I've written about this couple times in Steam forums and here, but wanted to start a new thread in hopes of starting some serious discussion around the issue. Apologies for mostly just copy pasting what I've written before, but I think it kind of gets the message across. Also, if you've read the comments before, you can just skip to posting your reply
From Steam forums:
I've never really understood why people want gazillion races and units in a strategy game. Intelligent strategic decisions require you to know what you are against. More races just means that you have more knowledge to be absorbed before you can even get into the pure strategic gameplay. Before you have all the necessary knowledge (basically know the rules), it's more about stacking your knowledge of the games races and units against the opponent's. Basically being lucky to throw the units at the opponent that he doesn't know enough about to effectively counter them.Chess, arguably one of the greatest strategy games ever designed, has one race, six units, and every unit can basically only do one or two things. Anyone can learn the rules (including the units) in 60 seconds, and after that it's pure strategy. And even with just that minimal ruleset, players have pretty much unlimited amount of strategic options during a match.I would actually like to see the ranked 1v1 to be made PHC only. Having to pick a race, therefore somewhat choosing your strategy, before you even know the map or your opponent, is just guess work. By having only one race the knowledge required to be competitive would be lowered, which would hopefully encourage more of the singleplayer only crowd to join. Additionally the endless debate of balance and the endless effort required to achieve it would be put to rest. Often the imbalance between the races actually limits the viable strategic options each race has when facing one of the others. If your race happens to be weaker at air superiority, it's basically one less strategic option you have - Regardless if it's technically possible.However, when the game gets rid of the necessity to painfully balance the races for a 1v1 matchup, additional races could be made significantly different. If there would ever be 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 ladders or tournaments, I would probably allow one of the special races for each side. Maybe not in 2v2s though, and maybe two in 4v4s or bigger games. In such matches the vastly different races would serve a specific role, and it would be up to the teams to effectively utilize their strengths (imbalance). Competitive 1+n vs 1+n games are way different and more difficult to perfect than 1v1s anyway, so I think the additional knowledge requirement would be fine.
From the Avatar thread:
I think RTS should first and fore most be about strategic decisions. Well, you can't really make strategic decisions before you have the knowledge of all the rules of the game. Which in the case of an RTS, among other things, means knowing all the units and abilities involved. It looks like Substrate is so different from PHC, that the knowledge you acquire by playing PHC, gives you almost no hints on how to play against Substrate. Only way to be able to strategically play against Substrate (as a PHC player) is to go and tediously study the race beforehand. That's a bit bad game design.
To summarize, making ranked 1v1 games one race only and having limited slots for other races in larger matches would:
1. Get rid of any balance issues and the poisonous effect they have on the community.
2. Increase the viable strategic options in asymmetric (race x vs race y) matches.
3. Cut down the amount of knowledge required to be competitive in asymmetric matches and to get to the enjoyment of strategic gameplay.
4. Allow devs to put the balance effort into other issues, making the game better overall.
5. Allow other races to be DLCs without making people yell "pay-to-win".
6. Allow other races to be vastly different, allowing more intersting lore, and adding interesting aspect to larger MP matches.
As the second season is starting, this would be the time, probably the only possible time, to make this change.
So:
1. The best way to solve the balance problem is to run away from it?
2. Acquiring extra knowledge to improve skills in a game is now a hassle and players who are "strategic" should not be bothered?
3. Every game has to be similar to chess to be a good game?
4. Since when symmetric matches are more strategic than asymmetric ones?
No. Having different units, abilities, playstyles, options helps keep MP fresh.
Yes, RTS games, like many games, have a learning curve before you can reach some level of competency. Learning the game is part of the fun. 2 factions should really not be onerous for RTS fans to learn.
1. Yes, if there's a no-effort final fix for an issue, why not go for it
2. The knowledge here are the rules of the game. And yes, getting to know the rules of the game is always an extra hassle. Learning to play the game is a completely different thing. Imagine it took 50 hours to teach someone the rules of chess, or imagine the first 50 hours you played chess you couldn't really even play the game because you wouldn't know all the rules. No matter how wise you'd be strategically, you'd loose because in a decisive moment, the other guy could move the horse in a way you didn't know is possible.
3. No, but chess is a great example how the rules of a great strategy game don't have to be complicated.
4. As I explained as long as the races are imbalanced even in small ways, it limits the amount of Viable strategic options you have. Making them less strategic. Some people say that currently the only way for a PHC player to play against equal Substrate player is to play tower defense and try to hold on as long as you can get enough refineries built to be able to match the substrate economy. Regardless if this is actually currently true or not, it is an example of asymmetric situation that actually limits the amount of strategic freedom the players have.
