Was Artosis RIGHT? | Stormgate Map Design

[@biologicallyawptimized]

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I got the impression that the goal Artosis had in mind with Broken Crown Light and No Creeps was not to change how the game should be played, or how maps are designed, but to minimize the amount of factors influencing balance. He seemed to feel that all the stuff the maps have going on was getting in the way of figuring out how the races should be balanced against each other.

[@derpyhooves7349]

Yes, and not just balance, but design as well. He suggested that in order to get a feel for the core game, the devs should hold off on the garnish and add it when the game has found somewhat of a strategic identity.

[@austinollinger82]

Me listening to Artosis and his Stormgate ideas: “This is the way”. Me listening to Beomulf Stormgate ideas: “This is the way” 😂. With some games on the Artosis maps now played I have to say I think you are on the right track man! I hope you keep casting games and cheering on Stormgate to success!

[@brykhousegames2189]

Game Designer here - Lessons need to be learned from Company of Heroes and Warcraft III. Heroes aside, both have a lot of lessons in them, they claim to have "learned", but simply have not. Shoving everything in the middle of the map because it is "convenient" and dead center of the map, is not the solution. The solution is make creeps barely give resources on kill, but make the objectives far more impactful like CoH / MOBAs, etc. If there are multiple high priority camps were active on the map at a time. Ideas like, Resource camps giving more and more resources over time, camps that allowed unique units to be purchased on an interval (not like a one time capture like the Siege camp), but taking ultimately making it so you want to TAKE camps away, and NOT just the initial capture is the easiest solution. Age of Empires IV Sacred Sites, if they didn't require monks, are very close as well. TLDR - The creep killing for immediate resources SHOULD NOT be the goal, the goal should be to "maintain control" of objectives. Things like Heroes could be or don't have to be added to add spice, and if multiple objectives had to have maintained control at the same time. where you send your Hero could be "the one you want to win the most", etc. If there are not multiple objectives at the same time, where it is camps, being able to split and damage the opponent (I know latest patch finally realized this) then deathballs reign supreme, and while it's okay if that is ONE viable strategy, splitting needs to be equally viable, and not just to harass an enemy base. Multiple active objectives (camps) that need to have maintained control does that.

[@EB-bl6cc]

Yeah I'm with you on most of that. Shoving everything in the middle is definitely a bad idea, as someone who has made maps for several games over the decades. Some light rewards in the middle is fine to discourage turtling, but if you have a ton of powerful rewards in the middle then it can often be a win-more/snowball effect (i.e. the player that is able to be on the map in the middle is probably already winning, so that just makes them more ahead). Powerful rewards are often good to place on the **sides** of maps in harder to reach places, not in the middle. So that if the player that is ahead wants to go get them he is risking exposing his base(s) by having his army out of position, potentially allowing the player that is behind to catch up (or alternatively, because it's not in the middle where the dominating player likely is, the trailing player might take a risk and go for the rewards on the side and see if he can get away with it. So either way it works as a potential catch-up mechanic. (and as you mentioned, stuff on the sides can also break up the deathball)

[@cdgncgn]

WCIII heroes come from D2:LoD. That is why there is no continuity from W2 or SC:BW. Heroes arent needed per se, all units can have vet that doesnt do as much as RA2/YR by huge sudden jumps. Creeps to level up the D2 hero do make sense, as the hero is clearing up first areas like blood moor, DoE, going through cold plains. etc., there is itemization in very similar vein as well. There is inventory, though not detailed, attributes in very similar fashion, bonuses via level ups, items, consumables. WC III is from the ground up built around heroes. Instead of controlling one, you get up to 3, plus base, farms, to make it look like its WC II successor, while in practice it is D2 LoD mechanics stuffed in also in visually meh manner imo. Whole army is accessory and filler to heroes. Who came up with side objectives ? Objective is elimination of the other side, not artificial timers like AoE4, or CoH, which make utterly zero sense RL. Balls IRL are good target for artillery. Then you get them saying It promotes turtling, arty is usually stationary for some reason, to be easily overwhelmed and takes up large size like similarly bunkers in sc2. And ? If balling isnt counterable, because units lack either DPS, AoE, then there is little incentive NOT to use blobs. Vs Arty you have counter arty or air of various kinds, then AA, of various kinds, including long range, including AoE. Everything is counterable.

