Questions for RAAAR side conversation.

[smoth]

There are LOTS of other hubs for mini-games and lots and lots and lots of mini-games.

spring needs:

1- improved RTS games. The current ones fail on (one or more of) unit variety, animations, visual effects, user interface, gameplay.

(they have been improving over the years, slowly)

Can you give me a rating 1-10 on these for:
unit variety,
animations,
visual effects,
user interface,
gameplay.

Or maybe just which ones you feel are failing in what categories and what categories are not fail?
BA
ZK
EVO
S44
KP

I'd ask about gundam but 1.28 is never coming out and none of my current projects are not playable yet... so I want to see what you think

[raaar]

Ah, now i feel important!

1-10 rating is too much detail to go into. I don't think i can quantify the issues in a meaningful way. But i can point out stuff that i think is wrong with the games.

So far i've spend most time playing XTA and developing my game. Seen and played a bit of BA, played EVO for a few months and now I've been trying ZK.

Some of the issues are a matter of opinion. For example, i get annoyed in games with only one faction because that means that the opponent can fight you by using the same units you have. There's added depth from knowing the unit set the opponent has is different from your own, with its own strengths and weaknesses. Would MTG be fun if everyone used the same deck?

Also the units' strenghts and weaknesses should make sense. Unit model sizes and weapons should "hint" at their firepower, range and toughness.


--- BA
good :
- lots of units with varied roles

bad :
- bad unit animations (unit movement doesn't match animation, kbot "figure-skating")
- ugly models on many units
- unintuitive, can't tell how powerful some shots are from the visual effect, can't tell how powerful units
are by looking at the model (late game mechs don't look tougher than some tanks, but they are, because)
- if i remember correctly, some mechs can even weirdly climb steep slopes, for some reason
- dirt-cheap aircraft with crappy maneuverability (except gunships)
- unforgiving : very fast raiders with good dps/cost, economy snowballs
(not sure about balance, don't know enough)
- expensive tier3 units seem to make lower tier units obsolete
- game-breaking super-expensive super-powerful superweapons


--- ZK
good :
- nice UI
- lots of exotic units with special mechanics
- uses terrain transformation in useful ways
EDIT:
- system that allows the users to buy upgrades and customize their commanders. This is great!

bad :
- unforgiving : very fast raiders with good dps/cost, economy snowballs
- only one faction
- bad unit animations (unit movement doesn't match animation, kbot "figure-skating")
- unintuitive, can't tell how powerful some shots are from the visual effect, many units have very short range compared to their model size
- weird feeling like sometimes there's only gimmicky units to choose from
- game-breaking long-ranged super-expensive super-powerful superweapons
- weirdly high powered long-ranged anti-air units that don't shoot at ground targets, because

--- EVO
good :
- nice UI
- like the music
- unit animations are sort of nice (it's easier though, they are mostly vehicles and all robots seem to follow a similar 4 legged walk animation)

bad:
- unforgiving : very fast raiders with good dps/cost
- towers don't shoot at other buildings (wtf)
- some unit models somewhat ugly, although detailed
- only one faction
- unarmed commander (ok, wrong, he has an emp special weapon with a big cooldown...)
- units die too quickly, lack of units with high HP/cost, hard to micromanage
- unintuitive, unit strengths and weaknesses seem to have little connection to the model
- too much rock-paper-scissors (it takes the typical lack of interaction between anti-ground and anti air weapons further : anti-building units won't shoot at units and some anti-unit units won't shoot at buildings, or deal no damage to them)
- dislike how the supply system works, maybe a balance issue, or just personal preference

-- XTA
good :
- personal preference for relatively tough units that take a while to die, but not too tough, leaving room for micromanagement
- reasonable interaction between unit models and attributes, it sort of makes more sense than other games
- decent unit animations

bad :
- stale, low unit variety
- ugly models on many units
- economy growth too steep (big jump from t1-2 to t3)
- obscure hidden damage modifiers on many units
- unforgiving : raiders aren't very fast, but effectiveness/cost for t1 defenses isn't very good unless covered by lines of dragons teeth or mines, which is gimmicky , also, commander sucks at defending early base from raiders and has huge death explosion that makes him a liability more than an asset later in the game, economy snowballs
- dirt-cheap aircraft with great power/cost but crappy maneuverability (except gunships)
- game-breaking super-expensive super-powerful superweapons

[luckywaldo7]

*** BAR is inevitably going to replace BA, so I think BAR should be critiqued in its place.

*** Try to avoid critiquing based on "personal preference"; this should be about the average player's experience

[luckywaldo7]

Mini-rant; if this is too off-topic, smoth, I can delete.

Some of the issues are a matter of opinion. For example, i get annoyed in games with only one faction because that means that the opponent can fight you by using the same units you have. There's added depth from knowing the unit set the opponent has is different from your own, with its own strengths and weaknesses. Would MTG be fun if everyone used the same deck?

There are no 'factions' in MTG like there are in RTS though; there are 5 colors that you can mix-and-match into a deck. Assuming a standard bi-color deck, 5 colors gives you 20 different possible combinations.

That is actually closest to the approach that Evo and Zero-K took. Evo has 4 standard factories, ZK has 11, and instead of using them all, you mix-and-match a couple like you do with MTG colors (Two is even the sweet-spot for ZK midgame). So in ZK, you can 'create' your own faction by chosing through up to 110* combinations of two factories. The major difference is that in MTG you lock into your deck before the game starts, which in ZK you chose as part of your ingame strategy. So your enemy is probably going to still be playing with a different deck, the trick is that you don't immediately know which one he chose.

* Actually less because some, particularly the shipyard, are map-specific.

[raaar]

Mini-rant; if this is too off-topic, smoth, I can delete.

Some of the issues are a matter of opinion. For example, i get annoyed in games with only one faction because that means that the opponent can fight you by using the same units you have. There's added depth from knowing the unit set the opponent has is different from your own, with its own strengths and weaknesses. Would MTG be fun if everyone used the same deck?

There are no 'factions' in MTG like there are in RTS though; there are 5 colors that you can mix-and-match into a deck. Assuming a standard bi-color deck, 5 colors gives you 20 different possible combinations.

That is actually closest to the approach that Evo and Zero-K took. Evo has 4 standard factories, ZK has 11, and instead of using them all, you mix-and-match a couple like you do with MTG colors (Two is even the sweet-spot for ZK midgame). So in ZK, you can 'create' your own faction by chosing through up to 110* combinations of two factories. The major difference is that in MTG you lock into your deck before the game starts, which in ZK you chose as part of your ingame strategy. So your enemy is probably going to still be playing with a different deck, the trick is that you don't immediately know which one he chose.

* Actually less because some, particularly the shipyard, are map-specific.

Yes, although they have only one faction, there are shallow paths that lead to lots of different units. ZK has lots of variety, but EVO, not so much. The MTG comparison i used isn't very good, but my point still stands. Most popular RTS games i've seen have at least two factions.

I can't fully detach myself from personal preference. Neither can the average player. The average preferences can be figured out by getting feedback from many people. But i think some of the issues are common sense.

Maybe the thread should be renamed from "RAAAR side conversation" to a generic "Opinions about spring games" topic.

[smoth]

Mini-rant; if this is too off-topic, smoth, I can delete.

No, no, perfectly fine as long as the thread doesn't become JUST about ZK.

Waldo, I agree but BAR is not really final so I think it would be premature. I would rather compare the two once it is out.

[Anarchid]

light vehicle factory seems too strong, most turrets are easily outranged by cheap mobile artillery units.

I'm drunk, but

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BWA HA HA HA HA HA AHAHA *chokes* *coughs* *convulses* HHA HHHHHA

[raaar]

light vehicle factory seems too strong, most turrets are easily outranged by cheap mobile artillery units.

I'm drunk, but

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA BWA HA HA HA HA HA AHAHA *chokes* *coughs* *convulses* HHA HHHHHA

well...I wrote that i wasn't sure. I'm new to zk. I'll go try it out some more.

I'll remove balance opinions from the first post about all games. That's a troublesome issue people rarely agree on...

[luckywaldo7]

Once I'm back from holiday break, I can play some S44 and KP with you also as they definitely deserve some attention.

[yuritch]

If you're going to try some S44, use the dev version. Latest 'released' one (1.7) has some bugs like not working snipers, while dev has those fixed (and new ones added :D ) and has 2 new factions as well.

Join s44 autohost to auto-dl the dev build. Or you can use rapid to get it.

[code_man]

I only played spring 1944 long enough to give back an opinion that is worthwhile.

unit variety: 8, There are quite a few different unit types, tough since its based on ww2 its a bit restricted in that regard.
animations: 6, About sufficient, but it stems from TA and as such most of it is still cob so its fairly limited in that regard.
visual effects: 8, The effects are pretty good id say, tough maybe some could be made a bit more spectacular.
user interface: 7 , Spring defaults almost, could use improvements but ok all in all.
gameplay: 9, Pretty good, much action and quite a few neat strategies to use, id say there isnt much more you could ask from a ww2 rts.

Hope its of use.

[smoth]

I am pretty impressed there is no project sniping going on here. Most of the posts have been interesting so any of them are interesting. I wish I had a dog in this race, because I would love the feedback. I think these threads are generally helpful as a sort of looking glass. So far we do not have it getting derailed by armchair idea guys who just want to try and turn BA etc into the game they want. So I think your post is good, it is looking at s44 as s44 and not something else.

With respect to the animations, is it the cob system limitation or the lack of proper mesh deformation that really causes issue?

With respect to the gui, why a 7, if it was "ok," wouldn't it be a 5 or 6?

[hokomoko]

I'd have given less to the GUI in S44, but I can understand Code_Man's point of view.
In S44 the GUI just has less relevance, for instance way less buildings than in ZK/BA for instance means no need for fancy build menu. So a very basic GUI actually frees more screen space for other things, like managing your soldiers.
The main shortcomings are the default being pretty bland, and lack of things like scrollable chat boxes etc. that are available in Chili.

Code_Man, correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: S44 has taken over this thread a bit. I'm sorry.

[code_man]

The chat is probably the biggest problem in s44 UI wise from my experiance.
I gave it a 7 because it being functional and usable is good enough. One thing i dont really like is the text buttons, id rather replace them with icons.
Perhaps add some more feedback mechanism, if i had brains left to dev s44.
It aint pretty but it does the job any day, tough comparing it with other games it looks rather bland.

Also bout the animation part is, i should have expressed it better, s44 is old and has lots of specific and difficult scripts written in bos and thus i cut the team some slack for not improving them much, since i know what a ballbuster it can be to make good conversions to lua from bos.

[Anarchid]

I, for one welcome our new S44 overlords. Also a bit of pity that there's no non-cheating AI capable of playing that game.

[Forboding Angel]

--- EVO
good :
- nice UI
- like the music
- unit animations are sort of nice (it's easier though, they are mostly vehicles and all robots seem to follow a similar 4 legged walk animation)

bad:
- unforgiving : very fast raiders with good dps/cost
- towers don't shoot at other buildings (wtf)
- some unit models somewhat ugly, although detailed
- only one faction
- unarmed commander (ok, wrong, he has an emp special weapon with a big cooldown...)
- units die too quickly, lack of units with high HP/cost, hard to micromanage
- unintuitive, unit strengths and weaknesses seem to have little connection to the model
- too much rock-paper-scissors (it takes the typical lack of interaction between anti-ground and anti air weapons further : anti-building units won't shoot at units and some anti-unit units won't shoot at buildings, or deal no damage to them)
- dislike how the supply system works, maybe a balance issue, or just personal preference

bad:

- unforgiving : very fast raiders with good dps/cost

Umm, not really. Things have changed since you last played. Raiders are important, but quickly are phased down to their default level of usefulness. Ikinz, qaenthalis, commonplayer, anarchid coudl probably explain this better.

- towers don't shoot at other buildings (wtf)

No, they don't, but there is an artillery turret now that can fire at other buildings.

- some unit models somewhat ugly, although detailed

Ugly ones have probably been replaced in the time that you haven't played

- only one faction

5 Techs. Four of them viable as a start. Even air (although air start is harder)

- unarmed commander (ok, wrong, he has an emp special weapon with a big cooldown...)

Emp auto targets now, and the comm is incredibly useful as an offensive unit. Ask godde.

- units die too quickly, lack of units with high HP/cost, hard to micromanage

Ok, you REALLY haven't played in a long time. Have a look here: http://youtu.be/nM_2kn4ksFQ?t=55m45s (the game is about 10 minutes long I think)

You will notice that units react instantly and are as nimble as units are in starcraft2. Extremely microable.

- unintuitive, unit strengths and weaknesses seem to have little connection to the model

You need to play more in order to make a statement like this as an educated opinion.

- too much rock-paper-scissors (it takes the typical lack of interaction between anti-ground and anti air weapons further : anti-building units won't shoot at units and some anti-unit units won't shoot at buildings, or deal no damage to them)

Not true. You haven't played in a really long time.

- dislike how the supply system works, maybe a balance issue, or just personal preference

That would be personal preference on your end. It works incredibly similar to blizzard style supply requirements and it is really easy to manage.


It would probably be best if these games were critiqued in detail by players who regularly play them, as opposed to haven't played for 6 months but surely nothing has changed. I dunno about the other games, but things in evo tend to usually get sorted out quickly, more or less.

[Anarchid]

5 Techs. Four of them viable as a start. Even air (although air start is harder)

You may agree or disagree with this, but my understanding is that raar just likes factions. ZK has more "techs", but it still has no factions either.

A little too defensive maybe?

Raiders are important, but quickly are phased down to their default level of usefulness. Ikinz, qaenthalis, commonplayer, anarchid coudl probably explain this better.

Recently it has been like this for me: 5 snake early on and, then spitter spitter spitter spitter spitter spitter and then win. Not because spitters are very good but because they are good enough against things people spam (assault tanks of hover and spider kind)

Ugly ones have probably been replaced in the time that you haven't played

Depends on your baseline for 'ugly'. If we pick BAR as our baseline, then there are bad news for most other projects :D

[8611]

- too much rock-paper-scissors (it takes the typical lack of interaction between anti-ground and anti air weapons further : anti-building units won't shoot at units and some anti-unit units won't shoot at buildings, or deal no damage to them)

Not true. You haven't played in a really long time.

"can only attack other mobile units!"
"can only fire at buildings!"

- unintuitive, unit strengths and weaknesses seem to have little connection to the model

You need to play more in order to make a statement like this as an educated opinion.

If it is required to "play more" to tell unit strengths and weaknesses from the models, does that not mean it is unintuitive?
Taking above units as example, how can one tell from their models which one deal more damage vs buildings, which one can not shot at mobile units, which ones take less damage from turrets and so on?

[smoth]

Let's not blow this thread up with huge walls of defensive posts. try to keep it succinct.

[Super Mario]

You too be defensive that if someone criticize your game that you put countless hours of passion into it.