Ex-Blizzard devs new RTS 'Stormgate' out in Early Access, works on Linux but may need a small fix

allow me to edit once : curious as we are , just checked both the browser and steam client and the game is not even trending in one of the 5 sections. Its nowhere to be seen. Someone might have a hangover by next week. I still wanna try the 3level demo tho if they patch it up. Overpromise, underdeliver, i cant speak for the gameplay but if its in the trending sections nowhere i doubt the opinion of one crazy person will make much difference. Should have tried the €20 all -in approach like ARK started perhaps ... too late now ? i bet ... business at hi level is such an unforgiving place

it looks more like a playable demo than f2p and moreover the way they use skeevy sales from the start 60euro pre-early access packs to an unfinished game that already got kickstarted in the (lemme look that up) , short of 2.5 million ? and then the F2P game is a playable demo after 2 weeks. They might as well have stayed under miCrotter, then at least the game wouldnt look like disney and they could use skeevy tactics all the same.
I can stream it from the stream deck without poking but the mousepoint wont go below half the screen so i'll wait for a patch. I was just curious. This is so totally un-blizzard (like the blizzard we got to love from orcs-vs-humans and up) that it might as well be microsoft xbox studios.
Actually,
If they get popular enough maybe they can be "not blizzard" under the xbox studios label later (wouldnt that be lol) and that would make them Kotick++ (wouldnt that be even loller).
Anyway, it looks like nothing i expected but i should know better than to expect anything by now. But maybe there's a crowd for it. I doubt they'll have torn their pants starting at 2.5 million before coding one line.


Last edited by Syntax Error on 14 August 2024 at 3:17 am UTC

I went to the Steam page and there's three tiers of paid. There's like "Early Access Pack", "Deluxe Early Access Pack" and "Ultimate Early Access Pack". The basic one gives you one hero and one chapter of the campaign. The middle one gives you two more heroes and no extra content. The top one gives you two more chapters and another hero as yet unspecified. They all also have little bits of bling.

So basically, if you want any content you really have to pay through the nose for the top tier.

Free to play?
no thanks

I was aware that some distributions disable ICMP for regular users, but this is the first time I am wondering why they actually do that.

Does anyone know?

I was aware that some distributions disable ICMP for regular users, but this is the first time I am wondering why they actually do that.

Does anyone know?

I was aware that some distributions disable ICMP for regular users, but this is the first time I am wondering why they actually do that.

Does anyone know?

I think it does something else compared to what you think it does.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Sysctl#Allow_unprivileged_users_to_create_IPPROTO_ICMP_sockets
I am not a native english speaker, but way I understand it works(suspect) is this:
Their server or whatever sends a ping/packet/whatever from itself to client machine on some port 1-1000(which in linux is a restrictive set of ports, that is ONLY allowed to be opened by default by a root user, by default on most Linuxes anyway).
And by receiving this packet on some port, client machine OS send back a ICMP reply. Which later on that reply is being judged for some glitch/network delay exploit detection.
If set permission is not set an default policy of OS is not to respond - ICMP reply will not be generated/send. Hence it breaks their anticheat.

Its all speculation of course.

allow me to edit once : curious as we are , just checked both the browser and steam client and the game is not even trending in one of the 5 sections. Its nowhere to be seen.

This game is mostly for RTS fanatics, and most of us already pledged in the crowdsourcing campaign. That means that most of the people playing now on steam, didn't buy a copy on Steam and this is why the game selling stats are low (for Steam is not a trend if people don't buy on Steam).

And then there is the microtransaction drama which also didn't help this game "launch".

With mixed reviews ofc casuals stay away. Money aside, it's not necessarly bad. This is a startup not Blizzard and early access game is truly early access. It's better to expand to less "committed" audience when the game is more polished just to not affect reviews even worse.

The textures really need more filth and grit. Reviews are currently @ 60%. Easy Anti-Cheat DRM grosses me out.

The formatting and basic construction have enough charm, the battle particle and laser effects are a bit muddy making it harder to focus on the strategy of well... a RTS.

I'll have to play the game to judge the sound design too -- they could win a lot of points back if they had a kind of analog grit and otherworldly sound from the 90s -- but I don't really anticipate they did more than off the shelf current gen mobile slop.

The reviews and community discussion area are vicious, looks like they really made their kick-starters and community mad for charging them for the extra content.

Also, I know with the rise of WarCraft 3 and DOTA 1 and DOTA 2 the focus on "Heroes" is now a thing, I just wish it wasn't. RTS was just fine when heroes we're 300% the size of units with obnoxious roles and mega powers. It's fine when done with taste but I haven't really seen it cooked right. SC2 was okayish.

I was aware that some distributions disable ICMP for regular users, but this is the first time I am wondering why they actually do that.

Does anyone know?

I was aware that some distributions disable ICMP for regular users, but this is the first time I am wondering why they actually do that.

Does anyone know?