As chess again (and zero-k, and planetary annihilation) demonstrates infinite amount of strategic options doesn't require multiple races. Obviously you'll always have to learn the rules to be able to play the game. And that's exactly my point. You aren't really even playing a Strategy game before you know all the rules in play. Although you can certainly play an RTS without knowing all the rules, it's more like playing a platformer, reacting to what's immediately in front of you, rather than forward thinking strategic play. Simple rules are certainly a good, rather than a bad, feature of a game. "Easy to pick up, hard to master" is the golden rule of game design. I'd say in a strategy game "easy to pick up" means the phase when you're just learning all the rules.I can hardly believe that anyone considers memorizing what is basically a sci-fi encyclopedia fun. It's like in school, except that the knowledge will be of absolutely no use to you anywhere in the real life. I would imagine all of us get to do enough of memorizing in our daily lives without a game requiring it as well . Certainly learning about new concepts and 'core rules' can be interesting, but we are talking about memorizing races and units here. And while it's two races now, I'm hearing rumors about a third race and additional units to the existing two. The encyclopedia explodes to a pretty significant proportions pretty quickly. However, I'm not saying that the single race couldn't have more units and abilities than what each of the races currently has. Because you're always playing the same race, learning even a bit more extensive set of units and abilities is much easier, as they're there right under your nose all the time.
Learning to efficiently play by the rules, therefore getting better at the game, is a whole other topic and definitely part of the fun. But the approach that Ashes is going forward with this is all about where it wants to be on the strategy vs platformer -axis. I've understood it wants to be one of the most strategic games out there. If that's true, I think this is where it's heading south.
I'm a Stracraft II devotee. Seems like they have worked out their asymetrics pretty well. It can be done. Doesn't always ruin the game. Can make it really good.
I generally play a single SC race.. literally thousands of games.
I've even become decent at it.
I find that my strategies are PARTLY defined by the races of my opponents.
And the game... as a strategy exercise... has taken a LOONG time to learn.
So... simple in theory... but way more depth than a new "player" realizes, and much to learn in terms of troop interactions.
And that's one of the best RTss I've ever played.
Yes, it can be done. Multiple races don't always ruin a game , but they do always increase the knowledge requirement to get into the strategic gameplay in asymmetric matches and do always take dev teams focus out of more important things. It's also questionable if even good implementation of multiple races really improves a strategy game. And even if it does, is it ever worth the pain and effort, or the cost of failing to get it right.
I guess one thing you have to note is how long and successful any competitive play is in such games with multiple races, opposed to single ones. Pa is dead for example..
I feel kind of both ways about this one. I usually have more fun with PHC vs PHC matches, and I readily admit that I don't know substrate as well, and I'm sure that is a factor.
Yet, there are countervailing factors.
As opposed to StarCraft and it's ilk, this is a relatively small budget game. Consequently, I think from the ground up Stardock made fewer allowances for balances when they were building the factions, and are less able to cope with the data that allows them to make balance changes. That is no fault on their part it's just the nature of the beast. Playing as the 2 factions my impression is that neither one is distinctly OP they just seem weirdly incompatible. When I am winning (or god forbid, losing) to a different faction I just feel less confident that it is a reflection of skill than I would in a game like StarCraft (and I don't even like StarCraft).
And common, lets say it: most of the Sub units look kinda stupid. Common, brainwhale? How am I supposed to feel cool deploying that thing? I'm a graphics/aesthetics whore and there is nothing you can say to convince me to be otherwise.
But, if you allowed for single faction ranked mp, wouldn't you be splitting the already not to large player pool? Don't think it's realistically possible, but yah, I see what you are getting at here.
True, but I don't think PA is dead because of it's one race policy. I think among other things, it was just trying to be too different with it's spherical maps. It should be possible to keep competitive play interesting pretty much forever even with just one race. I could throw the chess-card on the table here again, but that might get a bit repetitive already.. I think there's so much unexplored potential in different game modes for RTS games for example. How would "capture the flag" look like in a RTS, or VIP/courier/escort game mode.
I very much agree on most of what you wrote. What comes to splitting the player pool with this, my idea is not to have PHC vs PHC and Substrate vs Substrate ranked matches, but not even let people choose a race. So there would only be (for example) PHC vs PHC ranked mp. I'm not really trying to say that the race should absolutely be PHC, but it does seem to be better suited for competitive play than Substrate.
No way! There is no fun About it, The only thing that I can say about that is for you and everyone here to get better in the game with PHC and Substrate
Practice will make you a Master, so get into it and play till you get better.
That's my recommendation.
And if you don't have the time so do not play ranked game at all or play for fun knowing that you may loose more than winning.
Spoken like a true master.
In my view the problem with ranked play lies elsewhere.