[@ChrisHorlick]

Man, this stuff really needed to be fleshed or privately. But also it's cool to hear about game design. As a spectator we need more content.

[@mvpmvp2980]

Mostly agree with your points. One thing i personally felt was that it was nice to not have healing camps or healing flowers. It was cool to see harass damage on units be semi permanent, instead of being easily restored by health camp.

[@DrawAndErase]

It's definitely about placement. Maybe they can make them slightly harder or attach more time buffs. It's probably best maybe to make them more asymetric too, like if you want a certain camp you have to go and get it but the opponent also has to go and get it too. There's nothing wrong with creep camps just existing as part of the neutral game that helps economy and providing vision or healing, it doesn't have to always be the center of attention or anything, being part of the gameplay loop is fine enough and I think creeps are fine to exist.

[@DivinesiaTV]

I would add heroes... Dont kill me please. :D

[@paradachshund]

My favorite call out from Artosis was about the overall complexity of the maps. I think there are a million ways to approach making the game less passive when it comes to specifics, but that main point needs to be the guiding star I think. The biggest thing I liked about broken crown light was how much it simplified the flow of the game. It felt like the map got out of the way a lot and the focus ended up more on the players again.

[@BeoMulf]

That's really fair. I like how different maps try to interrogate different things, but I do agree that they should be more focused

[@Eirenarch]

I don't want to fight creeps, I don't want to watch people fighting creeps, period.

[@conner1832]

I can't believe they thought creeps were a good idea in this state. There's no XP, no items, it's just completely ridiculous.

[@Eirenarch]

@@conner1832 I still don't want to invest my time in learning the most effective way to trick the AI even if there was XP and items (which in my opinion only makes it worse because it makes creeps even harder to ignore)

[@mann0311]

It was a fascinating expierment. I'm glad it was done! RT chat isn't really serious feedback often lol.

[@BeoMulf]

I would say with a grain of salt, but pretty sure it's actually more a heaping mountain of salt lol

[@blooddumpster3427]

Mario cried outward "Luigi, I don't think that goes there"

[@BeoMulf]

@@blooddumpster3427 please no

[@eduardoserpa1682]

Nail on the head. The biggest Artosis point we seem to agree on is experimenting with simple, focused maps. Crown Lite with 2 defensive health camps could be fun. Creepless Crown with 2~4 defendable resource camps could be fun with some adjustments. A lot of the big maps seem to be ignoring some design lessons from modern Warcraft 3 maps, and how creep routes affects game pace. I'm so looking forward to what the community could do with a good map editor.

[@BeoMulf]

Yeah, I think that, at the end of the day, we won't know what a good map looks like until the community has the map editor in their hands for a while. Everything until then is figuring out design decisions

[@13loodySword]

around 7:00 - I think you meant Boneyard not broken crown great video, agree with a lot of points

[@BeoMulf]

That brain-mouth connection was lacking today lol

[@しらこ-465]

My fav RTS to play is War3, but i dont like how creeps feel in Stormgate. Creeping is a chore and the respawning creeps adds to that. The impact is also too low to encourage creepjacking because it will only ever be a temporary buff, compared to the permamnency of hero levels and items in Warcraft 3. As for the map size, i agree it should be smaller and less complex to start out so we can figure out the meta and balance faster, but also just because max supply games every game means that the early game is inconsequential. We need there to be a threat of game over in early game and mid game or it's just boring to watch like many current SC2 matchups.

[@BeoMulf]

Well, good news on the maxed supply stuff - I'd say that that is maybe a third of the games I cast? Maybe even less

[@しらこ-465]

@BeoMulf That still feels way too often for how early and unbalanced the game is. I would love to see less worker harass and more skirmishes than in modern SC2 as well. I think the early game skirmishes are very interesting and more of it would be better.

[@rodrigopetunio]

The in-game songs should have lyrics: watch the servers overload from music enjoyers joining the game.

[@mckendrick7672]

I would turn it off entirely then.

[@Hjortur95]

lyrics in videogame soundtracks 🤢

[@AureilonStormgate]

Cool video!

[@adiozerg117]

I do enjoy having creep camps in game, but they feel a lil out of place in 1v1 with no heroes. They are a good deterrent to stop players from turtling, but as you discussed the placement on the outside corners of the map make for a non aggressive match.

