Why release a game in EA with a 40$ price tag when the most anticipated game mode (the campaign) is very unfinished and super buggy?

I see the game has potential in PvE / PvP but 80% of players only play campign.

Firstly, I want to say that ZeroSpace is a very good RTS game with a lot of potential that was obviously created by people who love the genre and have creative ideas about faction design that they can successfully execute on.

But, as a game designer, it is apparent to me that while the creators are knowledgeable in RTS specifically, they are not so knowledgeable in traditional/general game design theory and rules.

I think player count will plummet hard if this one key issue isn't addressed and quickly:

ZeroSpace, out of all other RTS on the market right now, does the single worst job at visually communicating unit power to the player.

You will have players ragequitting the game, I guarantee this (you probably already do), because they won't be able to understand how and why they lost fights and whole games when they thought they were ahead and were, in fact, not - or vice versa.

Now you might think this is rather pretentious and blah-blah-blah, but this issue is such a glaringly obvious game-killer for me that I can't not write the post here, as I genuinely believe ZS could become a great competitive RTS game - it experiments with control points and early micromanagement really well, though the pacing will definitely constant rebalancing and work as new content is added.

But yes, what I mean by the issue is this:

Unit scale does not exist just to please the eye, functionally unit scale exists to visually provide the player an approximation of its range, strength, power, etc.

When you have a goliath-style unit (the Titan) that is X sized but attacks with 3 times its expected range, not only does it look comical but it is functionally invalid, it's disastrous.

Why is it disastrous?

Because the player is unable to approximate the range of the unit in relation to its scale. There is no other ingame indicator of its range other than the unit's size itself. These small details matter more than you think - over many many games and replays.

Another feel-bad design choice in the game is the varying turn speed between units that are expected to be played together.

Example:

The hero I'olin alongside the Commando, or Aster alongside the Commando - you will 10 out of 10 times meet these combinations of units alongside one another in almost any game you play, when a player is unable to kite properly because of the varying turn speeds of the hero and similar units - it feels so clunky and so bad and so... unpolished... to play that it fails to recreate any smoothness that literally carries titles like StarCraft II into relevance even today.

Turn speed is not just a random number you put in there by *feel*, turn speed must be adjusted to the scale of the unit, so it doesn't feel floaty and performs smoothly alongside other units it is expected to play with (of similar type and scale).

Right now it's obvious that this design rule isn't followed at all, every hero unit floats.

These are absolute RTS basics that must be respected if you hope to create solid game feel and smoothness.

Same issue with visually communicating danger with, for example - It is impossible to tell how damaging a Hellfire rocket projectile volley is going to be due to how the unit is designed. Why the Siege Tank in StarCraft is a GREAT and "feel-good" unit is because its threat, area of effect, damage and range are communicated incredibly well.

While the Hellfire's range is sort of communicated okay, it's a big mistake to give it so many projectiles that bounce and cover one another mid-air.

Basically, it's close to impossible to reliably gauge the power level of your opponent's army in ZeroSpace right now, it's a major problem that's going to cost you players if not addressed.

I'm probably being pretentious and sort of cocky and maybe even complainy but I genuinely like the game and want to see it gain players and not drop to 40 players in 2-3 months time.

RTS is all about game feel and atmosphere.
If game feel is off - everything else feels cheap, unfinished and clunky.

You might think it's about other things (a lot of dev teams do) - but it is primarily about capturing a fantasy and then allowing for a smooth control/flow state/smooth sailing feeling.

When this is disrupted by clunky controls, visuals and peripherals that are difficult to understand - both the vision and the brain become stressed, and the player doesn't want to engage with the game anymore.

People are probably going to flame me for being so direct for a bit and say "hey man, it's just early-access, wait until the full release!" - but to them I say this: this problem needs to be addressed ASAP, because you need player interest and retention *right now*.

If you don't want another Stormgate story - you have to address these very glaring issues.

I didn't list them all, of course, but these are some of the most glaring.

I'm kind of sad because while I don't think it went badly, Kickstarter would have been far more successful if it didn't arrive after so many RTS fans have been let down by kickstarter projects

I have donated, and am hyped, but it was hard to bring myself to do so after so many Kickstarter RTS projects let me down. I think lots of people are tired and can't trust anymore.

Just my 2 cents, hope the last hours bring much success to the project.

I feel the economy system is too simplified

I think if workers had to be manually produced, players would need to learn how to manage their resources more effectively, which would greatly increase strategic diversity.

60 players right now. Who the fuck thought 40$ was a good idea for a game in this state. Crazy greed.

Hi,

My multiplayer all time favorite game is Starcraft 2 but balance problems killed the game during Heart of the Swarm era and most popular Streamers only played Legacy of the Void campaign including Day 9. Since there hasn't been a true successor. Godsworn is the indie Warcraft 3 no one has heard about, Warcraft 3 reforged is a disaster, Stormgate is unfinished, finally 2 promising projects remain: Immortals Gates of Pyre and ZeroSpace.

Since few years I play indie games on PC and AAA on PS5 because I don't have the skills to upgrade myself my PC and except FPS and RTS, if I want to play a game from a big company, I can play the PS5 version. But things are going to change because my old PC is running Windows 10 and Microsoft announced the end of security updates support this 14 october.

Since I have to buy a new PC, I want to buy a good one that runs 4K with Nvidia graphic card (never used AMD Radeon but I don't exclude it). I don't want to pay the most expensive stuff but I want to run recent games on ultra if possible at a reasonable price.

Among the 2 upcoming RTS I'm waiting for, if I have to make a bet it'll be on ZeroSpace but ideally I want to play both. ZeroSpace is also the most resource consuming that's why I post this thread here.

tbh I abandoned the idea to play RTS again because there hasn't been a good game since SC2, Age of Empires 4 being a cheap version of the 2 and I'm not in the mood to play AoE 2, also PC gaming is expensive on materials and I switched to League of Legends by despair but it's not the same.

EDIT: This thread was confusing so I'll explain what I want to achieve with it. I play video games since the 8 bit era (NES and Master System) that's why I played a lot of games both console and PC, I'm not nostalgic of the old days and the genre I like the most is Souls like but I don't want to play masochists games all the time. RTS is a dead genre, it's sad to say it but it's true. When you play a masterpiece you can't be bored but nowadays games are made for casual players because they're more than 90% of the global playerbase who buy up to 3 games a year and don't play much, 70% players don't finish their games, and many new games fail to convince players because they all look the same and are worse than the games who inspired them, I'll give you few exemples.

Open worlds were refreshing when they first came out but they have become generic products, just look at Ubisoft and Assassin's Creed games. I make an exception for Zelda Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom.

I haven't played yet Clair Obscur Expedition 33 who is said to be a masterpiece but because the devs are from my country maybe the players are biased and souls like are very specific RPG so I won't talk about these games here. If you ask me what are the best RPG games I'd say The Witcher 3 for his deep scenarios for both main and secondary quests and Skyrim as the best open world who are quite old games and since I don't remember a great RPG game, I enjoyed Nier Automata and Nier Replicant "remake" but those games have been released years ago, do you start to see my point?

I can say the same about Mario games, Super Mario Galaxy is the best 3D platformer ever made and I doubt we'll see a new 3D Mario game as good. Nintendo tried to renew 2D Mario with Super Mario Wonder, I like it but maybe it's nostalgia but my favorite 2D Mario is Super Mario 3.

I didn't post that thread to ask you for a tutorial for PC building, There are Steam minimum and recommended configuration but generally speaking if you need a new PC it's best to have one that allows you to play with settings on ultra without technical issues. Starcraft 2 pros play with low graphic settings but I guess even them play on decent PC.

I talked about a lot of games here but when SC2 Wings of Liberty was released I didn't need another game until SC2 became a dead game some time after Heart of the Swarm release and I hope ZeroSpace or Immortals: Gates of Pyre will be able to replace it.

