The Survey

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

Re: The Survey

Postby bluuurrrr » Wed 20 May 2015 15:16

QShadow wrote: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.


Okay then - well now we are talking about their implementation of the golden age... in my opinion they are missing the mark in that attempt to revive by innovating the wrong parts of the game and missing the point as to why those games were successful in the first place.

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

Re: The Survey

Postby bluuurrrr » Wed 20 May 2015 15:25

EARuinedC&C wrote:
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.


Agreed, for example the 1 to 3 minutes you spend scouting until the first unit comes off the ramp, in Generals I was already harassing with 1 or 2 units that I built from my WF and could easily have infantry inside buildings or moving across the mid line of the map. In RA3 I could be rushing my HQ either to start expansion in the middle of the map, or a sell out rush... If i was japan I could have 4 tengus up and attacking resources within 4 minutes of the start fairly easily. The game and fight was already on within that time... whereas here - your just getting started. Worse yet - your worried about finding resource areas - how boring. How much longer until you have 3 or 4 units out... and how much longer after that until they finally get to the other side of the map to start harassing or engaging?

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby torinus » Wed 20 May 2015 15:29

bluuurrrr wrote: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.

Base management can also be fun and important beyond just putting buildings down.

Starcraft has always had placement of building as important as what buildings you place. Over time people figured out how to use buildings to stop rushes, how to make harass weaker or how to provide early warning about a drop (or Nydus).

RTS is not only about making units, base management can be fun (also in C&C 1 we would rush with APC+engineer to take over HQ so we learned how to place buildings so our early tower could protect the most important buildings vs this) but only if it is important. Base management should not be about fighting with UI or strange mechanics but making important decisions. In Starcraft 1 with Terran you had to decide early if you wanted to build an Academy or Engineering Bay. Academy let you do a fast marine+medic rush that would kill lings, hydras and mutalisks, but if zerg rushed lurkers you needed the engineering bay to stop that as it gave you access to Towers that were only reliable way to detect burrowed Lurkers that early in the game (I am not talking about pro games here but what usually happened in casual games).

So base management is an important part of a good RTS (for harass of economy as well), but the game needs to cut the extra fat from it and just leave the lean muscle.
Last edited by torinus on Wed 20 May 2015 15:30, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The Survey

Postby oompah » Wed 20 May 2015 15:30

what is the identity of AoA?

If I ask you tell me about Generals: you instantly think of Tanks, building tanks. Generals had all the other stuff, teching, expanding, decisons to be made, air units, flanking, defense etc... but it is a tank game and it was very very successful at being that.

if you ask "tell me about starcraft" you'll get talk of Build Orders, zerg rushes, etc...

if you ask "tell me about AoA" - well it's a war sim, no I mean it's an RTS war sim, that focuses a lot on buildings, and well not just buildings, there are tanks too, oh wait - I forgot about logisitcs, it's a logistics centered, supply line, yes supply lines. Ok It's a logistics centered, base management, supply line driven combat simulation RTS ... with some tanks and stuff


You gotta understand I am not saying what Eugen has made isn't a cool game, because I actually like it. But it's just a real stretch to think it's sustainable due to it's complex nature and barrier to entry - at least when compared to starcraft and C&C games

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby torinus » Wed 20 May 2015 15:32

When I think about Generals I don't think Tanks. Generals was way more than that. It was more about Generals and special abilities and GLA invisibility, fast movement and infantry and US airforce and China Tanks as well as special commando units.

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

Re: The Survey

Postby bluuurrrr » Wed 20 May 2015 15:35

torinus wrote:When I think about Generals I don't think Tanks. Generals was way more than that. It was more about Generals and special abilities and GLA invisibility, fast movement and infantry and US airforce and China Tanks as well as special commando units.


Great example of how you can keep the basic formula.. but do things with units that can be considered innovating. You don't need to wreck the economy and pace the way that AOA has done here... This is my point - AoA should have copied the pace and resourcing/economy and made their mark with units.

But I think the main thrust of each side in Generals was a tank.

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby torinus » Wed 20 May 2015 15:41

bluuurrrr wrote:
torinus wrote:When I think about Generals I don't think Tanks. Generals was way more than that. It was more about Generals and special abilities and GLA invisibility, fast movement and infantry and US airforce and China Tanks as well as special commando units.


Great example of how you can keep the basic formula.. but do things with units that can be considered innovating. You don't need to wreck the economy and pace the way that AOA has done here... This is my point - AoA should have copied the pace and resourcing/economy and made their mark with units.

But I think the main thrust of each side in Generals was a tank.

Maybe in high level games, but I played lots of 2v2 games with friends and tank spam was not what we did most of the time. Generals has to many cool and awesome units, we won using all kinds of strategies (tank spam vs air force general ended up with groups of tanks demolished in the middle of the map on the way to air general base :D)

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

Re: The Survey

Postby oompah » Wed 20 May 2015 15:42

I totally agree there was a LOT to Generals, but as a flash memory most people who played it a lot think of the tanks.

Nothing better than slapping down a war factory ASAP and getting a few tank units out and harassing within the first few minutes

torinus
Lieutenant
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri 15 May 2015 22:39
Contact:

Re: The Survey

Postby torinus » Wed 20 May 2015 15:46

About the Survey: In it one question was about things being build right away compared to only being able to build things when you got full money for it. It needs to be discussed.

Personally I want it to be that you need a full amount before you can build something. It is easier to understand and plan your build orders and what and how to build. Also it is a lot harder to bring your economy to a standstill if you need a full amount before building something.

Starcraft has it and it works well. It is a winning formula and does not need changing.

If AoA decides to keep the current economy system it needs to implement +/-X resources per second counter into its UI similar to the one in Grey Goo so players can see when they are stalling their production with too many things being build or researched at same time.
Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander also had this system and they also had +/- X resources per second on UI.

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

Re: The Survey

Postby Addy » Wed 20 May 2015 16:04

bluuurrrr wrote:But I think the main thrust of each side in Generals was a tank.

oompah wrote:Nothing better than slapping down a war factory ASAP and getting a few tank units out and harassing within the first few minutes


Wait, you actually build tanks for harassment in Generals? You build any of the tanks at all? :lol:

You're not just horrible at giving feedback and making up claims as Eugen never said they were making a Generals game at all, you're also a pair of complete Generals noobs who have probably never seen a multiplayer match, let alone played one.

Gentlemen, I see what's at play here. :)
Image

Go educate yourselves about Generals gameplay and the fact that only a complete idiot would ever build Crusaders, Paladins, Battlemasters or Scorpions in a real match... let alone :lol: harassed :lol: with them. What's next, you actually keep your Command Center up and don't sell it at the beginning of the match? Don't know that units move faster diagonally and noobishly send them in a straight line at the opponent? :mrgreen:

How can you possibly tell these professional developers how to properly emulate a game neither of you knows anything about after a Multiplayer beta event of their own game? Wait for the campaign, it sure is going to feel much more like your precious Generals memories of getting stomped by the CPU. ;)

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests