What went wrong with this game?

Walker
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun 3 Apr 2016 09:30
Contact:

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby Walker » Fri 29 Apr 2016 12:32

pathatas85 wrote:me too. i have never seen game with 40 income buildings possible + antiballistic protection + efficient infantry + no units limit.


Sometimes I ask my self if we all play the same game. I play 3v3 most of the time and often with/vs. random.

If i see someone building these incoming buildings quite from the beginning I can easly kill him wit some puma´s or whatever.

1 Incoming building costs how much? 4.000? 4.000$ x 40 = 160.000$! What did u do with this money?

pathatas85
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2016 18:14
Contact:

"|

Postby pathatas85 » Fri 29 Apr 2016 12:49

Walker wrote:
pathatas85 wrote:me too. i have never seen game with 40 income buildings possible + antiballistic protection + efficient infantry + no units limit.


Sometimes I ask my self if we all play the same game. I play 3v3 most of the time and often with/vs. random.

If i see someone building these incoming buildings quite from the beginning I can easly kill him wit some puma´s or whatever.

1 Incoming building costs how much? 4.000? 4.000$ x 40 = 160.000$! What did u do with this money?


What did I do with this money ?? nothing because I didn't have them :D when I used "normal" game strategy and spent them for units which were destroyed. Because i played ACTIVE, not PASSIVE
It is very easy logic, with each income building is your income faster and faster, so 5000 is much different value in the beginning or with 6 buildings already built.
As i said, it works very nice with cheap and efficient soldiers. YOu can send message to your teammate, i go turtling support me when they rush me in early game
easy with pumas ?? i think is not so easy against javelins or many soldiers garrisoned in buildings and with 2 players help. They will help him immediately when they see tanks passed the bridge.
sometimes you must defend yourself and you have no time looking for one of 3 players building bank imperium, games are different.
Do you really like it ? mygod.
I can say, when they will not change it i will not play this game not more or just simply leave ninja turtles game.
for me its boring, nothing more then boring not interesting game.
Exactly as you told me, even when you win the game with fast puma rush, it is BORING. ONe guy with fast income buildings with bad defense one guy fast rush with same units.
where is the strategy ? nowhere
He spammed buildings, you spammed tanks. WOW

Torinus explained it very nice.

Walker
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun 3 Apr 2016 09:30
Contact:

Re: "|

Postby Walker » Fri 29 Apr 2016 14:00

pathatas85 wrote: where is the strategy ? nowhere


That is exacly differnet to my point of view: It is all strategy!
Player 1 loves rushing with cheap tanks, Player 2 prefers turling and building these incoming buildings, etc.

Sometimes you win sometimes not. It's your decision, how u play this game.

What I don´t like is favor the "mainstream" with restrictions to the others.

pathatas85
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2016 18:14
Contact:

Re: "|

Postby pathatas85 » Fri 29 Apr 2016 14:18

Walker wrote:
pathatas85 wrote: where is the strategy ? nowhere


That is exacly differnet to my point of view: It is all strategy!
Player 1 loves rushing with cheap tanks, Player 2 prefers turling and building these incoming buildings, etc.

Sometimes you win sometimes not. It's your decision, how u play this game.

What I don´t like is favor the "mainstream" with restrictions to the others.


So, better spam doesn't matter what, income buildings or tanks like nice battles for important areas on the map.
It would be possible without income buildings too, rush cheap tanks or turtling.
For example, player would rush refineries get advantage of resources and capture prisoners, and decided turtle in base for some period of time.
Would be more dynamic, many game stages from rushing, defending, turtling to end game attacks.
But not turtling like Crazy whole game
this is difference, sometimes is really crazy. Ok no problem, i will just leave these games. Then other players should not complain, if they like that shit must play with same players who have same thinking.


why the hell cant be settings in lobby, same as resources.
As torinus said, it is not really normal in RTS games in long history

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

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby Megiddo » Fri 29 Apr 2016 14:37

The only thing that could use some tweaks about the income buildings are their prices. they could cost more 7000/7500 oil to make them a little harder to build and advantage a bit more the active, PoW harvesting strategy.

Otherwise they're fine imo, they have a good value at end game and in long team matches.
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.

User avatar
AndreB
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun 17 May 2015 18:49
Location: Mars Republic
Contact:

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby AndreB » Fri 29 Apr 2016 14:47

torinus wrote:
AndreB wrote:
torinus wrote:Infinite income buildings screw balance in late game just like how in vanilla many resource locations screwed it from start.