Starcraft 2 has many flaws and I can write chapters about each but we can give blizzard credit for developing an outstanding match making system. In its core it came down to this:
Each player has a match-making rating (MMR). Winning increases the rating. Losing decreases it. Both happen in relation/difference to the MMR of the opponent. The system tries to keep a player at 50% win rate - meaning if you keep winning you get more and more skillful players that eventually beat you hals the time. With large player pool it was common for top 50-100 playes to enter the rating system wih 30 to 50 games with only 1 or two losses then get to their deserved place in the mmr distribution and get matched only vs top players. After couple of weeks top 10-50 players had winrate of 55% to 65%. Everyone else - 45 to 55%.
Ashes's system seems similar BUT does not have the luxury of large player base. A wiser of two choices has been made - match players with great skill gap instead of queue wait times above 30 minutes. Added the lesser volatility - less likely for a less skilled player to win relative to other games - the result is that the top players here have win rates up to 93%. I guess that frequently playing players ranked 2 to 10 have win % between 50 and 20% - causing dissatisfaction.
The main problem is the player base and not the match system. There are nigths when you play vs the same player 2-5 times in a row at the point in gets tedious really fast. Single race queue will spread the players even more so it's not really reasonable to do this.What I would like to see in the future is 2v2 and 3v3 modes, but again this will not be viable until we have a larger player base.
True, Neinhalt.
Same players & same bad maps is eating out of my positive game experience.
Both issues must be addressed urgently or the game will decline.
Loosing to a clearly better player causes no dissatisfaction to me. Especially when it's obvious why he won. I've certainly enjoyed the matches against higher ranked (PHC) players more than those against lower ranked players. I'm perfectly happy with my win rate and it has nothing to do with the issue that asymmetric 1v1 matches just are inherently less strategic, less balanced, and less rewarding experience. I don't currently even get matched against a Substrate player that often, and when I do, I guess I could just surrender right a way. I really don't care about my rank or win rate. Really. Only problem with low rank (and a rather big one obviously) is that then I get matched against weak players and end up running over them in a few minutes. Not very GG. (The pretty awful start up play of Ashes (discussed here) contributes to these run overs quite heavily as well)
This whole one race debate is about the percentage of matches in which the players get a balanced, strategic, and rewarding experience. Again, my idea is not that there would be separate queues for each race, but that there would only be one queue with one race. Other limited slots for other races could be used in x vs x MP to fulfill specific roles.
What comes to match making, I do think that the kind of MMR based systems that SC2 and FAF have, are better than this rank and starts thing Ashes has. However, mostly it's just not reasonable to expect even match ups every time due to the small player base.
Since I play in the top sector of the game in an whole heartedly say I lose more often to phc than substrate and i play sub. It's map dependent on how I have to play, each of us will be using our own gimmicks to distract and expand.
i am not in favour of one race. It would make this game very boring and wouldn't even fix your own personal issues with the queues.
1. Get rid of any balance issues and the poisonous effect they have on the community. 2. Increase the viable strategic options in asymmetric (race x vs race y) matches. 3. Cut down the amount of knowledge required to be competitive in asymmetric matches and to get to the enjoyment of strategic gameplay. 4. Allow devs to put the balance effort into other issues, making the game better overall. 5. Allow other races to be DLCs without making people yell "pay-to-win". 6. Allow other races to be vastly different, allowing more intersting lore, and adding interesting aspect to larger MP matches.
Care to elaborate how this kind of single race approach would make the game very boring? What are exactly the things multiple races bring that make the game not boring? Furthermore, are the possible benefits really worth the cost and issues?
In exactly the same way as eating oatmeal everyday would be boring. You'd literally be removing half of the game units, abilities, structures, etc. that people currently can play with in ranked MP. An entire faction with different playstyle and different options would be missing. How do you expect most people to feel about that removal of something they previously enjoyed using? As you can see, most of the people who would be affected (who play ranked MP) are not in favour of this idea. Yes, it would be more balanced but at a huge cost in diversity and enjoyment in MP. Based on feedback of people asking about new factions, I think it would turn more people off that they could only play one faction in ranked play. Imagine if a MOBA had 30 heroes but only let you play 1 of them in ranked play "for balance reasons and ease of learning the game". How well do you think that would be received?
The oatmeal example is better suited for watching the same movie every day for example. No two games would be the same even with just a single race in 1v1. Again, take Zero-K, Planetary Annihilation, Chess or any of the dozen other strategy game examples. People can put thousands of hours into those without feeling bored. I've explained how asymmetric games actually offer players less Viable strategic options than symmetric ones. Don't you just agree with my reasoning? If so, explain please.
