Ashes of the Singularity: June Dev Update

So if you haven’t already see the v1.2 Preview, click here: https://forums.ashesofthesingularity.com/477887/

Lots to talk about this month!

 

## Version 1.2 is a pretty big deal ##

From 1.0 through 1.13 the game has been operating on the Nitrous engine that was built during early access.  For those of interested in how games are made, think of a game has two pieces: The engine which is 90% of the work and the “game” which is a thin icing on top of the engine.  1.0 through 1.13 were updates to the game.  Version 1.2, by contrast, is the first big update to the underlying engine which should, we hope, substantially improve performance and reliability.

That said, multiple-GPU configurations continue to be challenging so if you plan to run DirectX 12 with multiple GPUs, make sure you always keep up with the latest drivers.  You should also, aggressively report any problems you run into (lockups, hangs in particular) as AMD/NVIDIA are very interested in these reports.

Two months after release, Ashes remains the only multi-GPU DirectX 12 game. So on the one hand, congratulations, you’re cutting edge. On the other hand, I apologize, you’re cutting edge.

 

## AMD vs. NVIDIA ##

Version 1.2 is also has a lot of updates to the benchmark and adds a specific CPU benchmark as well.  With AMD and NVIDIA both introducing new video cards roughly the same time and Ashes being one of the go-to benchmarks, we are trying to keep an eye to make sure no one is doing anything odd to bump up the numbers.

Each company has their own strategy with their new card that is worth discussing here. 

NVIDIA’s 1080 is extremely powerful but also expensive.  AMD has taken a different route with their 480 which is to have it much less expensive.  You could, in fact, put two 480s in your box for the price of a single 1080 (you could actually do 3).  Needless to say, the argument is going to come down to which runs faster: an NV1080 or 2XAMD480s.

 

## Huge Map Size ##

We have a new map size in the works called “Huge” that is a lot bigger than the current large map size.  We also know that late game, presently, you need 6 CPU cores to deal with it.  We are working hard to optimize this but this gives me an opportunity to talk shop with you guys on the amazing terrain system that’s in Ashes (or as a critic might say, overkill).

The Ashes terrain system is deformable.  The best known example of a deformable terrain is of course, Populous from back in the day.  Deforming terrain is non-trivial (Supreme Commander does not have deformable terrain).  Moreover, the height maps are 16-bit rather than 8-bit (meaning you can have 65,535 heights which matters if you want to have genuine heights combined with smooth slopes).

The reason I bring these things up is because when you build things (and destroy buildings) it actually deforms the terrain in real-time and that is very very expensive (and it gets more expensive the bigger the map and more players you have).  So anyway, this is coming for everyone who has 6 cores or more in the not too distant future and everyone else (4 cores or more) eventually (Skylake can do some interesting things actually and if Async compute were more widely available on GPUs we could offload it there but I digress).

 

## Player Counts ##

At ship, we stuck with a safe 6 players which has worked out pretty well.  Multiplayer in Ashes is remarkably stable for a brand new RTS as in, it just works.

But in the long-term, we want to get it up to much, much higher (think huge maps with 40 players).  The number of humans we’ll allow in multiplayer will lag behind the # of total players as we have to do this very carefully.

Games like StarCraft are able to segregate their user base geographically but we don’t have that luxury.  There is a magic number of people you have to have playing online to keep a MP community viable. And if you slip before that, it’s hard to come back.

 

## Reinforcements ##

The Ashes user base continues to be pretty decent in size.   However, the number of people in the queue at any given time has dropped from a very healthy 14 (in May) to around 11 (average this past week). 

Now, you might think that 11 people waiting with you in the queue is a lot.  But it’s actually not because we try not to match Legendary players (and of those 11, 5 or so are usually at the top of the ranks) with new players.  Right now, people who are in the middle ranks are having to wait 4 or 5 minutes to get matched and that’s getting dangerous.

So to forewarn everyone, we are going to have an aggressive sale of Ashes soon. Like 50% off aggressive to boost the player count.  This won’t happen until after version 1.2 ships but we want to let you know it’s going to be happening. 

If we were a single player only game, we wouldn’t do such an aggressive sale but from the long-term point of view, the MP community must keep growing or else it’ll die.

This strategy worked really well for Act of Aggression (which I recommend checking out).

 

## The state of balance ##

PHC vs. Substrate advocates each argue that the other side is over powered.  And they are both right and version 1.2 is addressing some of this.

The PHC Fury is OP and will no longer be able to have its main gun targeting ground (its dual pulse cannons can still do it but it’s main gun won’t).  Similarly, we’ve been cutting down the Substrate Dominator and Punisher bit by bit to make them more reasonable.

However, long-term, players simply need more tools. 

Now this gets back to my argument on what should be DLC vs. what should “free” in an update.  Version 1.2 includes two free units: The PHC Athena and the Substrate Eradicator.  So why are they free?  The answer is because there is a glaring hole in each side’s arsenal to implement a true combined arms strategy.  The PHC simply lacked a short-range anti-cruiser unit.  This is unacceptable. 

A Substrate player could, and this is a huge issue on big maps, build up a ton of Maulers flanked by a bunch of Reapers can be nearly unstoppable in certain cases.

A PHC player, by contrast, routinely can build a death ball of Artemis’s that are largely untouchable.

Thus, the two new units given each side some new counters and strategies.

But this isn’t the end of it. Not by far.

In version 1.3, we will be adding a new economic building for the Substrate that provides the same functionality as the relatively new PHC Refinery. 

But the other big change will be the concept of upgrading buildings into higher tier buildings.  A Smarty will be able to be upgraded into a Barrager for example (a longer range, much nastier thing) and the Sentinel will be able to be upgraded into a much nastier defense as well.  The Substrate defense buildings will get the same benefit as well.

Also, while version 1.2 allows players to upgrade their building HP, we will soon be taking the ability to heal them with medics. 

 

## The Wiki ##

We have added a new Ashes of the Singularity Wiki for those of you interested: http://wiki.ashesofthesingularity.com/

 

Stay tuned!

65,634 views 14 replies
Reply #1 Top

Brad Thank you for the Update, I haven't played the game lately, sorry been really busy with work and some other things.

But I just want to say that my main reason for not playing Ranked games its because of the small maps and the 1v1, 15-20 minutes games are not fun for the long term, I want to build a big army, defenses, expand, research and I cannot do that on a 15 minute Rush game.

Playing 1v1 is fun but after 3 games I am done with it for a whole week or more.

I tried to get a Custom 2v2 or 3v3 games and did not get lucky enough to start any game. i guess not enough players.

This game for me is about being big in every-way (game-play, armies, strategies, different ways of winning)

Of course AOTS needs more players, but this ranked 1v1 game is....so repetitive, everyone play is the same way, because there is no space or enough time to do new things, its not about who is better, or who is faster or who plays more ranked game to be on top, Its about having fun in the game, and do everything what the game is supposed to do (being a bad-ass RTS game and not a 15 minute game)

I am really happy with the 1.2 Patch and the Steam Sale, this will help a lot

Huge Maps are a must, Coop Scenario games should be added to the game

And last is that you need to find a way to help us start or get into big games 2v2 or 3v3

Hope the Global chat will help on this

Thanks again,  and i will start getting into the game again soon

Reply #2 Top

Thanks for the update.

Do you plan to introduce upgrading capabilities to sub assembly in.the future? 

 

That thing is broken as it is now, because it allows sub to.scale very well in late game. My point is to have requirements in rads for both cruiser production and air production and basically made them pay for the versatility.

 

Also you are taking a very similar path for both races and this will turn everything in a mirror. You give an unit similar to nemesis to sub and phc receives an unit like mauler. This wont be good in the long run. 

I will edit the post later to a link with the top phc player das unding vs top ranked sub player danail for you to watch and see how hopeless is the phc even with the op fury vs the scalability of sub overall. Something to have in mind when adding new units.

LE: this meta forces phc players to turtle and they don't have very good tools to either break sub in open space or to break their defenses. Artemis will need some love to the targeting systems, that thing goes virtually into melee before it fires and the range is lower than the other weapon.

I am writing this because I see Brad takes AOS really serious and plans to develop the game in line with the Stardock strategy we all love and my opinion is that the lower player count is exactly because of the way game lacks ballance

Reply #3 Top

It was a nice game but consider that I made a lot of brutal mistakes in the game (a few more than him ;) ). Aside from that the game shows a lot of problematics in the current state. If the races are too similar in order to balance that I would not enjoy that. I am really concerned about that.

Reply #4 Top

Yeah it will be a bad game design if the races end up having the same units.

 

Let all the races get medics, let them all have same units, let them have refinery and so on; all of this because there are alot of players that played supreme commander FA. not a good direction because it will get boring fast to play the same races in the same way (having medics to heal buildings was something that phc was different than the sub so the better direction would be to, have a sub unit to emp or disable them (as an upgrade to capacitator for example), rather than just take them the ability to heal IMO). Let smaller units cast spells that are not affected by orbital nullifiers!

 

ps: even with the mistakes, you never really had a chance, danail was toying with you. for every unit you have produced he had 3 more. it was not even close but a very entertaining game to watch, thanks for sharing

Reply #5 Top

I also watched the video of our game.
My opinion is that DasUnding played better, more diversely. I was constantly on edge, getting supply lines cut on multiple occasions and attacked with air and orbital powers. The thing that won me the game and that got somewhat overlooked is resources. I did very well in reaching the corner - spawn location - nodes and controlling 1 or both through middle and late game therefore the metal income difference was substantial. Again - compliments to DasUnding for displayed skills in doing so much with so little but please do not go into balance discussions over this. I simply had more stuff.  

On the actual topic of game development:
I feel strongly about maps. I have walked the whole path with Blizzard's Starcraft 2. There are things developers can learn from ~5 years of map making and mostly failing and avoid doing the same. I would suggest checking the history of the maps through the seasons (quarters) but you could also take it from me:
Avoid small & simple maps in ranked play. They do not show the potential of your game and lead to dissatisfaction in both the winning and the losing player. Maybe, if you chose to segment players into leagues it could be reasonable to keep a few simple maps for bottom 20-50% but otherwise please don't do it.

Reply #6 Top

Try not to take this the wrong way but it definitely diminishes my willingness to listen to feedback from those who pre-judge units.  The Eradicator is not like the Nemesis and the Athena is not an equivalent to the Mauler.  There are always going to be similarities but it would be like someone looking at a rough description of a Protoss zealot and deciding it's the same as a Zergling.

Reply #7 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 6

Try not to take this the wrong way but it definitely diminishes my willingness to listen to feedback from those who pre-judge units.  The Eradicator is not like the Nemesis and the Athena is not an equivalent to the Mauler.  There are always going to be similarities but it would be like someone looking at a rough description of a Protoss zealot and deciding it's the same as a Zergling.

I would enjoy it more if we had a different playstyle with the units for example the air units in starcraft (mutas vikings battlecruisers and much more). In a more abstract way they all make dmg and they fly but they deliver a different way to play the game. For example we could have a aggresive disturbing race with the right units for that and defending preventive race. Maybe not every race needs every possibilitie. Maybe we have a race which is good in fighting over long ranges it would be nice if the race would have units and abilities to do such things. In my opinion sc2 did a good job in delivering that. Maybe your game will sell better if we have it more like that. I think neinhalt is also concerned about that. My english is not so good if I made mistakes  please correct me.

Reply #8 Top

Hey Brad thanks for posting this, it's great to be given this sort of insight  :)

I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on this part of your post:



The reason I bring these things up is because when you build things (and destroy buildings) it actually deforms the terrain in real-time and that is very very expensive (and it gets more expensive the bigger the map and more players you have).  So anyway, this is coming for everyone who has 6 cores or more in the not too distant future and everyone else (4 cores or more) eventually (Skylake can do some interesting things actually and if Async compute were more widely available on GPUs we could offload it there but I digress).
 

 

So does this mean that at the moment Ashes doesn't 'do' GPU Async compute? With regards to DX12/Vulkan and nVidia/AMD the term 'Async compute' has been thrown around quite a bit but not with much clarity. Also, on the topic of Vulkan, can you tell us when Ashes will start using it?

 

Thanks again!

Reply #9 Top

Quoting V, reply 8

So does this mean that at the moment Ashes doesn't 'do' GPU Async compute?

I don't really get your logic from what Frogboy said, but there area a lot of articles and graphs out there detailing Async compute/shading.

On this page it shows you the performance impact of having Async on or off with various cards:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10067/ashes-of-the-singularity-revisited-beta/6

Reply #10 Top

Quoting DasUnding, reply 7


Quoting Frogboy,

Try not to take this the wrong way but it definitely diminishes my willingness to listen to feedback from those who pre-judge units.  The Eradicator is not like the Nemesis and the Athena is not an equivalent to the Mauler.  There are always going to be similarities but it would be like someone looking at a rough description of a Protoss zealot and deciding it's the same as a Zergling.



I would enjoy it more if we had a different playstyle with the units for example the air units in starcraft (mutas vikings battlecruisers and much more). In a more abstract way they all make dmg and they fly but they deliver a different way to play the game. For example we could have a aggresive disturbing race with the right units for that and defending preventive race. Maybe not every race needs every possibilitie. Maybe we have a race which is good in fighting over long ranges it would be nice if the race would have units and abilities to do such things. In my opinion sc2 did a good job in delivering that. Maybe your game will sell better if we have it more like that. I think neinhalt is also concerned about that. My english is not so good if I made mistakes  please correct me.

StarCraft is focused around micro-management. So a lot of the unit differentiation revolved around that axis.  So for instance, Mutas tend to clump together which makes them very vulnerable to AOE weaponry thus allowing one player to differentiate their skill from another by their microing of them.  

We don't intend to use micro as a means to differentiate player skills.

In StarCraft, all the races have the same basic units.  It's not like any of the races lack a long-range siege unit or a long-range air unit or short-range units.  

My point is that on paper, a Zergling and a Zealot are basically the same unit but I think we can all agree they don't play the same.  Similarly, the Eradicator and the Nemesis may seem similar on paper they play very differently.

I've spent most of my adult life playing StarCraft and while I applaud their unit balance, what makes them play distinct from one another has a lot to do with their micro-mechanics and not their basic unit design.  A clump of liberators is really not that much different than a clump of mutas other than where the player micro comes in. A roach and a Marauder are not very different other than their micro (a roach can be burrowed potentially, a marauder can be stimmed).

The level of differentiation we are looking to have in Ashes is not StarCraft level but rather more like Company of Heroes or Supreme Commander.  

Reply #11 Top

The Fury should and needs to be fixed (which it is). It's a bug which should not have been there in the first place and makes the game's opening tedious. Fixing it does not suddenly make the Sub and PHC that much more similar.

The Substrate do need a refinery mechanic. Playing the other day as PHC in a big 3v3 game one of my metal spots was making over 20 metal. Substrate just can't compete with that right now.

I do agree that the Substrate should probably not get a medic like unit. 

 

Deformable terrain. The only time I notice this is with building placement, isn't this massively underused? How about scorched craters from nukes? Perhaps more minor ones beneath the corpse of a fallen Dreadnought (once they come in I guess). Even small craters from the rocket fire of an Artemis makes sense.

I hope a 480x is released as the $299 card they mentioned. The $199 doesn't look like it isn't going to have quite enough oomph to support a few years of 1440p gaming. Will know soon enough.

50% discount is fine by me. Though as it has come so quickly after release some may see it as a sign the game hasn't done so well and lower their investment in the game. 66% might have been enough. Either way hopefully the sale isn't obscured by all the others and that plenty of people get the game.

Really looking forward to being able to upgrade buildings to a higher tier.

Reply #12 Top

Looking forward to the new units and later to the building upgrades. The game definitely needs new blood. General chat, replays, observer mode, and a tournament at the end of season 1 should help to generate more interest and community I hope.

Thanks for sharing the game of DasUnding vs. DanailLazov as well. Probably the longest 1v1 I've seen in ages. Hindsight is always 20/20 but DasUnding could've easily won that game. He invested an ENORMOUS amount of resources into Quanta. Even at the very end of the game he had 1500+ in the bank. After nuking everything in Danail's base, there was still no Orbital Nullifier ever built there later in the game. All it would've taken is a Carving Turret on top of his nuke, maybe an Incursion too and it would've been gg. 

Reply #13 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 10


Quoting DasUnding,






Quoting Frogboy,



Try not to take this the wrong way but it definitely diminishes my willingness to listen to feedback from those who pre-judge units.  The Eradicator is not like the Nemesis and the Athena is not an equivalent to the Mauler.  There are always going to be similarities but it would be like someone looking at a rough description of a Protoss zealot and deciding it's the same as a Zergling.



I would enjoy it more if we had a different playstyle with the units for example the air units in starcraft (mutas vikings battlecruisers and much more). In a more abstract way they all make dmg and they fly but they deliver a different way to play the game. For example we could have a aggresive disturbing race with the right units for that and defending preventive race. Maybe not every race needs every possibilitie. Maybe we have a race which is good in fighting over long ranges it would be nice if the race would have units and abilities to do such things. In my opinion sc2 did a good job in delivering that. Maybe your game will sell better if we have it more like that. I think neinhalt is also concerned about that. My english is not so good if I made mistakes  please correct me.



StarCraft is focused around micro-management. So a lot of the unit differentiation revolved around that axis.  So for instance, Mutas tend to clump together which makes them very vulnerable to AOE weaponry thus allowing one player to differentiate their skill from another by their microing of them.  

We don't intend to use micro as a means to differentiate player skills.

In StarCraft, all the races have the same basic units.  It's not like any of the races lack a long-range siege unit or a long-range air unit or short-range units.  

My point is that on paper, a Zergling and a Zealot are basically the same unit but I think we can all agree they don't play the same.  Similarly, the Eradicator and the Nemesis may seem similar on paper they play very differently.

I've spent most of my adult life playing StarCraft and while I applaud their unit balance, what makes them play distinct from one another has a lot to do with their micro-mechanics and not their basic unit design.  A clump of liberators is really not that much different than a clump of mutas other than where the player micro comes in. A roach and a Marauder are not very different other than their micro (a roach can be burrowed potentially, a marauder can be stimmed).

The level of differentiation we are looking to have in Ashes is not StarCraft level but rather more like Company of Heroes or Supreme Commander.  

 

Thank you for the detailed anwser. Looking forward to the patch.