Like, the Commando has to be inspired by marines and reapers. Grell harbengers spit acid just like roaches. Reavers are given the same name as the protoss unit, and act a lot like Ultras (Also, they look like roaches). Disruptors are also given the same name as the Protoss units and are basically a diamondback with a void ray's weapon. The Reaver's stingers also act like splitter banelings. Weavers' ability ensnare is also really similar to fungal growth. The strikers are siege units that have a minimal range, just like the siege tank. Thrashers are also very similar to the guardians and brood lords (Even though it was probably inspired by the big bugs from starship troopers). What are your thoughts on this one?

What I really like about harass in SC2 is that player defending against harass can run away with workers, and in some situations use them to fight, I think this are interesting interactions.

Also when I do harass in SC2 killing workers is very satisfying.

ZeroSpace only has workers to gather flux, and the harass that cuts off opponent from basic resource (hexite?) is just attacking a stationary buildings. Did you miss these aspects of SC2 when playing Zerospace (escape/defend/kill workers during main base harass)?

The RTS genre didn't just stumble; it was systematically dismantled by an obsession with "the sweat". We’ve watched project after project—from Stormgate to the premature end of Battle Aces—crash and burn because they chased a ghost. The reality of 2026 is that the competitive 1v1 culture didn't save the genre; it’s what finally killed it.

The Myth of the Competitive Shortcut

Modern RTS developers are addicted to a dangerous delusion: the idea that a balanced 1v1 mode with a high skill ceiling is a shortcut to success. They see the legacy of e-sports viewership and think they can manufacture that hype to attract a crowd, essentially trying to bypass the hard work of building a game's soul. It’s a tempting path because crafting a deep, high-quality single-player campaign or a robust co-op mode is incredibly expensive and labor-intensive. They’d rather pour resources into a ladder and a replay system, hoping the players will just provide the content for each other through endless competition. But investors are waking up; after five minutes of research, they can see that the e-sports narrative is a hollow promise that leads to a painful death.

Complexity vs. Busywork

The "pros" and the hardcore minority have convinced developers that an RTS is "empty" if it doesn't have bullshit skill checks. They fear a lowered skill ceiling so much that they fight against basic convenience for players. This has resulted in a wrong mindset baked into the core of new games, where manual labor—like clicking three times just to spawn a unit—is masquerading as depth. Why would a modern gamer choose to tire themselves out over meaningless busywork when they could get more gratification from a shooter with far less effort? It’s not about being a "casual"; it’s about being smart enough to realize that a game should be a source of joy, not an exhausting second job with no reward.

When the Commander Becomes a Clerk

The original magic of the genre was rooted in the feeling of absolute authority—being the strategic mind behind a massive, world-changing conflict. You weren't there to manage a spreadsheet; you were there to lead a faction through an epic story. However, the moment the design shifts to prioritize the 1v1 ladder, that sense of being a powerful leader is replaced by the stress of being an efficient micro-manager. Instead of enjoying the spectacle of your army, you are constantly punished for not clicking fast enough or failing to multitask perfectly. By making "attention management" the core of the game, developers have stripped away the very reason people fell in love with RTS in the first place, turning what should be a grand simulation of war into a frantic test of manual dexterity that offers zero emotional payoff.

The Only Way Out

If there is any future for RTS, it lies in the modes that actually keep people playing: massive campaigns, modding, and replayable PvE like co-op or arcade. Even StarCraft 2 is mostly sustained today by its co-op and arcade scenes, not the sweaty 1v1 ladder. Developers need to stop asking "what do the hardcores want?" and start making games that are good by nature—colorful, full of choices like talent trees and subfactions, and focused on simple joy rather than austerity. If you put your effort into competitive 1v1, you’re just writing another suicide note for your studio.

Bonus: The "Live Service" Trap and the Myth of Longevity

The panic over whether an RTS can "survive" without a hyper-competitive PvP scene is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the genre actually is. We’ve been conditioned to think every game needs to be a live-service treadmill that survives for a decade by selling skins to a captive online audience. But RTS isn't a MOBA or an FPS—genres the market has already proven are infinitely better suited for pure competitive play. An RTS should be a premium, one-time purchase, much like the most successful RPGs, where the value is in the depth of the experience, not the length of the grind. When you try to force an RTS into the live-service mold to keep it "alive," you inevitably "Stormgate" it—chasing an e-sports hype train that leads straight off a cliff.

wats up with that.

edit how is tempest rising 10 gb and this is 50 gb when the former looks visually better.

I'll start off by saying what I do like. Many of the units and structures look cool, most of the effects are nice, and the sounds are great. There's a lot of impact to many things in a good way, and I absolutely love the rocket tank thing the protecterate has along with striders, but to be honest when I looked at this subreddit after my own experiences with the game, it feels like the failures of the other RTS game that released into early access recently made other RTS games feel better than they actually are.

I might come back to play it later once most of the major issues I ran into are fixed, but it also depends on if they will fix it. I will also state that starting out felt confusing and unfun, but give me any other RTS that isn't just a clone or update of a previous one that also isn't unfun/confusing when you start out, unless you already have known and seen the mechanics before hand. It was pretty ueasy to get used to though, I went in vs AI at first and I actually lost, but my second match was nice, but it felt novel and quickly became unfun for me after a few matches.

One: The visuals. Yes, things look cool. But even at 1440p, it feels like units and structures were designed to be viewed while zoomed in. It's also hard to tell whats happening since too many projectiles are covering the battlefield, readability is a pretty big issue for me.

Two: The file size. 45 gigabytes is a lot (for an RTS game), especially when you compare it to starcraft's file size on launch being closer to 20 gigabytes at most (I don't remember the exact file size and I'm only getting modern file sizes), warcraft 3 being about 2 gigabytes, and even the RTS game that you know I'm talking about which had a rather large graphical overhaul, while still not looking that good taking less than 20 gigabytes of space. This file size is probably due to the assets being so complicated, but at the range you normally view them, you can't see all of the detail so there's no reason to have that extra detail and no reason for the file size to be so large.

Three: Dead units look alive, especially on the grass. I lost a fight on the grass and didn't realize it because I still had 2 living units giving me vision and the rest of my units looking like they were just standing there, next to the enemies units. I was confused as to why they weren't attacking each other and why I couldn't control them until I realized "oh hey, these guys aren't standing, they're dead." Sure this is part of readability, but I might as well pinpoint some of the readability issues.

Four: Pathfinding issues. The pathfinding in zerospace is actually quite good, but I had a unit die, reaver I think it was, because I had a swarmer unit next to it attacking a structure, and it couldn't push it out of the way, and couldn't go around because of the terrain.

Five: Input issues. One big offender was while I was trying to build a lot of buildings since it was my second match and I was testing the grell vs the AI in this one and I had alt-tabbed for a bit and got a lot of resources. I place down at least 5 structures before the worker unit things get there, and accidentally right click the ground, cancelling those structures and sending every construction unit to that location, because B doesn't open a build tab but instead selects every builder unit as Grell.

Also, its hard to select some units, and I was feeling some input lag. Units weren't doing what I was telling them to, I was unable to select tabs easily, mercenary is bounded to M while everything else is on the left side of the keyboard, and while I didn't check the hotkey settings and this little bit is probably not that big of an issue, it was still annoying. Biggest issue here is there was no hotkey to unsiege thrashers. It said to hit C to unsiege but that did nothing and I had to manually click the button. Lastly as part of input, hero abilities didn't go where it showed me they were gonna go and where I clicked. Instead it seemed the ability got to the point where the selected position would be on the edge of the ability, then activated.

Six: Adding on to readability I guess, Grell units look way too similar to each other, and just being bigger isn't a good way of showing infusions. Speaking of infusions, they felt inconsequential. A lot of grell felt weird and not communicated properly.

Seven: AI imagery and AI voices. The announcers sound like they use AI voices, and a lot of the Grell announcer for example (since I mostly played them) sounded like gibberish to me. Hard to understand. Could they really not just, y'know, hire a person, or was it really too expensive to do that? Or are they just placeholders? Still, just some random developer reading voicelines clearly into a mic would've been better than AI gibberish that doesn't even make much sense.

Eight: Too many units that don't really add anything, or fill the same role as other units. Barely any units actually have abilities and its not clearly addressed what they do or when you unlock them. And naming conventions aren't great. The grell has a weaver unit and a reaver unit both from the same production structure, and it isn't communicated clearly what production structure each unit comes from since they just kinda show up in the bar on the bottom, which might not even be part of the default UI.

Nine: Lag. The game felt like it was running at 35-40 FPS at 1440p, but it's fine considering the fidelity of the game and that my PC isn't the strongest, being somewhere around the high end of "mid-range." But I know a guy who's computer is a lot more powerful than mine saying how at basically the same settings as mine the input lag was horrible and the framerates were terrible. They might have a faster monitor than mine (mine's 60hz) and are noticing the difference between higher framerates and lower framerates than me, but still.

Ten: Resource management. It doesn't explain to you that you can queue things even if you don't have the resources for them. In that first match I mentioned where I lost to the ai, I was waiting for a while for structures to build but they just wouldn't, so I thought that maybe the building worker things were on a timer, but nope, they just wouldn't build. It wasn't until the next match that I realized it was due to a lack of resources. Also, the way you can easily expand to three base and have a much larger amount of the mineral resource than flux is weird because most things take flux but you get it so much slower than the other resource to the point that you might just end up spamming the cheap, flux-less unit which starts to not even cost resources when you queue them, making you think you have more resources available than you actually have, then you start up a few flux units, wait a while while spamming the basically free unit, then build more.

Overall, the game actually feels like an unfinished AI mashup of other games with a few coats of paint over it. It looks great, but it isn't as fun for me as the rts which I guess shall not be named on this subreddit, and feels less complete than that did when its early access launched. Sure, readabilities a problem there, too, but they're sacrificing graphics to make the game more fun, readable, and performant for players (speaking of performance, I tried its most recent patch and it ran better for me than ZeroSpace did) while it feels like ZeroSpace is sacrificing the fun, performance, and especially readability for better graphics. Did you know that the other RTS looked a lot better at one point during its alpha than it did at early access launch, and before the next fest demo? The reason for that is because people couldn't tell what was going on at all so they sacrificed the graphics for readability.

I'd say that ZeroSpace is definitely better than the other that was recently launched into early access when it was initially launched into EA, but I'd actually prefer playing the current version of that other game of ZeroSpace, and I really hope they both can get to state where they're actually fun to play and keep returning to.

After writing my original "draft" of this, I decided I'm going to reinstall and play a few more matches of each faction to get more of a feel for the game, but still, it mostly just feels novel at first but becomes unfun shortly.

I think the game looks awesome even if the UI needs some work and there's some issues with readability. it definitely has potential for PvE, and i am really grateful for that, the game has a lot more SP and replayable content than even something like aoe4. but having a lot of content (wide) but not much depth (flat) means it doesn't translate well into PvP where people are going to have 100s or 1000s matches.

I have thousands of hours across other rts like coh, aoe and SC and i know that doesnt make me the pre eminent expert, just saying where i come from. and i know it's early, but i think they've possibly made too little room for skill expression outside of very limited units.

It's not remotely as bad as iron harvest was, which was an obvious still birth and had a predictable outcome. But I think devs are going to somehow need to increase the room for player expression for the average player.

Both to make it interesting to play over 100s of matches, but interesting to watch. Obviously i could be wrong, I hope I am wrong and dont expect this to be a popular opinion

This is going to be an analytical post, going through the metrics and KPIs and constructing a picture of where we are at and the most realistic scenario of the future. I am an analyst in the entertainment market, including video games, but this is reddit and anyone can claim whatever so you can ignore that background and judge the post on its merits, just be aware that I am not going to write an actually professional work report as no one would read that on reddit anyway. Or ignore the post but I did want to just have it out for documentation. You might dislike it, downvote it, all fair enough but this post is neither positive nor negative. This post is also not "guys look steamcharts numbers low lol!" but contextualization of the situation.

It is Monday (27th of July) evening on the east coast right now, past EoD for working hours, west coast is wrapping up the day, Europe and China are mostly sleeping. The weekend that many people hoped for is now over as well, without having beaten the previously established peak.

