The Survey

User avatar
DarcReaver
Private First-Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 16:14
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby DarcReaver » Tue 19 May 2015 22:32

QShadow wrote:
DarcReaver wrote:Those games are real time strategy games. The other genre are real time tactics and round based strategy games like Civilizations. Every game in which you collect resources and control your units directly are by definition RTS.

So, to quote the dude:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c[/youtube]


You only need the youtube ID to make the video work ---> pWdd6_ZxX8c <---

Ninja'd. You figured it out yourself ^^
Also I want to add that games like Starcraft turn people directly off BECAUSE of theire fast paced gameplay, so to say there is a niche no one exploited so far to bring some corporate talk into this.


Hehe yes, I'm a sneaky editor :D

Exactly. Too much cheese turns down people. I personally hate playing a game in which you start playing, then get hit by something you don't know and suddenly you're completely fucked. Loosing because of some strange, unlogical cheese is simply annoying.

Sid Meier said once "A good game is a follow up of multiple, interesting decisions". And I would like to add: a game needs to be transparent and logical. If you loose and you can figure out why you lost is way better than having some "WTF" moments.

edit: damn, now the thread has gone to page 2. I hope people will still read the posts on the front page.
Proud member of Archaic Entertainment - The developer Team behind

Company of Heroes: Eastern Front Mod
http://www.easternfront.org

User avatar
QShadow
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2011 11:22
Location: Austria, Vienna
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby QShadow » Tue 19 May 2015 22:42

DarcReaver wrote:Hehe yes, I'm a sneaky editor :D


:mrgreen:

DarcReaver wrote:Sid Meier said once "A good game is a follow up of multiple, interesting decisions". And I would like to add: a game needs to be transparent and logical. If you loose and you can figure out why you lost is way better than having some "WTF" moments.


I didnt even knew Big Sid said that line but I think it applies very well to AoA in my humble opinion. The only thing that is a bit iffy in AoA is the ressource system, but you only need someone to explain that to you once and it breaks down to 2-3 things (depends on your counting)

Build refinerys on ressource spots not in your base
You need storage for alu and RE
RE and alu are shared locally Oil globally (even though building a 2nd HQ was never necessary in the beta)

Thats it.
But I have to throw in, as we alredy stated, the network system (point 3) definitley needs an overhaul

DarcReaver wrote:edit: damn, now the thread has gone to page 2. I hope people will still read the posts on the front page.

The thread isnt too huge yet ^^
Image

Addy
Corporal
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu 14 May 2015 13:46
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby Addy » Wed 20 May 2015 12:42

bluuurrrr wrote: You can not change the successful formula and expect to be successful. I've seen good RTS games that implemented air units, sea units - but these are minor changes to the formula.


[img]http://lightningsoul.com/media/img/ranking/dawn-of-war[1].jpg[/img]

Image

Because all the AoE and C&C and Starcraft/Warcraft clones were so successful, right?
Oh, wait, no... every single game that actually did succeed was a new experience.
Empire Earth, Total Annihilation, Kohan, Cossacks, Rise of Nations, Dawn of War, Homeworld, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Ground Control, Earth series, et cetera.
All the successful non-Westwood/Blizzard/Ensemble games did change a lot. For goodness' sake, your precious Generals was a middle finger to the conventions as it was a mix of C&C with Warcraft and some new ideas added in (call-ins/General powers).

oompah
Master Sergeant
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat 16 May 2015 02:03
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby oompah » Wed 20 May 2015 14:34

A couple of points to cover

#1 This game being like Generals is something Eugen has been touting and saying since their first press release. Blurrr isn't the one clamoring for the game to be like Generals - he was told that. SO I think it's fair he make comparisons. Eugen never said this game would be like WiC or any Ages games. So let him have his say on that topic

#2 Hitting the FUN mark.

This game should be fast, fluid and engaging - subjective I know but those concepts lead to fun in RTS games that don't set out to be simcity or Civ or TA or WiC.

If I am to assume Eugen means what they say when they say "we want this game to be like Generals, lots of tanks, traditional base building and resourcing", then it is 100% correct for blurrrr to hammer them on this.

Emulating Generals, a game much more popular but basically very similar to Act of War, is a very smart move. The setting is the same, there are millions of displaced Generals and AoW players, go for it. But then to seem the game is very much more of a base building, logistics sim that either of those two games does open up the discussion on "why are they going this route?" and "Does it actually make the game better or just different"

I think the jury is out on if the concept of having huge maps, slower pacing and a lot of more attention to logistics (base building, network resource management, supply lines, etc...) is a winner

I personally think there are some concepts in there that are cool, but at what cost? Are we asking too much of players to learn the complexity of the game. Will a large percentage of players feel like "I came here to build tanks, not manage a sprawling complex base"

User avatar
EARuinedC&C
Sergeant
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 12 May 2015 21:30
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby EARuinedC&C » Wed 20 May 2015 14:53

The thread isnt too huge yet ^^


Unlike the maps. Faster infantry + much smaller maps should fix initial slow pace.

keebs63
Brigadier
Posts: 3091
Joined: Mon 3 Mar 2014 08:33
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby keebs63 » Wed 20 May 2015 14:55

I tried not to give everything a poor rating on the survey, but I found that very hard. I ended up giving like 90% of questions a 1 or a 2.
Image
"arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarted" -Someone, somewhere in Wargame Chat 2015

User avatar
QShadow
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2011 11:22
Location: Austria, Vienna
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby QShadow » Wed 20 May 2015 14:57

I need to know somehting. What are you guys defining as "slow pace",
because I have a barely enough time managing everything until I have my first unit rolling of the belt which usually takes me between 1 and 2 minuits depending how fast I find the oilspots on the map. Meanwhile I'm scouting the map with my surveys (usually at least 2) and continue to harass the enemy where I can. The first time I can "slow down" a bit is when I got my heavy vehicle and/or helipad online.
Last edited by QShadow on Wed 20 May 2015 14:58, edited 1 time in total.
Image

bluuurrrr
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat 16 May 2015 01:58
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby bluuurrrr » Wed 20 May 2015 14:57

I have noticed a few on here are attempting to move those goal posts by bringing in success of games that are just not RTS games.

When you talk about the pinnacle of RTS games, at least that's what Eugen wants us to consider AoA to be - CNC and Starcraft are the tops. No denying that. You can claim they scared away some of the turn based type folks, but regardless both series were massive successes. Eugen developers have mentioned Generals by name - they acknowledge exactly what I'm saying. Again - they didn't mention a Sid Meier game, COH, Age of Empires, etc... they mentioned CnC Generals because that is what they want to emulate.

Where they miss the mark is the implementation - those games were successful because they were fairly easy to pick up and understand. They were also fast paced and exiting. The complexity you call innovation makes that barrier higher and higher... every thing you add without thinking of the consequences will subtract from your final player base. The other failure is as Oompah pointed out - the fun factor. Again - RTS is about units, not base management. If you want to "innovate", that's where you should focus. Adding complexity to base management is quite frankly boring and monotonous. I read a comment on this forum from someone talking about trying to lay their base out in an organized fashion - and how they were very particular about where they were placing the building so that it would "look good". This game... this genre is not for them.

User avatar
QShadow
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2011 11:22
Location: Austria, Vienna
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby QShadow » Wed 20 May 2015 15:00

They said they want to revive the golden age of RTS in which CnC Generals took place / was the pinnacle, with good old things like base building ressource management and so on and not doing a straight out copy it.
Image

User avatar
EARuinedC&C
Sergeant
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue 12 May 2015 21:30
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby EARuinedC&C » Wed 20 May 2015 15:12

I need to know somehting. What are you guys defining as "slow pace",


Well, a good example will be early game. Even basic scout harassment takes shit loads of time because the maps are ridiculous. There really is no need to be so much space between the players. Why is there? What is there to do? Using infantry for attacks at the beginning is nearly impossible, again due to the insane maps and the slow infantry. I shouldn't have to wait for a transport vehicle. Like I said, cut the maps in half, double the speed of infantry and maybe reduce the scout speed and some of the late unit's speed to compensate. This really should be enough.

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests