Brad has a pre-mortem for Ashes of the Singularity up on Gamasutra.

Check it out here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/BradWardell/20160104/262961/Ashes_of_the_Singularity_PREmortem.php

 


Comments
on Jan 05, 2016

Not bad at all, i still think that Power Regulatort need to be destroyed if the enemy Conquer that region and When you build a Power Regulator it should come with a tower Defense on top of it (the same kind of a smartie). At least to stop up to 3 T1 group of units.

on Jan 05, 2016

I'm glad Brad is thinking on these terms. It bodes very well for the fun-ness factor. It seems to me a core choice is one that sets the tone for at least the next few minutes of the game, if not longer. Air vs. land would be such a choice. T1 vs. T2 would be. Orbital vs unit spam vs defensive buildings another. 

I'm having some trouble with factory vs. expand as a core choice in 0.71. If you choose to build the factory right away, you forfeit your ability to gain a region before the neutrals spawn. This path puts your unit production about 15 seconds ahead of the expand choice, but not really because you have to send units to grab that region eventually. As such, it is never better to build the factory first, so it's not really a choice.

There IS a choice for the expand option though: metal or radioactives? The former may allow you to sustain spamming T1 units and weak defenses for longer, whereas the latter would give you earlier access to more quanta and advanced units. This choice could be made starker by giving the player a one-time per region bump in the associated resource the instant they capture a region (say 50 for radioactives, 100 for metal). This would also make the subsequent order of expansion choices more impactful, and would help with some of the early game economy stall problems.

on Jan 06, 2016

I really dont like the part about those newbie traps. Things like that lead to shit like optimal build orders and whatnot, in other words create situation, when eventually you got to the same series of steps at the beginning of the match, if you dont want to lose... i think all the choices presented to player at the beginning of the match should be equally meaningful and only wrong depending on the situation (what the opposing player is doing)....and not dead ends by default.

on Jan 06, 2016

Timmaigh

I really dont like the part about those newbie traps. Things like that lead to shit like optimal build orders and whatnot, in other words create situation, when eventually you got to the same series of steps at the beginning of the match, if you dont want to lose... i think all the choices presented to player at the beginning of the match should be equally meaningful and only wrong depending on the situation (what the opposing player is doing)....and not dead ends by default.

It seems unlikely to make all current paths viable. Building a dread factory the instant you have access to radioactivess for example. I can see it being possible to eliminate non-viable dead ends by making the dead end paths unobtainable until your economy can handle it. But then the game is putting restrictions on build orders so there are only a few paths. This means you are still following optimal build orders; the game is just funneling you into them. There would be reduced potential for novel builds, or builds unique to particular maps or team arrangements. Is there some other way to retain build variety while still eliminating newbie traps?

on Jan 06, 2016

eviator


Quoting Timmaigh,

I really dont like the part about those newbie traps. Things like that lead to shit like optimal build orders and whatnot, in other words create situation, when eventually you got to the same series of steps at the beginning of the match, if you dont want to lose... i think all the choices presented to player at the beginning of the match should be equally meaningful and only wrong depending on the situation (what the opposing player is doing)....and not dead ends by default.



It seems unlikely to make all current paths viable. Building a dread factory the instant you have access to radioactivess for example. I can see it being possible to eliminate non-viable dead ends by making the dead end paths unobtainable until your economy can handle it. But then the game is putting restrictions on build orders so there are only a few paths. This means you are still following optimal build orders; the game is just funneling you into them. There would be reduced potential for novel builds, or builds unique to particular maps or team arrangements. Is there some other way to retain build variety while still eliminating newbie traps?

 

This is indeed true, but if the choice is basically dead end and newbie trap, its not much of a choice at all. Might as well not be there, cause all it does is frustrate inexperienced players. 

Ideally, i think, the game should be decided on things like players not scouting properly and then building wrong units not countering the ones of the opposing players, or walking with his army into part of the map with enemy having higher ground, thus being at disadvantage and getting rekt.... rather than building too many extractors on his starting spot, which is always a bad choice, cause if you did all the math, you would find out that you could have saved X seconds, if you expanded to neighbouring sector instead...or whatever was the point of that part of the article...

on Jan 06, 2016

Surely what is viable or not depends on the map. 15 seconds here or there is not going to lose you the game on a huge map. Also if you don't know the map and you have terrain obscured you may play differently too. Under those conditions I get a Pan out much earlier so I can see and get a feel for things. (I really hope random map maker a-la Civ makes it into the game at some point as exploring unknown maps in-game are fun and add to the experience, for us casual players at least)

I do hope there is not just one best opening strategy on the smaller maps for obvious reasons.

on Jan 06, 2016

There is no scenario where your first move should be to build a Smarty.