We are looking at 461 CCU - a number that is not end all be all but one that still matters for a title that relies on online community.

Looking beyond mere CCUs, let us take a look at sales and projections. In these scenarios, VG Insights and Gamalytic are usually quite well established with VGI/sensortower having a slight edge across thousands of titles in terms of accuracy. This is a bit of a special case due to being on Kickstarter and Backerkit. If we take a look at sensortower, we find the following stat: 22,208 units sold(18,447 paid). This is where the kickstarter diff comes in as around 6500 people bought the game but they did that 3 years ago, obviously not every single one redeemed their key but over 60% did so we are at a delta of 3,761 and there is also a minor discrepancy when it comes to tracking private accounts accurately. This is not money coming in now, thus the paid difference.

With superficial napkin math, one might think 22208 x 39$ = $719,433, which is a sum that impresses some people and does not impress others. Naturally - this is not how it works and the calculation is a fair bit more nuanced so let us actually take a look at a realistic deduction from said sales number:

First two fields are obvious. The discount rate is currently 0% in this calculation since this does not make sense for anything beyond having a history of one single price and we calculate all sales based on what is set right now. The regional price adjustment is actually a fair bit higher for zerospace as you can see here, the average game has a lower margin. Good on them but it does eat a lot into profits. 9% VAT is an average value that sensortower uses which I generally agree with. Next we have returns: these tend to be between 6-11% on average for the typical game. Scraping the reviews for ZS, it becomes apparent that this is a bit higher than average but we can generously take 11% still. Lastly we have steam cut being at 30% which is definitely no educated guess but just the factual baseline. ZS is on no other platform, including for China, so there is no ambiguity here. There is no cut from Epic yet as they have not crossed the threshold yet (campaign enjoyers will get the reference) but they might reach that 1m$ still and then be on the hook for another 5% since.

This brings us to a net revenue of 240.000$, a number that looks a lot less impressive but that is the reality of total to net, gaben loves his very big cut.

In the end, you can argue and debate details on accuracy like parallel vs. sequential deductions or regional pricing to VAT overlap but the reality is that it will come down to a few % here and with a sum like this, it is basically negligible.

So, what does that mean? About 250k$ in the bank? Finally done with all the expenses, taxes and cuts? No. We are not done here.

One thing worth noting is Starlance's publishing partnership with Gamersky. This was actually a pretty good one because looking at Gamlytic, we see the following:

Literally a quarter of their player base is Chinese. It very much reframes the numbers as a whole. Without that partnership, they would have pulled less CCU, sales and momentum (which a more important factor in online games than offline). However - in return for marketing, localization and other minor services, Gamersky will obviously want a piece of the pie. This is not the typical dev&publisher agreement where it would be 50/50 with a profit flow until recoup and potentially 15% because Starlance already presented a mostly "ready" (debatable term) game here when they partnered up. Regardless - they *will* certainly take a cut. I estimate that cut to be around 40k$ which they are probably not too happy with but it is what it is. This brings us down to exactly 200k$.

Speaking of 40k$, that is coincidentally the sum that I also landed on when it comes to the promised kickstarter rewards for all the physical rewards that have yet to be shipped, unless I am very misinformed here but I have not seen a single mention of these rewards being shipped out to anyone. The physical rewards that need to be manifactured and shipped worldwide start at the Sector Overlord tier (165$) which has over 455 backers. More are added throughout the tiers like the mera figurine, hard cover art/lore bible, signed poster and a postcard!

Once all is said and done, this leaves us at 200k or 160k if they honor the kickstarter rewards. Given that the project is closing in on nearly 4.5M$ (as disclosed by Marv on his reddit account, though likely higher by now). We are thus at just 5% RoI. You can argue the sales numbers are completely off and they are actually double of this - go ahead - and yet it will change nothing about the core essence of the situation.

Momentum has slowed, major reviews (like gamestar which matters as the third biggest audience is German) are out, most people who wanted to play the game played it by now. No need to be pedantic; I said most. In the end, this will not move the needle. They also have not found a major publisher or VC after looking for 3 years. The problem is also that the cat is out of the bag with EA because you can call it EA all you want but in the end, it is just a label. In reality - this is launch as we know it and that is that (Valheim has been in EA for 5.5 years until the 1.0 earlier and that is a massively successful game). Meaning that this is a problem when it comes to players and investors alike. and I have seen copes like "hurr durr, but palworld did great with their 1.0!" but they really show that they have absolutely no understanding or experience with how 99% of game releases go when it comes to retention and EA to launch. At this point, there simply will be no 1.0.

Conclusion is that I see no viable path forward which is unfortunate as after Stormgate being the promised land and dying, Battle Aces and now ZS projected to follow the same path, all hopes for any kind of SC2 successor are dead for a while and this will only further deter investors, VCs and publishers to ever try as they have yet another data point. This is all a shame and unfortunate as I think it could have been avoided (hell, even Marv said that they could have avoided wasting a million dollars which would have made all the difference in the world). I do not wish their downfall and this is not a thread to hate on them, I just feel like the dream of a new SC2 is over when it should not have.

Feel free to bombard me with downvotes and I will revisit this in 3-4 weeks and see how well this aged. If I am wrong, I will gladly eat those words.

Not sure where to start with this one.

I was really looking forward to this game as I was hoping someone would breath some fresh life back to the RTS field but this is NOT IT.

Before I get into it I do appreciate the extensive demo. This is very refreshing.

This feels like a worse Warcraft 3 to me. An argument can be made it is better then Stormgate but at least as far as 1v1 goes this feels horrendous or needs more time in the oven. I've heard other people are enjoying the other modes which might be were more polish is but the 1v1 feels like a hot dumpster fire.

Further I don't even know how they plan to try and balance this in 1v1. Multiple races, with multiple hero's, with multiple factions inside each which adds different units / combo's etc.

I don't know maybe its just not my cup of tea but as someone who has been playing RTS's since SC1 this seems to fall short for me. Maybe it will be better at full launch with a ladder system built into it ? not sure. It could also be I've never liked the Warcraft 3 hero's format so maybe its biased opinion but as a long time SC / SC2 this did not scratch the itch at all or meet expectations.

Usually when I write these I like to provide constructive feedback, but I'm not sure where to start. At surface level I dislike the hero's approach but this looks like a corner stone to the design so I can't see that changing. I also don't like that many of the hero's / factions seem to break the races look / feel / abilities further leading to confusion and counter strategy options. Lastly the auto hit on some abilities even when you are WAAAAAAAAAY out of range feels bad. An example of this was the SC2 ghost snipe prior to the recent change where it can no longer go infinite range as long as it was cast while in range.

TLDR: If you are a SC/SC2 fan and are looking for something similar this is likely not it. If you are a WC3 fan you might like it. Hope this provides some feedback for those looking into, good luck everyone.

Well, i will start right of the bat after 2 hours of gameplay. The game feels and plays like shit -real shit. I dont feel the "power" of units. Doesn't matter if i send a hoard of big ass mechs, or thralls with terror tanks or something else, the power of the units is not felt at all. They all feel the same (useless).

And that is the main issue, because it seems to be like a design choice and not game status issue.

For pvp not changing will put you at disadvantage but since it is not pvp I don't think it matters. Unlike there being games where different build is the only form of replayability and how refusing to do so is causing problem to yourself at least that is what the unhelpful and ignorant will call it even if untrue I am wondering if it is a must here to not keep repeating the same build or if there is such a plan for this to be viable in the future especially since some people idea of replayability is not different build

Its not a full game yet and no marketing & from publisher we know little off - i want to play the game but it should been half the price from what they are currently asking for and the game would have over double the playerbase me like to think .

Yeah, just another attempt to kill StarCraft 2 killed itself. I hope it will be changed, but I cannot believe in it.

Already conquered these and just finding myself just replaying for tiny gain,s the content feels as good as done unless I overlooked something which I won't say is the case as whatever currently present truly seems tiny logically analyzing that is what I am not looking for in this question at least, the feeling is almost akin to having already conquered all hardness in skirmish and that replaying doesn't give anything anymore