[@sarfqersarweqar]

I prefer change creep camps gives energy for your abilities, change the abilities that on tier 3 you have something like ultimate weapon - vanguard can upgrade barracks with energy at tier 3 to instantly deplory wherever they want on the map exo squad for ex.

[@anonymeforliberty4387]

you mean like top bar energy ?

[@sarfqersarweqar]

@@anonymeforliberty4387 yes

[@TrentBattyDrums]

homestly ive never been a fan of creeps either, but they fit stormgate. At this point i think that removing creeps altogether would basically ruin the game. I think they just need to adjust income and benefits from the creeps and change the positions, like you said. Maybe instead of having 2 of each camp, only have one. That way if they want extra vision or healing, they have to fight over it.

[@xardiodrack1798]

more important creep in more centralize location would be nice

[@davidbodor1762]

I think a big bonus for being the first to capture the point would be great, because killing the creeps can be sniped/jacked easily and then you can retreat at no cost, there's no real fighting over the creeps themselves, BUT! Standing on the beacon until it is yours will incentivize actually standing on the point. So let's say Luminite towers give you 100 luminite for being the first to capture it the beacon, or speed camps give all your production a boost for like 5 seconds after you take it, or health camps give all your units a strong heal over time for 10 seconds, or energy camp gives all your units a big burst of energy regen...that sort of thing could be valuable enough for players to stubbornly stay on the point even if an enemy player is there to contest it. Without this, one player or the other will just leave the point and let the enemy get it, or at most try to attack a low HP creep to finish it off before retreating. That's not all that interesting.

[@keilahmartin8936]

great idea

[@wylhias]

Let's make maps change size and grow bigger the longer the game is! Environment changes through time

[@MultiFatduck]

I think the broken crown lite is too small. You're just gonna see celestial cheese every match.

[@mvpmvp2980]

Something in the middle of broken crown lite and regular broken crown would be perfect imo (with 1-3 more camps that are around the middle)

[@gustav.bgidon.skonig6727]

I agree with what you said completely less creeps make what you get out of the creeps more powerfull so its a big boost to your army make the creeps stronger so they are way harder to kill and take a significant risk and investment to get and thuse worth fighting overl. A good example is dragons in league of legends big strong hard to kill huge perk of you get them and worth fighting over

[@Stranzua]

What if veterancy was applied to every race and what if different units gained unique buffs? It can be an alternative to creep camps and heroes. It rewards micro. It rewards saving your units. It rewards an aggressive play style, and it rewards taking smart engagements. If people want to keep creep camps in the game, maybe they can revolve around boosting veterancy faster.

[@BeoMulf]

The idea is that Vanguard is meant to maintian their units over time, while Infernals will sacrifice everything to win (aka dying gives animus which powers your abilities)

[@marksman1107]

@@BeoMulfEventually I would like to see these mechanics as a bigger/ more balanced prospect of creeping. If veterancy/infest(and animus)/[something for Celestials] can be a big incentive outside of the existing benefits, that’s a huge thing that already exists - which I could see as a potential point of making creeps feel better.

[@ZeNd0kUn]

Not 100% sure the issue with professional games is the lack of interaction. We got plenty of early aggression or cheeses causing interaction. Also creep camps are really not an issue in my opinion. I just feel both SC2 players and WC3 players are confused by it's presence as it neither represents any of their own games. I can agree we can experiment with placement and experiment new maps. But ultimately, the most important goal is to continue experiment balancing the units and production speeds. BTW @BeoMulf not that it matters, but FYI, the map you showed when you said broken crown is actually Boneyard.

[@BeoMulf]

Yeah, I meant boneyard the entire time and got myself all twisted! Oops

[@music29730]

NO to creep camp notifications, YES to appropriate camp placement. Well designed maps should have camp "build orders" no differently than WC3. Depending on match up or player style i want to opt for route x instead of y, the opponent should try to infer what I'm doing, not the game for him. Placement is key. Broken Crown lite makes sense because it's a "round 1" iteration of how the game should play. Get the extra resources or contest, get the buff, go fight in this narrow window of buff. Camps can be utilized to create a timing attack or a defensive position, but also act as a liability if you aren't managing them. Having a big camp in the corner never works. In wc3 you just ignore it until you have a large army with downtime or you use blademaster to manipulate the camp and kill 1 creep, the weak one that you know drops the item. As an aside though, individual creep deaths triggering very slight and different buffs could make the game less binary with capture points only, but give some more of that interactive contestability. Good vid

[@vexienroe]

I think was was really highlighted from arty's stream was that the game isnt engaging, like its all very kite or don't kite for vast stretches of gameplay, there is no baneling power spike, there is no widow mine landing on a big group/oracle. There is no thing that you have to respond too, the only thing that was clear was that early teching on a small map means celes is OP. against vangaurd, infernal can get enough stuff to attack air early that it isnt really a problem, but vangaurd has a lot of anti air problems early. (which is why they changed the morph core) Long story short, the problem isnt map size creep camps or anything else, its just not that engaging to play, until you have 120 realistically 200+ army supply. Thats when you can actually get to the good units and see value for your decisions. Otherwise its just a build order loss or just a boring game of I run when chased, when he stops chase I shoot, when he chase I run.

[@Red-wb5jj]

When this game makes no fun on plane green grass open maps. It will also make no fun on each other map. So you can continue talking on specifics like how one map is build, but in the end it will not solve the basic problems with Stormgate.

[@tomaszhenka3379]

i think trying something new in stormgate is a good idea but stormgate without creeps camps is not as good as is now

[@devinslack9964]

Creeps are fine for 3v3 mode (which I'll never play). Keep my 1v1s creep free!

[@bobjones7533]

Please more godsworn

[@ZombieApocalypse09]

If every map should have a healing camp in the main, why not just give the main passive regen? why are we doing it through a camp that can't really be contested? It is kinda silly and pointless. If we make camps part of the economy enough to make them desirable enough to challenge your opponent in the middle for them, then winning that first skirmish will put you irretrievably ahead on economy. The game ends after a single clash. You won't get late game that way either. IMO, camps should not be part of the economy. The economy should be managed through mining and expanding. Expanding creates surface area for attacks and incentivizes attacking by weakening defense. Making creeps part of the economy means your ability to creep directly influences your ability to win the game. Meaning units that creep better will be prioritized over units that creep worse. In general this will make harassment units that should drive interaction for economic damage will be deprioritized because they won't be as good at creeping. Camps, if they are going to exist (and without heroes I dunno if they have a strong purpose), should guard desirable things that create opportunities for the player that clears them first. So stuff ilke energy regen, resources, and speed are not interesting. Something like a Mercenary Camp in WC3 is interesting. Here are units you don't normally have access to that become available on timers. If you clear the camp at the right time, you could buy this merc before your opponent has a chance to and it can improve your early game composition. Things like the Goblin Workshop that has the Shredder or the Zeppelin at it or the ability to cast reveal no the map for a gold cost. Similarly, instead of a healing camp in the middle, a healing camp towards the center is more compelling like how WC3 maps would place restoration/healing fountains. Here's this big merc camp, if you clear it (or if it's night time and they are sleeping) you can regen here very quickly and it's a forward position meaning you can retreat to it after attacking to top off your units before going in again. These are compelling reasons to creep but aren't game winning. And because of the timing of availability of the things they provide, there's a desire to creepjack to be the one who gets to do the thing (buy the unit on its timer).

[@BeoMulf]

Giving each player a healing camp is both a one-time cash injection to kickstart the early game without massively increasing mining rates and a solid defensive tool. I didn't mention it in this video, but I've been advocating for a while that healing camps should be player coded - your enemy can neutralize your camp, but can't claim it for themselves We do have one of those "more interesting" camps in the game with the siege camp, and it's funny that that feels the least impactful of the camps. I'm totally down to experiment with that more, but I feel like giving players units or the like has to tread a very thin line between being too overpowered and not useful

[@ZombieApocalypse09]

@@BeoMulf If you want to kickstart the early game without increasing mining rates... just increase the starting luminite. Again, the in-base healing camp is a duct-tape solution IMO. We're solving fundamental problems with the game design by shoehorning camp mechanics that don't meaningfully add to the experience, IMO. The Siege Camp is somewhat more interesting than others and yes, it is not very impactful because it is disproportionately difficult to take and you have no control over the siege unit and the siege unit is very fragile. In its current state it is very difficult to balance because it behaves like the Heroes of the Storm siege camps (free units that automatically march down a lane) but since it's not a MOBA the siege camp operating that way isn't as beneficial as it is in HotS. But if you make it strong enough to compensate for the lack of lanes and creep waves to clear, then it can easily become TOO powerful because it's essentially free. What I am suggesting is not a "free" auto-pilot unit. What I am suggesting is a neutral structure that allows you to spend resources and supply to hire unique neutral units that are different for each tile set like the Mercenary Camp in WC3. Or a structure like the Goblin Lab in WC3 that lets you hire a variety of neutral units or access unique neutral abilities that all importantly cost resources and have cooldowns. Guarded initially by a creep camp but then open to all after it is cleared (but the cooldowns for units are shared like in WC3 so if you hire the Troll Priest, I can't until the timer comes up). This kind of thing somewhat more centrally located will push people onto the map and make them compete. There's a timer on this thing, I want this unit form y composition. The unit I want will be available at say the 2 minute mark. So I need to be at the camp to clear it at 1:45. My opponent knows this, so I need to be ready for the creep jack, etc.. A xelnaga tower, a small speed buff, etc. these are not motivation enough. that is why FG has had to make creeping part of the economy to make it attractive enough to move out for. But making it part of the economy means if you don't have camps available to you safely, then you will fall behind on eco if you go for a tech based play or just lose an early skirmish or if your faction's early units aren't as strong on creeping or fighting early on. And that will make the game essentially end very early on. Which isn't fun either. Like imagine if all the expansions on a map were in the middle... you'd win or lose after the first fight. Nobody would want to see that.

[@Coffin_Torpedo]

"Each spawn should have a camp!" Why can't those mechanics just be part of the 3 races? Disagree with this take seems defensive of a mechanic for the sake of keeping it in without addressing why keeping them makes the game better. If you need to start with a speed camp maybe the units are to slow in general. Not to mention being an economic crutch instead of just doing your macro like in other rts game.

[@Ziegfried82]

Yeah the creeping is completely superfluous in Stormgate. Removing the creep camps can only improve the gameplay since there's no hero units anyways.

[@Red-wb5jj]

I agree to everything you have said. I want to add some more. Greater Picture (Variety) If we take a step back and look at Starcraft 2 or Stormgate and ask what makes a good RTS, we come across much larger and more fundamental issues that would need to be addressed. I believe the variety is one of the biggest factors. This is why SC2 Co-op commanders and fun maps are more successful than the ranked mode. Even in Warcraft 3, fun maps were much more popular than ranked modes. In fact, some games like Dota and League of Legends have emerged from these maps and have overtaken RTS games in terms of player and viewer numbers. Maps (more map types needed) One of the biggest and most fundamental problem is the maps. All Starcraft 2 and Stormgate maps are structurally the same type. There is almost only one map type. In contrast, Age of Empires has dozens of map types. To name a few: Arabia, Island, Black Forest, Arena, Nomad, Rivers, Gold Rush. All these maps require completely different strategies. In Starcraft 2 or Stormgate, that's not the case. You can play any strategy on every map. There are maybe a few rare exceptions with very minor differences. The fact that SC2 and SG has only one map type compared to dozens in Age of Empires shows that SC2 and SG offers significantly less variety in this regard. (That's a problem) There’s a reason for this: if SC2 had open maps like Arabia in Age of Empires 2, the game would be completely unbalanced. It’s essential to block narrow choke points with buildings and units because otherwise, it would lead to an automatic loss in most cases. This in itself is a problem. In SG it is maybe not as big, but could still be better. Designing SC2 or SG from the ground up for more open maps would be the better approach to balancing the game, and as a positive side effect, this would allow for a greater variety of map types. If the balance works on completely open maps, then one can consider other, more complex map types, because all maps have open spaces where bases and armies meet and fight. The balance must work there. Open maps reveal the real balance problems with more clarity. So they should add a map completely without cliffs and trees. So they can see more clearly how much fun SG makes. Scouting (procedural generated maps needed) In SC2 and SG, you only have to scout enemy buildings and units. In Age of Empires, you also have to scout resources, the exact position of your opponent, paths to the enemy, choke points, potential expansion spots, etc. This means there’s more variety. It's often said that SC2 is harder and they will say it about SG, but that only applies to the mechanical aspect and not to the strategic one. Scouting an unknown map and using that information requires more strategic decisions. In SC2 and SG, you know everything in advance and have done it a thousand times before. It becomes more about execution and less about spontaneous decision-making. If SC2 or SG had procedural generated and unknown maps like Age of Empires 2, players would have more opportunities to show how well they can adapt to different situations. This would give them more room to demonstrate their skill. The skill ceiling would increase, which ties back into variety-something all RTS players crave. The crave for variety is the reason why there are different maps, factions, units, abilities, game modes, etc. This is one of the reasons why MOBAs and SC2 Co-op Commanders have become more successful than ranked in SC2 or Warcraft 3 or SG will be. There are more, but that would require much more text. Solutions are often a combination of many changes. 2 second fights (/ massive massive damage / too low HP / and many more describe all the same problem in SC 2) Frost Giant at least recognized this problem I have told them 14 years ago and in SG they have finally solved it. In SC the problem is the high damage or the low health of units, which makes it difficult for casual players to keep up with the mechanical challenges of certain units and easy-to-execute rush strategies. This is why very few casual players participate in 1v1 ranked games. (By the way you can try my mod sc2youwant on EU and US servers, where I changed that and it makes much more fun for casual players) In standard SC2 you can have fun as a casual player in 1v1 ranked through executing a hard to defend rush faster than the opponent. This is fun that can be easily obtained, but on the other hand, it can also feel very frustrating, because there is no feel of a match with a story and chances for a comeback. Combacks are mostly seen by pro players, but these comebacks are hard to reach and therefore seldom in comparison to the number of matches. The tools for comebacks are missing and the strategic room SC2 offers is very limited (No buildable and destroyable walls, simplified economy, well-known maps, indestructable walls from the beginning of each map --> cliffs etc.) And StormGate has the same problem. I tell them now, but they will recognize it in 14 years like the other problem I told them 14 years ago. Economy (a bit more complex economy needed) All units need the same type of resources. So in the end everything is about to just get more resources, but there is no decision about on which resource I can or should focus on for my current strategy. Also the way how to get the resource is the same structure wise. Both resources are on fixed positions on the map. You can't choose the place like farms from Age or Landing Zones from C&C Generals, which makes it impossible to turn every position on the map into an interesting attack point. Wood is also more spread out on the map in Age, providing many different possible positions for the economy. Because of that there are much more possible places for expansions that increase the variety. Not just the number of resources are important, but also the ways how to get them which can also open up new strategic decisions. Also power plants from C&C that maybe work a bit like Pylons from SC can be seen as a resource. So you don't need farms or lumber camps, but the fundamental way a resource works has to be different to open up more strategies. As it currently stands in SG, you could make everything cost just one resource and replace Luminite with Therium (or vice versa) on any map, and there would be no gameplay or strategic difference. They have a different look and a different name, but almost no different gameplay mechanic. Walls (cheap, fast buildable and high HP walls needed) Cheap and fast buildable walls give players a tool to manipulate the map situation like no other tool can't. The reason why there are destructable rocks or in SG trees is that developers and players want to change the map situation. To open up new paths reach this. Walls that can be destroyed (not like cliffs) also open up this option, but it also makes it possible to close paths. So it will add even more variety and the situation on the map can change more often than ones, because destructable rocks or trees can't be build. Walls dramatically change the front lines, leading to more variety and diversity in a match. Players in SC, WC3 and SG uses structures as a wall and that shows the need of the players to have walls. Every SC2 and SG match feels like a bad version of Age of Empires arena map. General In general rts needs a lot of different challenges so each player can show their strength in different areas. Challenges in map scouting is reduced because of no procedural generated maps, the challenge in the eco is reduced because of a too simplified economy, the challenge to change the situation on the map is reduced because of no walls. Walls challenge the opponent to make a decision. To find different path, to build certain units to destroy the wall fast or to prevent walling. It also challenges the player that build walls because he has to protect the wall so the invest was worth it and he also have to find good positions for walls so the invest is not too big and cannot be easily stopped. If Frost Giant really implement all of this Age of Empires will have no chance anymore. Because all good things really come together in one game. The question is not if you make a game of type A (Age like rts) or B (Blizzard like rts). The target group of rts players is too small to think in this way. The question is do you have a good rts that fulfill all needs or not. The ongoing changes are only a drop in the ocean and don’t significantly change the fundamental situation. They won't believe it or won't even hear about it, because they don't read my texts and think in too narrow tracks. In Blizzard RTS tracks. The typical misunderstanding is that I want SC or SG to be Age 2. But that is not the case, because Age 2 has a lot of more differences like less different cultures, less good unit controls, less good recognizability of units and abilities, mostly no active abilities, less replay features etc. So there are many things that are not good in Age 2. And I would also really enjoy playing in a futuristic setting as a change. But Age 2 has in sum much more good things for the gameplay and variety and that is what I love. I love not Age, I love the better rts mechanics, possibilties and variety. And these good things in SG would create the best rts ever made like it would improve every other rts. So we need more map types, procedural generated maps, walls and a bit more complex economy.

[@davidbodor1762]

Oh and one more thing that I disagree with or at least I'd implore you look at the other side of - Healing camps near the base or natural - Sure, it can help the player on that side, but it can also help the opponent. It's a double edged sword. Any aggressive player who rushes can take that healing camp and essentially win right there. Easy access to healing near your opponents natural is basically an instant win in many cases, it limits people going expansion first, which in turn slows the game down as people have to always build enough defensive units before taking their expansion to thwart an aggressive attack from the opponent. The answer can't just be - well don't let them take it from you - because they're pretty easy to take over right now. Boneyard you can make your base on top so it's easier to hold - once you have a base that is, since you just need workers to stand on it, but Titan's Causeway for example can be rather difficult to hold the camp next to your natural. Especailly from a vanguard perspective it's a bit hard to rely on keeping control of the creeps, because the Vanguard early units tend to lose against the Infernal/Celestial early units. Brutes and Argents beat Lancers and everyone hates dog metas, so unless you want Vanguard players to rush dogs every game, you can't have a healing camp near the natural that an aggressive Infernal or Celestial player can take and then stage their attacks from. So to be honest, I think healing camps should be right in the center of most maps and there should only be one of them. That way there's always a fight over who controls the center, and unlike vision camps that are traditionally at the center, which deterr the other player from harassing or going around, healing camp do the opposite. You have to stand on them to defend them, which opens up your sides for harass potential.

[@BeoMulf]

I didn't include it in this video, but I've been advocating for the health camps to be player-coded (i.e. Player A has his healing camp that can only be contested, not claimed, by the enemy). This gives a bit of defenders advantage without the issues you're talking about, hopefully.

[@keilahmartin8936]

great idea imo

[@EB-bl6cc]

@@BeoMulf Agreed. I think player-coded map features are a thing that doesn't exist in hardly any strategy games yet the potential is absolutely enormous. I've made maps for a bunch of games in the past and often try to implement that kind of thing where it makes sense. My favorite is player-coded gates where one player can pass through but the other(s) can't. Can create a lot of interesting situations. But really could be applied to 100 other things, and your health camp idea is a great example.

[@captainlogic4684]

Discussing all these nuances of map placement seems like we haven't learned anything from RTS that came before. I just tune out and don't want to play. SC2 had a long run, that time is over. That style of maps should be over. Right now, this format isn't unique enough or different enough from those games that influenced it. I had entirely different expectations for this game. I thought we'd get Blizzard style RTS inputs, APM, etc, but with a new environment than before. I want to play this game occasionally and not have to spend hours relearning maps that the try-hards already know by heart. Procedurally generated maps would cause their own issues, but imagine each game is entirely fresh and you have to adapt. No advantage to experience. No quick BS because you've played the same map dozens or hundreds of times. You can still apply creep placement rules to that, but terrain would be different each time. You get rid of a lot of cheese because everyone has to use their scout units to feel out the playing field first. (remove all scans) This habit of using a small map pool per season allows obsessive players to develop map specific strats that give advantage. And that turns off casual and new players. I thought we'd have FG stylized art on a shrunken fortnite map with hills and rivers that slow you down and mud, and real fog in valleys that swirls around your units as you clear it. I thought we'd have more destructible aspects to the map. I also really struggle with the labels, buffs, and generally unintuitive nature of the units. SC2 I never ever looked at stat cards to understand. I just played until it made sense. With SG, if you have to look at stat cards and get into that depth we're going to lose a lot of potential players. Creeps fit into this. It is currently an added layer of complexity who's influence is not easy to interpret or guess at how much it matters. For that reason, I think as much as I like them sometimes, they should be making a clever game while also always doing the Elon Musk thing and asking, "Does this part really have to be in here?".

[@EMDRONES]

SPEED THE GAME UP it’s so boring so slow the alphas were so much better every version of the game got worse and worse and then they just release it as worker that make the best games they forgot how to be patient and everyone would have waited for something better not a half ass game

[@SpeedyBozar]

The more camps the better. Camping passive turtles in Starcraft are probably the main reason I do not play the game. They exist in Stormgate aswell but at least I can creep around and do something and get ahead. Without enough creep camps I can just sit down and die or dance around their base with hellbournes, sabers and atlases like a clown.

[@BallBusta]

I think if Stormgate wants to keep the map size the way it is, they need to compromise and make the all of units faster. I swear, watching the early game is like watching paint dry. As for creeps... just remove them. They add very little substance to the gameplay. This isn't dota, this isn't league, this isn't even WC3... there are no heroes, there doesn't need to be creeps.

[@atstrollz6875]

lower the unit cost and shorter the production time for more full saturated late game fights

[@garryarganis5801]

i would like to see creep camps gone completely, currently the getting is revolving around creeps way too much and i dont like it for many reasons, and if they nerf creep economy again, then people wont really bother with it, so might as well remove it and done with it, boost economy and call it GG WP.

[@nutrino75]

No way, no creep breaks the game?.... i was never going to play the game. Now im forever never going to play it. Lol.

[@matteofontana_]

as artosis would put it - he is ALWAYS right

[@Sinekyre14]

Doomed from the start. The factions have zero lore or style to them and the universe makes no sense. The assets look place holder and map textures and shading is awful.

[@Ziegfried82]

It doesn't help that the gameplay is sluggish, the unit sounds are horrible, and the map design is so troubled Artosis had to make improvements for them. No shade on Artosis of course he knows a lot about RTS just saying the devs should have been able to figure this out by now.

[@Sinekyre14]

@@Ziegfried82 Yeah, Frost Giant has one talented guy, and it's the asian guy who is in charge of unit and faction balancing. Everyone else is completely talentless, especially whoever approved the art style and factions.

[@joshuahensley9395]

It is very telling how desperate the rts community is when so much time and effort is being spent on a doa trash fire like stormgate.

[@beatingmidstakes]

Is anyone still playing this phone game?

[@ingestingcreation1024]

Creeps are boring to play against and ungodly boring to watch in a pro game. They need to leave the game.

[@Ziegfried82]

No hero units to gain XP from creeping, only one faction has veteran for units, it's bad design. In Warcraft 3 the hero units could gain items from killing certain creep camps and would gain levels dramatically boosting your power. It made sense because it was a mix of RTS and RPG. That's not what Stormgate seems to be going for so why have this type of mechanic in the game?

[@darkpain2452]

Its amazing to experiment new ways of plays, but reduced the size of the map isn't going to benefit, because we don't have yet 3th units where their powe come from fighting

[@BeoMulf]

I'd argue the opposite - that the lack of T3 units is one of the reasons that smaller maps look good right now. Teching up to a T3 lategame army has a bit less cool factor than it might once everything come out

[@darkpain2452]

@BeoMulf ? yeah, that what i said, small map look good now because there no T3 units, but when we get these, these will slaughter machines, you want a big army to deal against

[@BeoMulf]

@@darkpain2452 ah, gotcha. Thought you were saying the opposite 😅

[@dixogaming926]

The game is already a failure comercially, a copycat to Sc2 with almost no inovation and now they want to make it even more similar to SC so better just play that.

[@Coffin_Torpedo]

This guy is making money off it so he's monetarily invested now. Take his commentary with a grain of salt.

[@ChrisHorlick]

I mean yeah... He has a vested interest in making a good game and generating value that people want to consume... What's the problem? He's not a huckster... He wants to make a viable game. I don't get what the problem is. Loko (who I enjoy) felt a little shill-y but casters are basically promoters... They are openly selling the game. That's their job

[@salgarellius7434]

Game is dead

[@monkeybunny89]

Artosis is wrong. We don't need sc2 copy cat

[@Ziegfried82]

But Stormgate is basically a combination of WC3 and SC2. The problem is they took the bad from WC3 (creeping) and kept out the good (hero units). Hero units are fun. Creeping is not fun. The slower game speed and the time to kill units screams for hero units to be in Stormgate. But they aren't there! Only the creeps are there! I was never excited to kill creeps in WC3 I had way more fun harassing my enemy's base with the hero unit instead. But on larger maps in WC3 you were forced to creep just like in Stormgate. It's not fun, it's not engaging. The creeps respond the exact same way every single time and you will use the exact same strat to kill them every. single. time.

[@Rations282]

Game is garbage and dead