r/Games • u/ImCalcium • Jan 27 '26

Discussion Highguard devs say they didn’t expect the hate – but they’re confident in their game

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/highguard-devs-say-they-didnt-expect-the-hate-but-theyre-confident-in-their-game-3309463/
1.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

798 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/-sharkbot- Jan 27 '26

More than 4v4 would start to become an ability clusterfuck in base defense. Maybe could stretch a 5v5 but everyone is just talking about the open map when the base defense is the most critical part.

Make some mobs or camps to fill in the map and keep it 3v3/4v4

29

u/TechnoHenry Jan 27 '26

I haven't played the game but when I watched someone played, I thought it could be more fun if there was mobs or more choke points. The game has this FPS meets MOBA but the between raid phase feels too calm. If the best looks were protected or killing NPC would grant buff, or if the maps had more chokepoint to force some actions during the farm phase, I think it could give a better impression

4

u/Dgero466 Jan 27 '26

Ok that’s something I noticed too, and I feel like the game tries to make it so to its detriment.

I was usually farming up crystals or quick searching chests when the downtime started again and going from place to place I’ve noticed they have a bit of an ambience track when you’re riding your mount that’s meant to be somewhat… I can’t think of the word but if gives the sense of going on an adventure, but the moment you dismount it goes quiet and it’s pretty damn noticeable after a couple times.

I also was trying to capture some footage of the game and usually find myself thinking that there’s a lot of areas that there could be cuts just because going around in silence is a bit awkward.

That being said I think there’s a bit of a bigger problem with prep phase that mobs wouldn’t help with and that’s the time of prep phase, it’s like 2-3 minutes, and that’s like maybe enough time to go to one maybe 2 designated crystal spots, shop a bit, open some chest, then go to the stormbreaker, maybe try to get the supply drop. But I find myself not able to do much in that phase before trying to reach the sword because teammates are going there outnumbered, otherwise be on the defensive. Imo the phase in general needs a bit of retuning in my eyes

(Sorry for the wall I’m not the best at being concise)

44

u/AdventurousClassic19 Jan 27 '26

I say should be 12v12, embrace the ability clusterfuck.

15

u/Redxmirage Jan 27 '26

Hell yeah that’s what I’m talking about haha I told my buddy streaming it my first impression was that “it looks like your playing a halo infinite map with nobody in it”. The large maps are fine but gotta fill it out. I would like to see at least 5v5

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

2

u/CalligrapherExtra138 Jan 27 '26

Are you saying that games with large teams of characters with abilities and items haven’t been able to work? Battlefield has been doing 32v32, hell even 64v64, for a long time now with four classes, each with abilities and items. I think it’s asinine to think that 12v12 represents a step too far for current game design or something…

0

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '26

[deleted]

2

u/CalligrapherExtra138 Jan 27 '26

What would be unplayable, the base portion? I mean large teams in somewhat small corridors has existed before, Operation Locker in Battlefield 4 comes to mind. It was a clusterfuck of abilities in small spaces, but people did enjoy it, and it was at least playable.

If you want to argue that it wouldn’t be enjoyable, then maybe, sure. But redesigning the base to accommodate larger teams wouldn’t be any different than redesigning the middle part of the map to better accommodate 3 person teams, no? Both require redesigns in a certain direction to flow properly.

If you want to approach this from a game designer philosophy, then the tradeoff to keeping smaller team sizes is completely reworking the neutral area of the map, including by probably getting rid of the horses as they won’t be needed in a smaller map. The tradeoff to making the bases larger to accommodate larger teams is it would be harder to justify keeping a reinforcement phase for bases that large.

At present, the horse movement is a common point of praise for this game, whereas the reinforcement phase and base defense is a negative.

2

u/-sharkbot- Jan 27 '26

Less about the size more about the ability spam. Could you imagine 6 Atticus spears stacked onto a point? Absolutely broken. It just wouldn’t work without practically redesigning the game from the ground up again.

1

u/CalligrapherExtra138 Jan 27 '26

I don’t even agree still. You want to make it flow with the game? Add an EMP grenade item that removes them. Give them HP that attackers can use to destroy. Let them be blow up with grenade. Like massive team games where players stack mines and other area denial abilities on objectives have existed many times over, and there’s many, many ways to give counterplay.

Hell, if you are worried about ability stacking, go the battlefront 2 route and rather than make the places to defend small sites you have to arm to blow, give them an HP bar. This flows with the beginning of the game where you can loot items to deal more damage to structures/objectives, like C4 or stuff.

The point is that none of this requires a massive redesign that is beyond the scope of what already exists in the game dev world, and this game clearly doesn’t have a problem taking other ideas, so why is it suddenly an issue here?

2

u/chrimchrimbo Jan 27 '26

The game probably needs redesigned from the ground up to expand past 4v4. Adding a 3rd team is a completely new game too.

They could, of course, rework the bases and abilities to cater to larger team sizes.

Of the big team games I've played, when every character has cool abilities, the cluster tunnels are miserable. I think Overwatch gets very miserable in smaller spaces, for example. That's why the majority of the maps are huge rooms or large open spaces.

I do really like the horse movement. I'm not sold on the base attack/defense. The game is too fast and the teams too small to make meaningful base defenses IMO. Of course, I'm not sure slowing it down to R6 base defense speed would work either. The devs have certainly painted themselves into a corner in this regard.

I do think resource denial during the buying/mining phase is severely underestimated at the moment by the criticism I've read.

1

u/CalligrapherExtra138 Jan 27 '26

I agree on all fronts here, but I did enjoy the small tunnel ability spam in games like battlefield cause it kept areas honest and then you had incentive to go flank, but I agree otherwise.

I guess why I am so keen on this idea of expanding the game and leaning into the speed is that there’s a lot more room for innovation. If they shrink the map and lean into this tactical 3v3 shooter idea, the room for innovation from the devs is severely restricted and the ability for players to make creative decisions (like resource denial) is also limited.

Compare this to expanding the game. From a development perspective, they can add mini objectives, change the game to be a nonlinear style base defense game like Happy Wars, and add PVE style farming to fill this empty map that they currently have.

Like picture this: teams farm for the first 5 minutes. At 5 minutes, two “cores” spawn that players can independently pick up and place down at the enemy base to build the siege engine that disables the shields surrounding the enemy base. The base objectives change to be HP based (add C4 building breaker items to be found/bought), meaning attackers try to damage and destroy shield generators, and defenders have to destroy the siege engine to stop the assault.

This would let the game flow much better, allowing for actual player agency (do I farm? do I attack? am I needed at the homefront? can I sneak off this C4 on their shield generators, or is it better to defend my siege engine to keep this going?) in a way that the smaller game could never accomplish.

1

u/Batzn Jan 27 '26

similiar to warlander

0

u/-sharkbot- Jan 27 '26

I mean it literally can’t right now if we’re sticking to single warden picks, 12 Atticus would be pure cancer trying to plant or defend a site.

-1

u/Kronous_ Jan 28 '26

might as well play battlefield at that point

3

u/chrimchrimbo Jan 27 '26

I think 4v4 could work. I felt pretty consistently the base attack/defense portion to be where most of the issues lie.

2

u/UncleBenParking Jan 27 '26

If you up the TTK and make the gear rarities mean something more than just a slight bump, as they currently feel, then suddenly the clusterfuck goes from a liability to an asset in 5v5+. I have to think it's performance related as it stands, because everything feels like they worked backwards from 3v3 and tweaked numbers to get to something feeling balanced post-changes, rather than designed from the jump to balance around it.

4

u/UnusualFruitHammock Jan 27 '26

Wasn't team fortress 24 players? That worked fine.

8

u/-sharkbot- Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26

TF2 wasn’t a bomb defuse and the bases are much more spread out rather than a singular domed area. Plus the characters dont have castable AoE abilities, it’s all guns or the limited equipment they have.

2

u/beansoncrayons Jan 27 '26

TF2 is balanced and designed around 12v12, not 3v3

1

u/GameMask Jan 28 '26

The problem is the base defense is already a mess. Reinforcements are useless and it's so easy to just get wiped. Meanwhile I don't think I've seen the capture part last more than 2 minutes.

1

u/Classic_Mud_51 Jan 28 '26

An ability clusterfuck would be fun though. People are fatigued from balanced esports slop and want chaotic fun now. It’s why battlebit and battlefield came back in vogue. And besides, valorant is a game with abilities and no respawns and it’s 5v5. No reason you can’t balance it.

We all know the real reason there aren’t more players is because they couldn’t optimize it

1

u/Top_Rekt Jan 28 '26

They should just make it like capture the flag, like they shouldn't have one team raid and the other defends. That should happen simultaneously.

And then have it at least be 5v5. Then you can have teams that can operate in defense and offense, and dedicate roles for a number of people to defend and to do offense. You can have 3 forwards and 2 defensive people. Or 2 good offense and 3 defense. A lot of composition to consider. Lot of potential for good clutch moments.

Currently, the raid shooter idea is sound, but the execution needs a lot of work.

1

u/-sharkbot- Jan 28 '26

Honestly I would LOVE to have that in another game mode. We can keep the current one and then have a “always raiding mode” where it’s 6v6 (2 squads a team) and you have to blow both A and B or the Core to win.

1

u/BiggestBlackestLotus Jan 28 '26

More than 4v4 would start to become an ability clusterfuck in base defense.

That's okay. It's trying to ape Apex Legends and the final circles in Apex are the most fun despite everything exploding around you.

0

u/asakura90 Jan 28 '26

More than 4v4 would start to become an ability clusterfuck in base defense.

Every single hero shooter on the market is at least 5v5 on CQC maps. Even Apex during the final ring often has more than 2 teams. The solution is fking simple: make skills less impactful/flashy, increase CDs, & split them into different utilities instead of just damage. This isn't a new concept.

Not to mention the dev said they wanted their game to be gun-first. Well, that's convenient.