So, is the Dev team still on this game?

SentinelX
Corporal
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat 8 Aug 2015 03:18
Contact:

So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby SentinelX » Mon 1 Aug 2016 20:32

Recently I restarted playing the game. The first thing that came to my mind, and literally instantly, was this:
It is SUCH a shame that this game hasn't become, what it should have been...

It really makes me sad... Average 50p online, and always the same map(s)...

Eugen, really, have you abandoned it? Is there any way we get support for the game?

Things that i still noticed that arent here yet (or doubtedly ever will be):

FOCUS FIRE: still something units seem to miss... If i give an attackmove command, i don't care what they shoot at, cuz it's an attack move. If they move in a ball they should fire at whatever... But a dedicated command, and this is especially for the stealth units, often fails, because they shoot at whatever untill they get there and reload. If i right-click a unit, i want my unit to chase it, until it's in firing range and shoot, until either the enemy or my unit is dead, without distractions.

ATTACK PRIORITIES: At this very moment, every unit and every structure has the exact same priority as everything else. If its enemy, we'll shoot it, end of line.
While it should be something like this: (highest priority comes first in the list)

BARRACKS UNITS
*** RIFLE INFANTRY: Infantry -> Light Armor -> Heavy Armor -> Buildings
*** MISSLE/AT INFANTRY: Heavy Armor -> Light Armor -> Buildings (defenses) -> Infantry -> Buildings (production/power/economy)
*** AA INFANTRY: Planes -> Heli's (although this settles itsself as planes are not common in an all out unit battle)
*** SNIPERS:
*** Chimera: Armor -> Heli's -> Infantry
*** USA: Infantry only
*** DELTA: Infantry -> Armor (unless focusfiring)

FACTORY TIER 1 UNITS:
*** LIGHT ARMOR: Light Armor -> Heavy Armor -> Buildings (defenses) -> Infantry - Buidlings
The reason i'm putting it up as light armor is because AoA has different unit types that tend to overlap a lot with eachother... Light armor should be considered as tanks and non-AA vehicles that counter other light and heavy armor mainly. Example: Humvee's with a TOW could be considered as light (anti-) armor since their weapon mainly targets other light armor vehicles...

AA-vehicles should always prioritize AIR above GROUND, and when no air is present Infantry -> Light Armor -> Heavy Armor -> Buildings

You notice the trend i'm going on about here: units can be multirole no problem, but they should prioritize targets considering their main armaments, which now, they do not. The only two units that are a real pain to put on priorities are the Puma and Terminator, but since most units weapons fire simultaniously and on the move, i don't see a real problem (as the ATGM's outrange the guns anyways).

STANCES: Long demanded, never achieved, stances provide comfort of life for the player. When hold is active as a stance a unit should hold fire UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE: Stealth broken by a detector? Fine, but DO NOT FIRE! Passing next to a defense structure? SOLDIER U WILL HOLD FIRE. Especially stealth units suffer from this problem, as once stealth is broken they tend to unleash everything to whatever is closest...

AGRESSIVE STANCE: Attack anything and everything, keeping priorities in mind!
RETALIATE STANCE: Attack when being attacked, otherwise remain passive
HOLD FIRE STANCE: No offensive movement, whatever happens
BASE DESTROYER: This could be an interesting stance => Shift priorities to buildings only. When you get a hitsquad into a base, you choose to assault buildings only (Defensive -> Production -> Eco). That way, a base clean-up can be achieved while fighting on another front with other units

User avatar
deadnation
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri 9 Nov 2012 14:56
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby deadnation » Mon 1 Aug 2016 23:30

I would say that players abandoned AoA. Eugen tried again with the reboot, but it didn't review the game. I see no point for them to spend any more time and money to AoA. As you can see on stats all strategy games similar to AoA are in similar situation and are pretty much dead.

And their other strategy franchise wargame still do well (almost 10 times more players than on AoA) even when it didn't get any updates in long time because devs were working on AoA.

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby McNash » Tue 2 Aug 2016 07:45

deadnation wrote:I would say that players abandoned AoA. Eugen tried again with the reboot, but it didn't review the game. I see no point for them to spend any more time and money to AoA. As you can see on stats all strategy games similar to AoA are in similar situation and are pretty much dead.

And their other strategy franchise wargame still do well (almost 10 times more players than on AoA) even when it didn't get any updates in long time because devs were working on AoA.


Don't take my word for fact, but what I have seen with Wargame is that it has such a comparatively large following because of the amount of veterans and military fans who have discovered the game, often just through word of mouth, yo get former NATO operators, old Warsaw Pact soldiers, armchair generals, it's a bit like what happened with ARMA, people don't really play Wargame because they want some sort of competitive eSports platform to fight for the top 10 in the ladder, but because that game fulfills the lifetime dream of a visually realistic real time tactics game were you can test virtually every iconic conventional killing machine built during the Cold War, at battalion level, Eugen Systems hit the nail, and I am totally convinced not even them knew what they were doing aside from trying to do something they liked (it's obvious the company executive officers are huge fans of the military too).

Ultimately I can understand why they would prefer to invest their resources in Wargame, even while I would like to see new stuff for AoA, I am already too old to think companies live out of fan praise and good intentions.
Image

Predatorrrr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri 21 Aug 2015 01:42
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby Predatorrrr » Tue 2 Aug 2016 09:50

McNash wrote:Don't take my word for fact, but what I have seen with Wargame is that it has such a comparatively large following because of the amount of veterans and military fans who have discovered the game, often just through word of mouth, yo get former NATO operators, old Warsaw Pact soldiers, armchair generals, it's a bit like what happened with ARMA, people don't really play Wargame because they want some sort of competitive eSports platform to fight for the top 10 in the ladder, but because that game fulfills the lifetime dream of a visually realistic real time tactics game were you can test virtually every iconic conventional killing machine built during the Cold War, at battalion level, Eugen Systems hit the nail, and I am totally convinced not even them knew what they were doing aside from trying to do something they liked (it's obvious the company executive officers are huge fans of the military too).


That is ONE sentence. What the actual fu...dge?

Regarding the topic: People still start the old game because its set to start as a standard option when using the desktop icon. They start it and think: "Nothing has changed. Bye Bye". And the developers do not care. Income first, there are a lot of great ideas for this game and they do not see the potential.

admiralzeech
Sergeant Major
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed 9 Sep 2015 13:10
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby admiralzeech » Tue 2 Aug 2016 17:09

For me, I think I just have to accept that Eugen aren't the developers for me. I recently started playing OpenRA (and then Forged Alliance Forever again) and really realized that Eugen probably has different tastes in RTS to me.

I want a *fun* game with traditional gameplay, but advanced UI and competitive features. And cool explosions.
I don't care that much about real life units, or military seriousness.

AoA and Wargame are basically the exact opposite to what I want - basic UI and competitive features, and the gameplay is not very traditional. Even Reboot edition, although they simplified the economy, still doesnt have the proper traditional gameplay due to the unit's roles being all over the place.
(Traditional gameplay = Scout jeep, light tank, heavy tank, artillery, AA, anti ground jet, anti air jet, superweapon, etc. None of these crazy upgrades that radically change unit balance and roles.)

Also, Eugen's games are always very serious and bland.
I thought Act of War had some interesting ideas at the time, but it was missing the spark of fun that would make me really love it, compared to Generals.

TLDR: All I wanted was a modern engine C&C Generals clone. But I don't think Eugen is wiling to make such a game.

SentinelX
Corporal
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat 8 Aug 2015 03:18
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby SentinelX » Tue 2 Aug 2016 19:50

admiralzeech wrote:For me, I think I just have to accept that Eugen aren't the developers for me. I recently started playing OpenRA (and then Forged Alliance Forever again) and really realized that Eugen probably has different tastes in RTS to me.

I want a *fun* game with traditional gameplay, but advanced UI and competitive features. And cool explosions.
I don't care that much about real life units, or military seriousness.

AoA and Wargame are basically the exact opposite to what I want - basic UI and competitive features, and the gameplay is not very traditional. Even Reboot edition, although they simplified the economy, still doesnt have the proper traditional gameplay due to the unit's roles being all over the place.
(Traditional gameplay = Scout jeep, light tank, heavy tank, artillery, AA, anti ground jet, anti air jet, superweapon, etc. None of these crazy upgrades that radically change unit balance and roles.)

Also, Eugen's games are always very serious and bland.
I thought Act of War had some interesting ideas at the time, but it was missing the spark of fun that would make me really love it, compared to Generals.

TLDR: All I wanted was a modern engine C&C Generals clone. But I don't think Eugen is wiling to make such a game.


While i don't agree completely, i get where you're coming from. I like the somewhat multirole units (for example that tanks have an HMG, like in real life, and can compete with copious amounts of infantry), but it's sometimes a bit too serious indeed. That isn't in sé a bad thing, as it opens the way for different strategies, and ways for comeback as even cheap units can counter heavier units to some extent, but it lacks some soul...

The only faction that really has soul for me is Cartel. It looks good, it plays good, has lots of options, and can be sneaky and straight up strong too.

I don't get the complaint for traditional gameplay though... While unit interactions aren't RPS like most other RTS's, the gamplay is pretty traditional. Both Vanilla and Reboot stick to tradition in their way:

Multiple rescources: pretty standard to me
Building from HQ/Builder unit: couldn't be more traditional
Production from different facilities: Blizzard did it first, then C&C adapted and used it for years

In my opinion: if the game was polished more (UI and interaction wise, see my OP) and given some more character, this would be a hit, but honestly, WE, the community AND customers, wasted their time... Beta was the best this game couldve been really, i enjoyed that fase, with all the nice extra "rules" to unit interaction. The only thing i disliked, and still do, is the randomised rescource fields... This is not done if you want the game to be competitive.

Things Reboot altered that shouldve been in Vanilla:
* Aircraft system (this is so much better in reboot)
* Fixed Rescource points (i'm not going for 1 resource only, but fix the points where we find them, and balance the maps around that)
* Expansion possibilities next to Refineries: this is so awesome to do. You get another resource node and lock it with additional facilities to up your production and fortify that point.
* Make resource storage bigger: this is more an added point, since Reboot doenst use resource storage anymore... I like big bases, but the amount of storage buildings needed was maybe a bit too much :) Give it like 5k~10k ALU and 3.5k~7.5k RE. That way players can build up, and need storage only when saving for big stuff :)

admiralzeech
Sergeant Major
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed 9 Sep 2015 13:10
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby admiralzeech » Wed 3 Aug 2016 03:56

SentinelX wrote:I don't get the complaint for traditional gameplay though... While unit interactions aren't RPS like most other RTS's, the gamplay is pretty traditional. Both Vanilla and Reboot stick to tradition in their way:


Mostly around unit balance and roles.
Eg.
- traditionally you would raid resource gatherers and structures, whereas in AoA you raid construction units since gatherers are super cheap and refineries are super tough.
- Unit roles, counters and relative strengths are not quite what you'd expect from other games. Maybe it's realistic? (TOW humvees are a counter to tanks, etc) It's kinda subtle and I'm sure you can find counter examples, but something just feels off. (eg. Otos are stronger "tanks" than Scorpios, despite being listed as an AA.)
- For newcomers, unit roles are not always clear from their names or appearances. (eg. Oto/Scorp above.) Most games will label a unit by its role first, and maybe give it a name in the lore. ie. Medium Tank, Mammoth Tank etc.

This is all purely subjective, based on my own tastes and expectations. I don't think it would apply to everyone else.

SentinelX
Corporal
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat 8 Aug 2015 03:18
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby SentinelX » Wed 3 Aug 2016 17:40

admiralzeech wrote:- traditionally you would raid resource gatherers and structures, whereas in AoA you raid construction units since gatherers are super cheap and refineries are super tough.


Yes, this I actually agree with, but wether they're cheap or not, losing them does set you back (mostly in mining time). Yet they are a lot more costly then they were in vanilla... I remember KMax costing only 175, vs 800 in reboot...

admiralzeech wrote:- Unit roles, counters and relative strengths are not quite what you'd expect from other games. Maybe it's realistic? (TOW humvees are a counter to tanks, etc) It's kinda subtle and I'm sure you can find counter examples, but something just feels off. (eg. Otos are stronger "tanks" than Scorpios, despite being listed as an AA.)


Difficult to find a nice and constructive one here... Mammoth tanks did counter AIR aswell, so overlapping unit roles was something that had been done... Also transports with the capability to let soldiers fire out made that unit overlap. If you filled it with AT and anti-infantry it became a strong and fast multirole unit (GDI APC from C&C3). Specific on the Oto-Scorpio tho: This is like roach/hydra in starcraft: Oto's are tanky, low-damage units while the scorpios function as the ranged glass cannon. They need Oto's in their composition to do well, since their ROF is too slow. The only thing they do have though is speed, they can perform hit-n-runs quite effectively :)

admiralzeech wrote:- For newcomers, unit roles are not always clear from their names or appearances. (eg. Oto/Scorp above.) Most games will label a unit by its role first, and maybe give it a name in the lore. ie. Medium Tank, Mammoth Tank etc.


This is 100% true though. It's not always easy to differentiate. Once you start knowing the game this fades away but for new players i agree. A ROLE-ID should help to give new players an idea of what unit they are creating :)

Predatorrrr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 185
Joined: Fri 21 Aug 2015 01:42
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby Predatorrrr » Fri 5 Aug 2016 03:40

This game is dead. The developers and the publisher messed up big time. Move on.

User avatar
McNash
Lieutenant
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sun 15 Apr 2012 18:06
Contact:

Re: So, is the Dev team still on this game?

Postby McNash » Sat 6 Aug 2016 09:23

SentinelX wrote:The only faction that really has soul for me is Cartel. It looks good, it plays good, has lots of options, and can be sneaky and straight up strong too.


I think everyone agrees on this one, Cartel has this vibe and gameplay style which makes it memorable, also, I like the faction's campaign more than the one for Chimera.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest