft II or even of a Company of Heroes, which makes it very accessible but it also doesn't have the depth of decision making, build/research orders, or macro that Sins has. There is not as much opportunity to outskill someone as in these other games, micro-wise, and less to do macro-wise compared with Sins. It often feels like one long extended arm wrestle with one side slowly but surely getting the upper hand. There are some ways you can surprise opponents though, depending on scouting and which orbital abilities you go for. Right now, I enjoy the pace and style of it as a change from other RTS games and the spectacle and style of it. The mix of buildings and units is pretty good right now. And also it's beta and more will eventually be added in to it to flesh it out a little.

Reply #4 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

I'm glad to hear some of my ramblings make sense.  And I agree with you that the game has much to praise about it, and certainly, I enjoy it to.  I think the idea of an  RTS that takes some of the hectic-mirco away is great, and I get sorta mad when I see people on this forum basically asking the game to be remade (usually in the image of Forged Alliance). With that said, I feel like the devs either haven't come up with, or implemented a way to make the player feel truly able to game feel lively. I know it's still in beta, and even if they never make it what I call lively, I will still play this for the spectacle and "pew pew".  

To rephrase what I'm saying another way, because I'm really chatty/over caffeinated today, is that my favorite RTSs generate narratives: after playing a good match, I want to tell my nerdier friends about it, I need to tell them about it. There are a lot of RTSs that people love, like Starcraft, that certainly give their player base a dopamine rush, but, for me anyway, I walk away feeling kinda empty.  They aren't bad games, I just feel like they are more for vegging out or being competitive than for like actually coming away with an experience.  Unfortunately, it seems the games that are better at generating narratives (from multiplayer) tend to be less successful than the others.

Reading these forums, the Devs seem to know their stuff, have some pretty solid ideas.  I just kind of wanted to humbly submit this. My one problem with their design philosophy is that they seem to be afraid of alienating their potential player base I don't know the economics involved, but I think it's basically impossible that Ashes is going to be more than a moderate success, in terms of the return it gets.  RTS is a niche nowadays, is it not?! Why not take more risks with this game?

So, Ekko, should I give Sins another spin?  Your comments make me think I haven't given it a fair shake.  I will say Sins was a very good game for chilllaxing hungover, ideally with an ambient playlist going in the background.

 

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting mbknox2, reply 4

Unfortunately, it seems the games that are better at generating narratives (from multiplayer) tend to be less successful than the others.
End of mbknox2's quote

This is where Relic RTS games really shine imo and as RTS games go, they're pretty successful.

Quoting mbknox2, reply 4

RTS is a niche nowadays, is it not?! Why not take more risks with this game?
End of mbknox2's quote

Yes, agreed. 

Quoting mbknox2, reply 4

So, Ekko, should I give Sins another spin?  Your comments make me think I haven't given it a fair shake.  I will say Sins was a very good game for chilllaxing hungover, ideally with an ambient playlist going in the background.
End of mbknox2's quote

It depends. I never really played single player much. Playing vs. the AI doesn't interest me that much. It's just about using starbases and trade centres at choke points to game the AI into suiciding itself to compensate for the massive production bonuses it gets at harder levels (Ashes has no equivalent of this so harder AI levels are truly tough to beat). There are apparently a lot of good mods though that extend the life of SP. I mainly played competitive MP which was all about 5v5 random map games. There is still a small but dedicated community that plays it online. To me that's where the real game is as far as combat and learning the full depth of unit capabilities with a nice balance of micro/macro.