Missing Basic Features

User avatar
ace40k
Sergeant Major
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon 19 Mar 2012 00:13
Contact:

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby ace40k » Sat 28 Nov 2015 19:04

StarSauorn wrote:2 Next one I would like to set the colour for my team on Red, Yellow or Green, I mean this colours are ingame, but the game only allows to set as my Team colour Blue, I hate blue.
Its a basic feature and really why , why isn't it properly included ?

the devs come from the Wargame series where only blue (NATO) and red (Sovietunion/Warsaw Pact) was necessary and needed. it made perfect sense there.

however, AoA having such limited options to set teamcolors doesnt make any sense because:
1) there arent only two factions fighting against each other
2) in general, the bright blue/green/red colors dont go well with the grayish/brown/gritty unit design in the game
3) having all your allies be green in a 4vs4 means you cannot coordinate well regarding tactics. for instance, "orange, attack red guy" or "purple, cap that bank here" doesnt work since everyone is green for you
4) likewise, you cannot immediately identify certain enemies in teamgames since everyone is red for you (add to that the fact that certain units look quite similar across factions)
5) variety is the spice of life, having multiple colors to choose from would be very welcome in context of customization and individuality


i really love this game but i hate that they didnt implement the possibility to freely choose your color. in every other RTS game i have played this was possible. in C&C Generals, for instance, you could play 4vs4 matches where everyone had a different unit color and nobody ever complained that they had problems with IFF, ever.
"Where do you need a flying tank?" - SuperHind

Image

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

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby admiralzeech » Sun 29 Nov 2015 04:23

Whilst most of the people here are multiplayer fans, the fact is that a large percentage of people who play RTS only play single and skirmish. (Heck, I remember playing a session of Warcraft 3 with friends and they all wanted to play tower defense :/ )

I think this game would retain a lot more casual players with some fun Mutator game settings for skirmish/custom. These shouldn't be too difficult to code, although making the UI for the system is a bit more work.

- all resources revealed
- infinite resource fields
- only one resource type
- no rush timer
- more options to ban unit types. (No air / no arty / no tanks / no infantry etc)
- Handicap system to allow veterans and newbies to play against each other meaningfully.
- fixed income mode


Sure, none of this helps the competitive side, but I remember in SupCom No Rush mode was particularly popular.


It just depends whether Eugen want to attract more players in general, or just the competitive hardcore.

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

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby admiralzeech » Sun 29 Nov 2015 04:28

On the topic of skirmish, given the difficulty and limitations of AI coding, it would also be fun to have a "survival" skirmish mode.

You play single or coop against an AI that is on a fixed script, it gets resources via cheating, and units from off map, and is designed to gradually escalate its attacks on you on a certain schedule. The goal is to survive as long as possible.

That was quite a popular mod in other RTS too.

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

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby SentinelX » Mon 30 Nov 2015 21:10

StarSauorn wrote:1 You run out of resources.
2 Its takes a lot of time to build up


These are moot points really... These are 2 of the FOREMOST AND IMPORTANT things about an RTS!

Ofcourse it takes time to build up... Do you want abrams at your doorstep at minute 1, only for you to have built units but the wrong ones? Time to build up gives players a necessary timeframe to SCOUT the enemy and discover/make an educated guess about the opponents strategy and to find a way to counter that strategy...

Rescources HAVE to run out... If rescources don't run out there would be:
- No reason to expand
- Endless games between evenly skilled players
- No strategy in denying your opponents an extra refinery spot

I'm sorry to say StarSauorn, but i feel you want this game to oversimplified... This is not what AoA envisions or strives for. This game is meant to deliver a tactical/strategical experience for players to test their skills in the scene of a "realistic" war, where rescources are scarce and wit and intelligence make you dominate the battlefield.

The one thing i can agree on is the teamcolors... It gets annoying fast to play as "Blue-Red" ALL THE TIME. And team colors need to be tackled aswell. As if someone who plays a game like this cannot remember the 3 other colors of the players that are in his team...

User avatar
Megiddo
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 678
Joined: Thu 23 Jul 2015 22:57
Contact:

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby Megiddo » Tue 1 Dec 2015 02:16

Some nice observations StarSauorn.

I particularly agree with what you said for the infantry units and more generally the game course.

The HP levels are, here again, at stake. you underlined this point clearly as well. Maybe more than the power of infantry units in my opinion.

Many threads reported the same kind of observations, underlining the limited choices we have in order to develop an efficient game course.

- The scalings of HP values, starting way too low to allow real combat phases with each tier of units, specially the T1 units.
- The same for the prices of units and upgrades, which could be higher as we go across the tiers.
- The same for the power of units, to emphasize on the efficiency of the upper tier units.

Rescaling these values could rebalance the game course, allowing us many more choices on the battlefield, bring clear softcounters/hardcounters techniques, and more generally enhance the combat experience : time spent in combat, movements, kiting techniques, strategy/tactics...in short, a combat lasting more than 10 seconds.

Many observations were made equally to ask for some economic/resource adjustments, for a clear and performant expense system since mastered build orders and rotations are of prime importance in a good RTS, for improvements about the line of sight, concrete scenery elements to obstruct it and "play" with this with our units, for improvements about the default behaviour of units when they engage, priorize the threats, or even answer to our orders, for something to break those aircraft lines across the screen, like aerial formations for example, which could put an end to these endless lines of jets...bringing a better concave impact for such formations and at the same time a better efficiency for the AA units to counter these formations, and consequently those who brainlessly spam lines of jets...

Those are just some of the most redundant examples.

In fact, many of your observations are spot on, underlining once again what we say since weeks, or even months...the ball is in Eugen Systems' court now, and we are expecting for some major improvements. They have my support, and i think they will do their best to enhance our AoA experience.
That's the saddest part of the story. I was getting used to think, after nearly three decades of its existence, that the word "Strategy" was the main cornerstone of the RTS genre and golden age.

AceRevo
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun 7 Sep 2014 20:20
Contact:

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby AceRevo » Tue 1 Dec 2015 03:02

emh.. unrevealed resources is just a part of the game. Minesweeper wouldnt be the same if you could see all the hidden bombs xD

User avatar
Araton
Warrant Officer
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu 9 Jul 2015 16:48
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Re: Game doesn't feel good because of missing easy to make Basic Features. Revealed resources, set Team colours etc.

Postby Araton » Tue 1 Dec 2015 07:06

What the game lacks right now is a larger variety of playable maps and I could even agree on the lack of game mods as well. Additinally the multiplayer ladder needs a bit of working too.

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

Re: Missing Basic Features

Postby torinus » Thu 3 Dec 2015 13:51

Well the game is still missing basic things like ingame timer or a loading game screen that shows names of all players and their chosen factions and overview of the map they will be playing on with a simple marker to show where are player spawn positions on that map.

These are things expected in a RTS in year 2015. This and many other features and polishing.

User avatar
KampfKeksKrieger
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 10:15
Contact:

I guess there is a good reason behind theese Basic missing Features

Postby KampfKeksKrieger » Sun 21 Feb 2016 13:42

I agree with you that there are indeed features, that we can rightfully demand on.

But there is something more to hope for:

Spoiler : :
For the guide I had/have to look really deep into their game and the more I see, the more I can accept the game as it is, which, other than EA, has some solid people behind their desks with some serious efforts to really bring the people something to present, with the best possibilities they had (which even the poor Generals 2 developers might have had, but with far less possibilities to succeed; with the big holy cashcow above their head):

In my point of view, the game has done a glad job in filling a suddenly opening gap in the genre-sector of their aim market (i.e. the sudden refusal of the developement of C&C Generals 2). They did quite good task in only a little bit more than one year which is competitive with the worlds best game-production-speed humans can give to a game. Remind youself that C&C Generals 2 was refused only around April 2014 and its still not 2 years passed by since then. For a full Realtime-3D-game of this size: dont you think this earns something?

How many other good RTS-Developers are there? Everything-is-Starcraft-or-what? (dont get me wrong: SC has its right place, but is this the end of our wishes and all dreams?) The poor Fireflys eitherwell have to carry the cross that the EA-Studios broke from: Only buggy/unfinished games since the point they handled their first serious success! (same story like Westwood < EA)

And now Eugen trys publish something that is free from all that and gets hailed... not good!

Would this developer be 'financially orientated, above the self-evident of survival will and the need for the well-earned dignity (which the germans beyond their law neither get), I would have
- not have given a price reduction to pre-orderers and owners of they recent games (+ beta-access)
- took additional money for the various DLCs they boosted Wargame with (for free for us)
- and I would have made a cash-cow á la Battelforge with auction house, Boosterpacks and Eugen-Points that you can buy to unlock all the units against additional money
|_> which would have resulted in a F-2-P-2-W C&C-Generals 2 as we recently succeeded to enforce our 'No' to.

So to finally come to an end:
Yes, more features would be nice, but I understand the situation they were and are and 'beyond all shits', the Eugens do a honorful task and if they did not surrender now, I think that they will manage that stuff!

And if Eugens dont succeed, we will have a long time without good RTS games if 1. EA and 2. Eugen systems failed to do the job that Westwood was disabled to do.

If you are bad in this game, use my guide it helps much, to a satisfiable degree if you plan / can accept to invest some time into this game as in any other and you will have some certain fun.

If I was Eugen now and had collected some unpleasant critics (beyond having made a satisfiable 80%-game), I would not show myself 2 weeks later with a 'plaster' (which ^= the word 'patch') on my face but I would give tit for tat and set something more on the title. And thanks god that we can hope that this developer HAS the potencial to commit this step!

If we dont play AoA - what is the choice for that? All we can do then is to just go back to your old Generals 1(or any other of the older games... ... ... or Wargame :| ) - - but is that the final truth?

And thats why [why] not let us pro pro pro the game? :lol:

This courage and effort should be rewarded and supported, not only criticised.

Yours sincerly, Kampfkekskrieger

User avatar
KampfKeksKrieger
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 357
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 10:15
Contact:

Re: Missing Basic Features

Postby KampfKeksKrieger » Sun 21 Feb 2016 17:44

StarSauorn wrote:At certain point its legit to start to criticize a product.
It has passed a lot of time here to include basics.


Yes. This is true.

Especially the arts, as computer games are, should keep us away from the outer modern world that we dont like.
Especially our children and youth that will have more time to play this than the part of us that is working, should have complete products.

But even children maybe know, that in 1-2 years, nobody can produce completed products.

If you knock too hard on a door that you want to enter, it can also happen that the door gets destroyed and you can never enter it.

If one works for 10 years a good homework, how long is the time you would give him until expecting an 11.th year?
Dont you think they deserved some reserves to life from? If not longer holidays then at least a supportive community?
I dont know what happens in 3-4 years, but at this point, it is too early to turn your back on the Eugens.

If you really want to criticize something, then go to my thrive link or take a look on people like George Friedman.
There are enough gangsters on the world that rather earned 'basic' critics than eugen.

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests