Observations about the (Mid) Ranked Ashes Community as it Relates to the Game's Design Philosophy

So I have played a fairly good number of ranked games, am something like rank 5 or 6 now, and have noticed a somewhat worrisome tendency among the vast majority of people I have played against. In a word, they are playing an entirely different game than I am (not literally, of course); my opponents are usually strictly trying to out eco me without seeming to give a thought to territory adjacency or combat (beyond mass production and just quick teching). In the (roughly) 30 games I have played there have been about 8 to 10 where my opponent and I are just clearly at very different skill/knowledge levels with the game, so I'll throw those out, but many of the remaining 20 games or so I got the distinct impression that my opponent was doing very minimal and uncoordinated territory expansion and just generally trying to play Sim City in and around their base. 

So, some qualifications here: 1. This sort of thing happens in all RTSs. I distinctly remember it in FA, and a little bit in COH (I played one guy who never left his base area and refused to do anything but fortify it, and when I gently told him he needed to expand to have any hope of winning the game, he replied "I DEFEND BASE"). However, I'd say I have only played maybe 3 or 4 games where it actually seemed like my opponent was reasonably evenly matched and understood the importance of expansion.  My experience with RTSs tells me this is kinda low.

2: To a certain extent, it is good that the game allows for variation in play-style and it is good that the game includes certain ways to get more income out of less territory!  Yet, in the mid-ranks, my experience bears out that it's not so much a different way of playing the game so much as an inability or unwillingness to do most anything that doesn't involve building tons of stuff or pumping tons of stuff out. 

So, obviously, this is my subjective experience, and I'm sure some or perhaps many will disagree about my observations here.  But, assuming you buy my story, why does this happen?  I think this game, even more than something like FA, comes off as a real time empire manager and appeals to people who like power eco and really don't care for the other aspects of the game.  Arguably, part of this problem comes down to people/ "the user," but I think there is another problem here.  While I think Ashes is great in most respects it has one fundamental problem: it lacks a cohesive vision for what it is trying to be.  By trying to be 1 part FA, 1 part COH, and 1 part SoSE, the game if flooded with fans of all all those games, but the problem is is that many of those players are trying using Ashes as way to replay those old favorites and, frankly, part of this is the design of Ashes. 

By being many RTS at once, but not really fleshing out its own identity, the player base gets fragmented and multiplayer becomes less fun (more inclusive, sure, but less fun).  By giving people so many building options and so few combat options, the game design is, more so than FA or COH, encouraging the kind of dubious play decision I described here.

I still play this game and think it is a good deal of fun, but devs, I implore you: before you go and add a bunch more stuff to the game, expansion or what have you, you have to decide what the game wants to be.

I have read Frogboy describe the great aspects of Ashes, and one of the things he mentioned was that the game belongs to the community.  Certainly, that is a great thing in ways, but it overlooks the problems with democracy (which can end up as a tyranny of the majority).  If the game is given over too much to the community it will become uncohesive and a tyranny of the majority.  More than anything going forward this game needs a vision, a sense of identity, or what it is trying to be, rather what combinations of things people like from old games. 

 

 

74,338 views 13 replies +1 Loading…
Reply #1 Top

I don't see how this is a dev problem at all. You will quickly go beyond your rank of that's the sort of people you're playing with. Many new players which suck compared to top leve play.

 

you can compare that to any game really, good level is entirely different from a competitive level. Play any match vs the top 10 and tell me you think there is a design flaw (: 

Reply #2 Top

Perhaps I misspoke or you misunderstood: I don't think the think the behavior of my competitors is indicative of a design flaw per se (more a design philosophy), and, if you look at my post, I do qualify that my experiences are well, my experiences and obviously highly subjective and prone to all the selection bias/cognitive biases people have in general, lol.

What i am saying is that it is, perhaps, indicative of this game's identity crisis/ the community divisions that are occurring because there are so many different types of players playing this game (which is good!) but they seem to be trying to recreate their old favorites in Ashes regardless of how bad that makes them at the game.

I play many people who are way way better at eco than me, but do not even seem to be really trying to fight me.  I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, this isn't a lack of skill on their part so much as a lack of wanting to play the game as it is intended.  To put it another way, they lose to me not because they are bad, but because they don't care for the combat.  I kinda don't blame them, the combat is under-cooked at this point. 

My main point is this(sorry, I know I talking in a wandering kinda way): The biggest question Ashes needs to answer is how it is going to make combat interesting.  This is not so much a design flaw so much as a hole the game can fall into.  I believe this is the reason the community seems so weird (I play a lot of RTSs); production is pretty interesting as it is, but combat is really just a timing game and a function of production.  I understand, for instance, the decision not to allow targeting individual units within an army. In my humble opinion, there needs to be more to manage with armies than just their composition and what abilities dreadnaughts earn, because as it stands, army management is an afterthought compared to eco/production.

 

 

Reply #3 Top

Again I guess I don't get what you mean. Combat is as interesting in ashes as with other rts. The flow or speed of the game is somewhat so but nevermind. Upping movement speed would be some where that I'd be happy with.

 

With army management, I disagree again with you that there is a lot more to it than just composition and dread abilities. The breaking and joining to reset enemy targeting is a game in itself. I guess with this you need to be playing against better players to see?

 

but just going back to your comment about a player playing the game without a thought to combat. Let them play that way, they won't win. It's just that simple. If I wanted to play cod as if I were in Lara craft.. Id lose a lot too..

Reply #4 Top

So I whole heartedly disagree that combat is as good in this game as in other Rtss. To be fair, a lot of that has to do with the size of the forces involved and making the game so that combat is fun or that their are meaningful decisions is probably really very difficult. Combat isn't bad now, but it mostly boils down to throw stuff at other stuff and decide what upgrades are best. 

 

I don't really know about resetting enemy targeting, but, on the face of it, that hardly sounds exciting. I will get better to the poinew the game becomes boring and, from the sounds of it, messing with army targeting that way sounds pretty superficial and unappealing....

 

As for letting people play how they want to play....well, I guess you and I differ in that winning isn't very important for me, I am a weirdo who like to have fun.  If I am continually winning because other players aren't really fighting me, at some point I'm going to stop trying to rack up wins because shooting fish in a barrel isn't my idea if a good time. I'm sure high level players can kick my *ick in, but  again the challenge isn't really the issue so much as the fun factor.

Reply #5 Top

Well once you get to rank 1-4 by then I'd imagine you won't be winning vs city builders!

Reply #6 Top

So, your whole point seems to be "get gud". I agree that I am not very good, but uhhhh neither is like 98% of the other people who play the game so yah, I don't think it should be designed around the top tier (unless the development likes going bankrupt) As insightful as your input is, it really isn't contributing to how the game's developmenent should progress.

 

Apparently, you are really good at this somewhat unfinished game with a low skill ceiling, congratulations?

 

 

 

Reply #7 Top

No my point is not for you to get good.

 

my point was, as you're winning and it's boring right now, you will pass beyond the bad and hit the better players that require you to be more alert and will give you a better game. When climbing the ladder it does have a nice catch up mechanic based on +stars for consecutive wins.

 

now you're salty because I don't agree with you. 

i don't really get be problem here though, your complaint is people are playing the game differently to you. They are going to do That anyway. No rush games for example in supcom2 or just a spoken agreement.

you mentioned sim city I can only think of anno now. 

 

i just don't think you can suggest altering a design of a game based on peoples wishes or wants that the game was another. The game is a combat rts. You fight to win, if you don't want to fight you will lose.

I am only referencing top level play because that's what you seem to want to be exposed to. You talk like you play the game like that.

 

i think something has to be noted that anyway above rank 2 from my point of view are generally bad at the game. So until my get into the Elo based section or close I wouldn't expect anyone who knows too much. You just need a positive win rate to get to that. And since it doesn't matter if you win against a 1 or a 10 

Reply #8 Top

Well, I am getting a bit salty, not because we disagree about the game so much as we disagree about what I am saying!

Quoting Freyja_Bjorn, reply 7

i just don't think you can suggest altering a design of a game based on peoples wishes or wants that the game was another.
End of Freyja_Bjorn's quote

You will kindly note I said the pretty much the same thing in OP:


"I have read Frogboy describe the great aspects of Ashes, and one of the things he mentioned was that the game belongs to the community. Certainly, that is a great thing in ways, but it overlooks the problems with democracy (which can end up as a tyranny of the majority). If the game is given over too much to the community it will become uncohesive and a tyranny of the majority."

So, while I agree that I was arguing that the game design be altered, I was arguing that it be altered in such a way that they ignore people like me more! A bit paradoxical, but there you have it.  Game design is not something that should be put to a vote, but if it is put to a vote, I will vote that we stop putting it to a vote! If they are taking opinions, I want them to hear my opinion that they really shouldn't listen to our opinions very much. Make sense?

Quoting Freyja_Bjorn, reply 7

I am only referencing top level play because that's what you seem to want to be exposed to. You talk like you play the game like that.
End of Freyja_Bjorn's quote

Oh god no.  There is not enough time in the day for that ( I have only been posting all day because nothing is happening at work, but I want to appear as tho I am working).  But, if i did want to go pro, I will say there is a problem: I either completely obliterate the other player or the other player completely obliterates me.  Of the like 30 games I played there were only like 3 or 4 matches that were really what you could fairly call back and forth or evenly matched.  Those matches were awesome!  The problem is, is that they are so few and far between that it's hard to really learn the game.  If you ever read "Reality is Broken" or if you know anything about the psychology of gaming, the best way to learn a game is to face a steadily increasing level of challenge.  Of course, no RTS's match making system will is able to do this perfectly (or even decently if the community is small) but it is the best, most fun way to learn. Possibly due to no fault of the devs, it doesn't currently exist for Ashes, at least not in the middle ranks.

 

I did get kind of salty, but please understand, it was because you were telling me I was wrong when I bent over backwards to say "I could be totally wrong about this" 

Also:

Quoting Freyja_Bjorn, reply 7

You fight to win, if you don't want to fight you will lose.
End of Freyja_Bjorn's quote

Exactly! I will say the people who don't want to fight stay in the game until the bitter end.  I admire the tenacity they show in sticking out the game. I don't bring this up to say "they suck" so much as like, I am like genuinely fascinated in how these players stick out games like that! I mean. In every other RTS I have played, it is rare to see someone not surrender, rage quit, or accuse you of hacks when you pasting them.  It's admirable, in its own unique way.

 

 

 

 

Reply #9 Top

I share lots of your thoughts :).

As you said, I think the city building / turtling is just something that happens in every RTS on lower skill levels. I think Ashes is actually doing quite well in discouraging it by making it a reasonably inefficient strategy. I personally haven't even seen much of the kind of annoying experience ruining turtling that I've seen in CoH and FAF. I also share your observations about the lack of rage quits and bad behavior from the loosing side in Ashes. I think somehow Ashes has managed to make loosing a much more enjoyable experience than what it usually is in RTS games. And as if agreeing on three things weren't enough, I also agree with you that the combat in Ashes is currently a bit plain. I have a few ideas on how to make it a bit more strategic experience and posted about them in the ideas forum: https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/478443

Reply #10 Top

Hey, glad to hear i don't sound like a raving mad man, haha. I really enjoy talking about this game and have a problem condensing my thoughts, so I'm glad to hear some of the things I post are actually received. 

I totally agree with turtling actually not being terribly viable, discouraged, and yah, dealing with turtles is never really as agitating as it can be in many of my favorite games in the genre. That said, I feel like something about the game's design encourages over-turtling and premature teching. Facing turtles is rarely a headache in this game, it'seems just a bit boring.

 

Glad you agree about combat; I think how combat will progress is the biggest and most difficult thing Ashes faces going forward.  How do you allow for interesting player choices and player investment without creating an overly demanding amount of micro? I have some ideas, but few I'm thrilled enough with to share.

 

I look forward to checking out your thread.

Reply #11 Top

i think a lot of the problems is lies with time( this game needs time to adjust both in game and out game ) however there is a lot more to the game that is seen once you get to the top tiers of ranked matches, you will understand what i mean by the link.

https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/478425/page/1/

some of the players from the top tiers do seems to share some of the same opinions i posted about and that is good, otherwise you wont find a good commen line to stand on.

 

 

Reply #12 Top

mate, the ranked games where I roll over the enemy's are my fav haha don't take them away :p

i struggle to see how the enemy beat me in the games where I got smashed by lvl 1 players.  They just steam rolled me and there's little or no info on these forums for getting better.  You just have to play and suck it up.  I sometimes fly over the enemy base for ideas on my way out. 

I think replays will certainly help people get better quicker.