I can definitely see this causing a bit of an uproar, but I'm hopeful that with good enough reasoning, people could see the benefits. And certainly people are against such an idea from the get go, because you know: "more is better, more is more strategic" etc. But why? Argumentation please. I've still not seen anyone even touch my actual points here. Are the benefits I listed not something you value, or do you just not agree that they exist? If so, why?
Also, so far I've only heard a PHC player say that he has enjoyed playing against PHC more than playing against Substrate. Something I can easily related to. I'd be interested to hear from a PHC player who enjoys playing against Substrate more than PHC. I'd also be genuinely interested to hear why someone likes Substrate more. Maybe the interesting plays it enables could be incorporated into this one main race.
I'm not aware of any MOBA that would have ranked 1v1. They know that the heroes are not balanced for that. In RTS 1v1s are the norm, and I'm only suggesting a single race approach for 1v1s. In bigger multiplayer games the other races could be used to fulfill specific roles. Just like pretty much every character in MOBAs. This would allow more gameplay variety in bigger multiplayer games, not less. But when it comes to 1v1s, balance is absolutely crucial, and symmetricity overall is a close second.
And actually, for what it's worth, at least Dota2 limits the hero selection for new players for the first xx matches.
I've never heard of Zero-K. Planetary Annihilation is not a good example imo. I avoided it for many reasons but one faction only was certainly one of them. I don't think that game was very successful overall. I'm not sure how chess is relevant. It's a turn based board game that has the benefit of thousands of years of people playing it and it's proven that it has the depth necessary to make "one faction" remain interesting for what people expect out of it. Ashes PHC alone does not have that kind of depth of strategic options. I don't know if there is any RTS or any PC game that does period. And so depth, or enjoyment, is added through variety of playstyles and options in other factions.
Unless I've missed something, the only reasoning you gave was that imbalances between factions limit options. Even if this were true (it could be in some cases or it could just be less than optimal play), it is still generally a net gain overall in that other factions offer different playstyles, which give you different ways to approach the game - units that handle differently, new abilities, different structures etc. All of this opens up different strategic options and part of the enjoyment is the variety itself. The devs specifically design the game around this. What is the point of having an EMP global ability in a game that is only PHC vs PHC for example? Your argument would have more merit if it took everything from PHC and Substrate and combined them into one faction, but as it stands, the idea would mean losing a lot of options and enjoyment. It would mean instant perfect balance but personally I feel like you'd be losing too much content and variety. Balancing 2 factions here is one of the easier tasks compared with most RTS games anyway.
Yes, PA has certainly kind of died, but I don't think having just one faction was the reason. Chess is relevant, because it proves that a game with only one race and a handful of super simple units can have tremendous strategic depth and longetivity. I've certainly indicated that this one main race could, and should, be more than just either of the current races. Air options are definitely needed and obviously naval is missing completely. Didn't I just inquire in my previous message about the interesting plays Substrate enables, and bringing them to the one main race..
I'm definitely for combining the best of PHC and Substrate into this main race.
Balancing multiple races can certainly be done, but it's a constant battle that takes years, it basically only gets you half the way, and it's just wasted effort when there's a solution this simple available.
Chess is relevant, but only to a point. The appeal of multiplayer gaming is making choices and often the first choice you make (at least with an RTS) is your faction. There's more too it than allowing choice, when you pick a faction it appeals for any number of reasons: sometimes you are making a fashion choice, sometimes you are picking in a particular way because you know the style suits your hard-wired playstyle, sometimes you want to learn something new/play the game from a new angle, and probably many other reasons besides. I don't think it's totally fair to sort of link chess being a classic with it's one faction design. Chess having one faction may just as well be tied to it being built for convenience than for it being competitive.
Also, video games are different from chess, video games tend to appeal on a more visceral, intuitive, attention deficit disorder level. This is good and bad.
But, i totally get what you are saying about 1 faction though, and it seems especially fair given the state of balance/the probable lack of resources that can go into balancing this game.
Also, if you look at the closest sibling to this game, Supreme Commander/Forged Alliance, while that game has 4 factions, those factions are remarkably similar to eachother, at least in their general outline. No faction plays extremely different from any of the others, especially at the low tech levels. Of course, their are differences, but they are generally far less pronounced than your average rts.
While I'm hardly sure same faction matches are an answer to the problems Ashes faces, I will say that the main problem it faces isn't so much balancing the two exiting factions so much as making the 2 existing factions combat each other in a fun/meaningful way that is fun on both sides.
But doesn't a single faction approach completely fix this issue as well
One thing I don't think you really get. It entirely shows when reading your post regarding no two games the same. That's exactly what it'll be. I know exactly how a top tier phc player will play. So I play according. The same with substrate and they both require different actions. You take one of these factions away and you will get very very boring matches. From a game design standpoint, going away from micro and macro specifically. That means it'll be rock paper scissors. Or the same game every time amongst the top...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