People that enjoy long combat can already set resource fields to last x10, but with income buildings those that spam them and get away with it (just like in vanilla you spammed refineries and tried to get away with it) will win.

In previous good strategy games you planned around having resources run out eventually and that often led to very tense end game scenarios where you tried to use the last few end game tech units to finish it, not throw them away because you have 20 more in the base already.


So its a pacing problem? like refs having too much resources that you don't need to plan to get prisoners or income generating buildings, to replace the ref eco.

Maybe instead of removing income generating buildings make the refs have less resources overall, so that you have to plan ahead, and actually tech. Because like you said in generals the income generating buildings were there to replace the standard resource collection.

If you did that, people would complain a lot. I have played a lot of RTS over the years (started with Dune 2, C&C 95 was my first MP), I don't remember any of them having such end game infinite resource potential. In all of them end game was a game of starvation where you usually fight will less but better units than in mid game. Mid game was always the part where you did big pushes and big plays.
In AoA seems as the game goes on you get more and more resources and it never ends. The game can have endless clashes of big armies in the middle if player wants. Even in basic resource mode.
Maybe this is better, maybe all future RTS will be like this... but I am pretty sure most of them in the past were not. And neither is Sc2 which is most popular out there (some of the best sc2 games came out of players lacking lots of resources in the end game and needing to get creative).

EDIT: By having easily accessible endless income resources you are training your players to play this way. You are letting them be slow and spammy.

EDIT2: Don't forget in Generals you have SW that could not be stopped. You have General powers that would in 95% situation do damage. I lost the income buildings constantly in Generals. I don't remember ever being able to keep more than 2 alive, usually just one.
In AoA, even Reboot you can turtle like crazy, make your income farms almost untouchable, especially from ground.
Only way I ever managed to kill those in end game was with mass Valkyrie, no attack behind the base with transports does much and SW are mostly useless by that stage of the game.


Well this game has a more complex tech structure where even superweapons can get countered. So having a income generating phase for the game isn't bad necessarily, as long as you pace it correctly, the problem is also related to how lategame units sometimes aren't as effective as you might think.

You complain about spam, sure, but sometimes spamming light infantry is all you need to kill lategame super expensive tanks. Also only some lategame units are worthwhile to build, and more than half of them have a very specialized and unique role which is worse than some Tier 1 units.

I think this is the problem, because normaly by reaching the endgame, you would have enough to end a turtling player, but right now a turtling player can spam cheap light infantry and some arty units and counter a complete army. That in my opinion is where the problem lies, not in income generating buildings.

Iam totaly fine in teamgames having one back player going for a eco build, what it isn't fine is that same player being able to defend a full army with just a couple of units. NLOS is one of such things that makes turtling too effective.

Also garrisons lacking propper counters allowing for such a turtling style to be super effective, where white phosphorous should properly work, and where amos mortar strykers and grenadiers should be kings of the battlefield, but they aren't.

Furthermore, the way the eco works right now its way too easy to always get back into the game, so you will always have cheap and fast money to spam more light infantry.

If you fix this and buff early game arty units, a lot of the issues your having will go away, simple because you can just wreck an entire base if you have a proper army.

pathatas85
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2016 18:14
Contact:

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby pathatas85 » Fri 29 Apr 2016 14:59

yes, as i said. Together with cheap and very effective units.
early game phase should be this tactic more vulnerable

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

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby torinus » Fri 29 Apr 2016 15:02

@AndreB
No it won't. People are still going to spam these income building and then complain how you wrecked them.

It is also about training people that eventually resources will run out like they did in 20 RTS games before this one and they need to play it like that.

pathatas85
Sergeant
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2016 18:14
Contact:

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby pathatas85 » Fri 29 Apr 2016 15:14

simple.

lobby...
Income buildings normal 10, extended 20, infinite .

Why the hell is there a option for oil but no income buildings ?? 3 different playstyles and people will choose what they like more.
i think torinus is very experienced, and he explained it very nice in comparison with generals.
I think i will play this game because there is no other similar game, but when i will see crazy turtling just leave game and start next which will be maybe better.

im not punished like in dota or cs go for leaving, and i don't care these players who make the game boring and not interesting.
When i will see one player do this often, i will kick him from my lobby next time

Walker
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun 3 Apr 2016 09:30
Contact:

Re: What did went wrong by this game ?

Postby Walker » Fri 29 Apr 2016 15:56

What about another option in the Lobby:

No Rush Normal:10 min.,Extended: 20 min. Hardcore: 30 min. :D

Sry, just a joke!

More choice for the host would be fine for me.

Return to “Act of Aggression”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests