29:03 I love your thoughts about 2v2 and map pools in general. Completely agree and I personally never liked the turtle style of 2v2 maps. It just limits the number of options and almost always ends up in macro late game. When I think back to SC:BW 2v2 matches, and let's say0 maps such as Lost Temple, or Fighting Spirit... this is what I'd like to see in battle aces. When all 4 players are separated, it really opens up all sorts of strategies.
Battle Aces is the true next-gen RTS, unlike the other big name RTS that that got released very recently... Btw thats a great King Crab impression at 17:05 :D
I agree that balancing through maps is more "organic", but I worry how feasible it is. Like you said with the StarCraft 2v2 maps, if seems like it's an all or nothing approach where either mega turtle is the best strategy, or it's unplayable based on the map. So I guess to keep it more simple, doing unit tweaks for the different modes is the easiest, but there needs to be like a pop-up when you queue for 2v2, 3v3, etc. which gives you a list of units that are different from the "main" mode.
I like that circle for the grounded units. I'd love something similar for air where applicable. In the cbt I felt lost as to what beats what without being able to run it in a test. Granted I realize there were some keywords I didn't instantly know were keywords, but I think leaning into that is good.
I really don't like the 2v2 specific changes, I think unit stats are just way too fundamental to be changed for different modes. I'd even prefer unit resource cost adjustments to health/damage/speed. This would make more sense when touching "unit stats" since battle aces is a micro focused game. Being able to quickly gauge what army beats what army at a glance should be a core concept and shouldn't be different within the same patch. It's like how that initial trivia was used to demonstrate the power of the new turret role for anti-air. Ultimately stuff like different maps, deck limitations, etc... would be preferred for balancing different modes.
Just a reminder that no matter how much they attempt to balance, move, shift, delete and create units, if there isn't a draft mode for ranked people will get burned out of the RNG pretty fast.
@@mickeyromeo It can be anyone's main game, it doesn't matter. It's a great side game for me because I can slot into my day for 15-30 minutes, and leave perfectly satisfied. I'll probably play it more often (in very short sessions) than whatever "main game" I have.
I wish they would change the stutter-step way that units attack, to be more of a niche. My personal experience has been that the limited number of units that can move and shoot at the same time feel more fun to play with. Also, for most of the units, it just looks unrealistic for them to stop, shoot, then continue moving. I get it, infantry does that, you have to stop to shoot your rifle. But mechanized robots specifically designed to deliver destruction at the cheapest cost should have a means of moving and attacking at the same time. They can balance out and diversify the attack patterns by : - making some units move slower by some %, when attacking - having to reload after a few shots, unless idling for a time without attacking or sth - giving an attack cone and an adjusted turn rate - etc I know it's gonna piss off some hardcore "in want to stutter-step EVERY UNIT IN THIS GAME" gamers, but this game is so innovative and fun compared to all other current rts games, that I hope they go the fun route instead of the boring "as everybody else" route.
The general thing that i dont like in attack moving unit is that you cant really disengage them, since stutersteping is always slower than just moving. I think there is a place to make attack moving unit that have a "stance" where they can shoot, but move slower
Would never work as firing on the move would completely outclass melee units or would just be the worse choice compared to overcharge if their move speed was slowed.
I didn't think I would enjoy the CBT so much. But I did.
the cock and ball torture
17:08 The perfect King Crab impression doesn't exi--
29:03 I love your thoughts about 2v2 and map pools in general. Completely agree and I personally never liked the turtle style of 2v2 maps. It just limits the number of options and almost always ends up in macro late game.
When I think back to SC:BW 2v2 matches, and let's say0 maps such as Lost Temple, or Fighting Spirit... this is what I'd like to see in battle aces. When all 4 players are separated, it really opens up all sorts of strategies.
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THERAPY
I CANT that's hilarious.
CBT1 certainly did at times feel like CBT, can't wait for CBT2
Battle Aces is the true next-gen RTS, unlike the other big name RTS that that got released very recently... Btw thats a great King Crab impression at 17:05 :D
I agree that balancing through maps is more "organic", but I worry how feasible it is. Like you said with the StarCraft 2v2 maps, if seems like it's an all or nothing approach where either mega turtle is the best strategy, or it's unplayable based on the map. So I guess to keep it more simple, doing unit tweaks for the different modes is the easiest, but there needs to be like a pop-up when you queue for 2v2, 3v3, etc. which gives you a list of units that are different from the "main" mode.
I like that circle for the grounded units. I'd love something similar for air where applicable. In the cbt I felt lost as to what beats what without being able to run it in a test. Granted I realize there were some keywords I didn't instantly know were keywords, but I think leaning into that is good.
"can kinda attack like this..."
proceed to imitate stabycrabby. lmao
I really don't like the 2v2 specific changes, I think unit stats are just way too fundamental to be changed for different modes.
I'd even prefer unit resource cost adjustments to health/damage/speed. This would make more sense when touching "unit stats" since battle aces is a micro focused game. Being able to quickly gauge what army beats what army at a glance should be a core concept and shouldn't be different within the same patch. It's like how that initial trivia was used to demonstrate the power of the new turret role for anti-air.
Ultimately stuff like different maps, deck limitations, etc... would be preferred for balancing different modes.
I thought CBT stood for cck and bll torture.
I see bomber changes, I smile. Banelings forever
They need to adjust something so you actuallly se the units and the nice graphics. Units looks cool in view mode, but looks like a blobb ingame
CBT stands for closed beta test. lol.
no shit, genius
Just a reminder that no matter how much they attempt to balance, move, shift, delete and create units, if there isn't a draft mode for ranked people will get burned out of the RNG pretty fast.
We need a super fast draft like 20 seconds maximum. Otherwise its gonna take so long compared to game time
great content
I'm really looking forward to this second test. It's amazing as a side-game for some RTS fans. I love their open communication so far as well.
side game? watch your mouth, my guy.
@@mickeyromeo It can be anyone's main game, it doesn't matter. It's a great side game for me because I can slot into my day for 15-30 minutes, and leave perfectly satisfied. I'll probably play it more often (in very short sessions) than whatever "main game" I have.
I wish they would change the stutter-step way that units attack, to be more of a niche.
My personal experience has been that the limited number of units that can move and shoot at the same time feel more fun to play with.
Also, for most of the units, it just looks unrealistic for them to stop, shoot, then continue moving.
I get it, infantry does that, you have to stop to shoot your rifle. But mechanized robots specifically designed to deliver destruction at the cheapest cost should have a means of moving and attacking at the same time.
They can balance out and diversify the attack patterns by :
- making some units move slower by some %, when attacking
- having to reload after a few shots, unless idling for a time without attacking or sth
- giving an attack cone and an adjusted turn rate
- etc
I know it's gonna piss off some hardcore "in want to stutter-step EVERY UNIT IN THIS GAME" gamers, but this game is so innovative and fun compared to all other current rts games, that I hope they go the fun route instead of the boring "as everybody else" route.
The general thing that i dont like in attack moving unit is that you cant really disengage them, since stutersteping is always slower than just moving. I think there is a place to make attack moving unit that have a "stance" where they can shoot, but move slower
remove macro and now lets remove micro, amazing idea.
lets now add p2w and make it a gacha game. sounds fun and not boring
Would never work as firing on the move would completely outclass melee units or would just be the worse choice compared to overcharge if their move speed was slowed.