I think it does something else compared to what you think it does.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Sysctl#Allow_unprivileged_users_to_create_IPPROTO_ICMP_sockets
I am not a native english speaker, but way I understand it works(suspect) is this:
Their server or whatever sends a ping/packet/whatever from itself to client machine on some port 1-1000(which in linux is a restrictive set of ports, that is ONLY allowed to be opened by default by a root user, by default on most Linuxes anyway).
And by receiving this packet on some port, client machine OS send back a ICMP reply. Which later on that reply is being judged for some glitch/network delay exploit detection.
If set permission is not set an default policy of OS is not to respond - ICMP reply will not be generated/send. Hence it breaks their anticheat.

Its all speculation of course.

The docs you linked sound more like how I understood it though. The setting seems to be about user group numbers, not port numbers:

ping_group_range determines the GID range of groups which their users are allowed to create IPPROTO_ICMP sockets.

Also, the docs directly talk about being able to ping other machines and receive their replies

The IPPROTO_ICMP (icmp(7)) socket type adds the possibility to send ICMP_ECHO messages and receive corresponding ICMP_ECHOREPLY messages without the need to open a raw(7) socket

Furthermore, the server cannot assume that it will be able to ping the user's computer (via ICMP), as many users' computers are behind firewalls and/or NAT, so imho it only makes sense for the user's computer to ping the server, and not the other way.

Also, I know with the rise of WarCraft 3 and DOTA 1 and DOTA 2 the focus on "Heroes" is now a thing, I just wish it wasn't. RTS was just fine when heroes we're 300% the size of units with obnoxious roles and mega powers. It's fine when done with taste but I haven't really seen it cooked right. SC2 was okayish.

Yeah "heroes" in strategy games really rub me the wrong way. It is an RPG-ization of the genre, moving away from "you control an army" to "you control this main character, plus some minions". It is particularly common in fantasy-themed games, precisely because they get thematic inspiration by the D&D-style fantasy where "party of heroes goes adventuring" is a powerful trope. If I'm to have leaders to the army, I'd rather have a general that isn't a powerful warrior but gives command bonuses.

There are some benefits to hero units in game design, dipping into the strengths of other genres: it is convenient for making narratives more personal, leveling up is a good progression mechanic, it creates a lot more unit distinction (with a built-in diegetic explanation), powerful unique units give a sense of power and accomplishment, it helps keep the scale in check to make the game easier to control, and the mechanics are part of basic game literacy. But the thematic connection makes it clear that a large part is "make it more like an RPG, RPGs are good!". With Warcraft 3, it was very obviously meant to mix the genres, with the Rexxar campaign standing out. Blizzard always felt like they just didn't want to make RTS games, it was more like an obligation, and they constantly tried to turn their RTS franchises into something else (Lord of the Clans, SC Ghost, and finally succeeded with WoW and never looked back).

Anyway, tangential rant finished, but yeah I'm tired of hero units.

I've nothing against heros in campaign or coop. But for competitive I also think they detract rather than increase strategic depth.

Once beloved genre and now I just don't care. The only RTS that I would like to play is Supreme Commander (Forged Alliance Forever - the community project makes it playable under Linux and in multiplayer). Also I should commend Beyond All Reason for the great achievement of being fun and spectacular, especially being open source - it's usually hard to pull that effectively. I loved old Blizzard games, but for me the genre seems dead now. It was stagnant for years and I don't see anything interesting in that. I just can't even collect myself to care.

I am strangely attracted to Total Annihilation style games now, even if I suck at them. But that was true usually even with the Blizzard games of old. It's interesting that in the 2000s there was more branches of RTS subgenres with different approaches and experiments. Earth 2150 had modular units, terraforming and underground tunneling. Command and Conquer series had its unique UI and production logic (at least before the Generals). Total Annihilation had it's streaming economy and multiple tiers of units. Age of Empires had ... ages.
And I'm not going to bring up Shiny's (genious) Sacrifice or Bullfrog's Dungeon Keeper, because they are in their own league and respective subgenre.
So, my question is this: was there something of interest, even if flawed in the last 10 years that an old internet dweller can feast his eyes or imagination on?


Last edited by vox on 15 August 2024 at 9:25 am UTC

Also, I know with the rise of WarCraft 3 and DOTA 1 and DOTA 2 the focus on "Heroes" is now a thing, I just wish it wasn't. RTS was just fine when heroes we're 300% the size of units with obnoxious roles and mega powers. It's fine when done with taste but I haven't really seen it cooked right. SC2 was okayish.

Yeah "heroes" in strategy games really rub me the wrong way. It is an RPG-ization of the genre, moving away from "you control an army" to "you control this main character, plus some minions". It is particularly common in fantasy-themed games, precisely because they get thematic inspiration by the D&D-style fantasy where "party of heroes goes adventuring" is a powerful trope. If I'm to have leaders to the army, I'd rather have a general that isn't a powerful warrior but gives command bonuses.

There are some benefits to hero units in game design, dipping into the strengths of other genres: it is convenient for making narratives more personal, leveling up is a good progression mechanic, it creates a lot more unit distinction (with a built-in diegetic explanation), powerful unique units give a sense of power and accomplishment, it helps keep the scale in check to make the game easier to control, and the mechanics are part of basic game literacy. But the thematic connection makes it clear that a large part is "make it more like an RPG, RPGs are good!". With Warcraft 3, it was very obviously meant to mix the genres, with the Rexxar campaign standing out. Blizzard always felt like they just didn't want to make RTS games, it was more like an obligation, and they constantly tried to turn their RTS franchises into something else (Lord of the Clans, SC Ghost, and finally succeeded with WoW and never looked back).

Anyway, tangential rant finished, but yeah I'm tired of hero units.

Lots of insights there -- great observation with SC Ghost attempting to depart the StarCraft franchise and from the RTS roots. It felt like they were chasing the current thing at the time which was the Space-Tech FPS Genre -- Halo (Memory is fuzzy but I thought I even recalled some kind of "warthog" like vehicle or gun turrets but don't quote me on that). The soundtrack for Ghost did eventually come out or leak and the sound design was more true to StarCraft and BroodWar than SC2 was -- which took more liberties and made Terran out to sound like redneck hicks that like country music -- which was offputting. And HoTS took even more liberties especially in the cinematic departed completely changing Kerrigan and minimizing her into a lesser character in an even bigger more "Grande" vision by whatever new hotshot writers "vision" for the universe. I always liken this to the new writers always trying to destroy the old writers legacy and vision instead of "extending it" and "enhancing it". Suddenly you got zeroing in on 1 thing "Xel`Naga" and throw in a bunch of space lasers and new stuff and the mystery that made the story interesting is now gone. [[ See Star Wars 4, 5 & 6 ]] vs [[ 1, 2, and 3 ]] -- (Eg: Oh the force, this invisible magic that binds the universe together -- that sounds cool -- 4, 5, 6 -- and then boom StarWars 1 is like "Oh It's just the number of medichlorian in your blood, so we can harvest anyone's blood and make a super jedi /facepalm)

I can definitely see the D&D "Hero" influences in RPG RTS crossover. BroodWar felt right. Heroe units were still humanoid sized maybe with a slight recolor or fancy decal -- Raynor was a Vultr that looked like every other Vultr, what made them unique was their unique capabilities. In newer games Heros seemed 200-300% the size of regular units -- and it's Ackward having a bunch of marines and then one giant one -- it's comical, and takes you out of the cinematic universe, and is an insult to the players intelligence to be able to distinguish the special unit from the regular units.

I know why they do it though -- suddenly you can sell action figures and make extra income (See Warhammer $50-$200 at a glance).

I'm very surprised we haven't seen a straight rippoff of BroodWar as Open Source by now. Yeah I know we have Wargus/Stargus which doesn't have a lot of activity, but considering the technological advancements of things like GoDot, Rust and Linux making it so far, for such a Legendary game and series to not have a successor is like Harvest Moon before Stardew Valley tapped that market.

And to see a game enter the market like this and then then sell Heroes, Campaign Levels, and bundle with Easy Anti-Cheat is just all kinds of Red-Flags.

A modern RTS should be DRM-Free, 8-16 players, a mode where two or more players can control 1 race to get all the functions done, complex enough base building (there is a optimal number of units just like chess has sufficient complexity but not endless scope), resource collection, competitive online play, custom maps, and rediculous hacks like "Lights On" "Lights Off" in SCBW and WarCraft 3 ((IIUC) where you could stack turrets, cannons, and do other "Fun" stuff -- because hey -- devs seem to forget that the entire point of games should be to maximize "Fun" and not take everything so seriously.

I can't even tell you how many times I've had to spin up a WINE bottle with StarCraft Remastered only to have the whole thing crash. The new graphics are nice but 90% of the time it doesn't work without manual intervention that takes 30m - 1h.

And unfortunately BroodWar isn't scaling on Sway in Wayland even with a manual virtual desktop resolution set.

It's a real shame that this classic which was the first games running in WINE isn't up to the task on Wayland presently. I hope to see that change soon.

/rant, thanks for the great conversion, lol

than SC2 was -- which took more liberties and made Terran out to sound like redneck hicks that like country music -- which was offputting.

Uhmmm... no? You need to know that for a long time across sci fi lovers the most loved franchise use to be Firefly. Now that show was a victim of the generalists TV industry in the USA and wasn't renew for a second season. But indeed it was a memorable show.

The SC2 devs saw connection between Raynor situation and the Firefly show (then who knows which one infleced the other, maybe Firefly took from sc1). Both took place in a world where humanity left Earth, both has a setting with 3 powerful central planets where there original colonizing ships landed (in SC that would be Tarsonis, Umoya and Moria), both had a struggle between these central powers and their own "backwater" colonies. There were psi gifted guys, tipically troubled girls. And ofc the main protagonists is guy from a forgotten and abused colony, he used to fight a freedom war against a tirannic power, ultimately lost, and then in the aftermath became a renegade making a life outside the law with a bunch of rebels across the fringe.

Now... I can clearly see that if the original idea was to make Hyperion like the Firefly that was totally lost. Hyperion is a former capital ship, Firefly a small cargo. But as for the overall setting, super advanced core worlds and fringe colonies where the life feels like the old wild west, I can see the connection and having the music recall the Firefly show was appreciated a lot at that time.