The concept behind Power Core isn't exactly training wheels, it's just different. Though it'd be a huuuuuuge stretch to even begin arguing that DoW 3 is just as fast as SC2.
My point on it being boring is that it's brought through very little of what made either dow1 or dow2 fans love those games, so neither of the two groups are left exactly happy with it.
And also, @GuruSkippy, yes, It's fair enough that you found dow2 boring. Personally I found it really exciting but ultimately frustrating because of the bugs and pathing.
I know it's hard (impossible) to build something that pleases everyone's expectations, but I think they've done the other (almost) impossible thing here and built something that pleases practically no one.
I appreciate that they were experimenting by choosing this formula, and I hope they continue experimenting as it's the best way that we'll get new things we like. Just with this game now it's probably gone past it. They didn't iterate fast enough, keeping it the same even tho it wasn't working.
Is there a road back? It's hard to say. Personally I hope they start mixing it up in big ways and often, there's no point in worrying about the pro scene or balance now, just focus on making changes to make the game fun and bring in casuals.
It's attracting casuals that eventually turn into pros is what makes a games pro scene. If they can bring the people back by making it fun, then I don't see why they couldn't focus on balancing afterwards.
@Cursed said:
Your not wrong. Maybe it's that they felt like they were more important in dow2 because you generally wouldn't have more than 2 of the same unit activating those abilities.
But that's still only one point in that post. Would you agree that dow3 feels boring compared to dow1 or dow2?
That's the thing about DoW3 , it has more options yet at the same time for whatever reason it feels like there is far less content. Then again, for me, I pine for my Imperial Guard so Space Marines will always feel incomplete.
@TuskaDemonKilla said:
Ofc its not "exactly" training wheels. You could also call it build-in breaks.
Well, the end result is that a player must consistently out perform another player and in certain stages it matters more than others, but the execution of that some times leaves much to be desired.
What training wheels would mean would mean that the losing player is always competing at the same level as the winning player which does not seem to be the case in DoW 3 under any of the game modes.
@Cursed said:
Your not wrong. Maybe it's that they felt like they were more important in dow2 because you generally wouldn't have more than 2 of the same unit activating those abilities.
But that's still only one point in that post. Would you agree that dow3 feels boring compared to dow1 or dow2?
That's the thing about DoW3 , it has more options yet at the same time for whatever reason it feels like there is far less content.
Just 3 factions does play to that feeling and people looking through the prism of multiple expansions for previous entry aren't helping either - hardly anyone remembers how bad and shallow base DoW2 was.
No, with training wheels I mean that its not punishing.
If Zerg builds 6 Drones too much in ZvZ and then he sees enemy ling/bane allin 15 seconds too late cuz he didnt position his first overlord properly, its gg.
Here you can get your army wiped off the map and while it will definetly put you behind, you get one, two more chances to break even after that.
@Stoner said:
You are correct, many developers pick up trends and try to ride hype train, but how many actually succeed and don't end up being "another ++heresy redacted++ quality clone?" Following it up, it gets quite hilarious, because latest biggest trend is actually not MOBA or MMO, but those Survivals. In that case it would make more sense for Relic to mix RTS with Survival, other than with MOBA.
Not many but that doesn't prevent them from the attempt, by the way I am sorry for the late answer I got distracted in the other thread. Maybe it would make more sense, however to actually mix up genres is not all that easy as we can see subgenre has been integrated into the root and many just complain and act like it makes it less of a game.
@Stoner said:
GT, Forza, WRC, DiRT Rally is pretty much sim too. Those might not be hardcore, but regular NFS fan would hardly be interested in those, especially when we get new NFS pretty much every year, and there are great arcades (which are mass appeal) on the market like The Crew (2 soon), Forza Horizon and etc.
I really don't want to start to argue about those to me they are not actual simulations, AC pretty much raised the standard for everybody (if you are interested all tracks have been laser scanned and so on). You would be surprised, i think people who like racing games in general tend to play GT and or NFS since they do not differ that much, in games like "i racing" or "ac" you have to have a wheel to be able to play, you can play with a pad but that will not have a good result. There is maybe 1/200 people who actually can play good with a pad in those.
@Stoner said:
Nevertheless we get more and more of them, actual classic'y isometric RTS, even in semi-2D and turn-based combat with shitloads of text.
Honestly it makes me happy that they make a comeback, I just think that the word "rise" implies that they take over the market which they probably will not do, they fill a demand that most likely older gamers (me incl. 30+) had.
@Stoner said
True, there never were too many mass appeal RTS games on the market aside from SC/WC, C&C, AoE and maybe something else, but I'm not sure what're you getting at? To bury genre hefty amount of people are interested in and money be made?
Hm I don't know if you by any chance followed the other thread, i quoted pc magazine, certain devs explained that you can maybe have one rts hit a year and nobody anymore will spend 40-60 million in production for a rts game. Things were not always like that for the genre, there was settlers, cossacks (yeah i know there is a 3rd on steam, lan party and lets go cossacks?) and so on... times just changed. Just look how long we have to wait for another game in a series we do enjoy, w4? dow2 to dow3? While games like CoD / BF get just thrown out.
@Stoner said:
This is fair to say that. If we take Steam as an example, there are about ~5500 + and ~5500 - reviews, but there's one big question mark:
If, say, ~5k people truly like and enjoy this game, where are they?... Online we get is nowhere close this number of players, and if we had, ok, not 5 but at least 3-4k heads online, we'd have perfectly alive and healthy playerbase. What does it mean? They like this game by it isn't compelling enough to keep playing? What else? So it's kinda tricky to judge general reception by those reviews, and at the same time, no one can say those are false either, and I keep putting emphasis on that game is MP focused, this is important to consider.
As for me, no, I'm not masochist (well, maybe just a little), but what I said was: "did truly enjoy", that doesn't mean I didn't have any fun at all, I did. For example, in DOW I literally every single match was loads of fun, even in DOW II, where I hated literally everything about this game, I still had some truly great and enjoyable games. In DOW III gameplay feels very out of place, every engagement feels extremely cheap, and with gamemode/doctrines I feel completely chained to specific builds and playstyles which I have to commit to from minute one every single match. I really don't wanna turn this discussion into DOW III bashing, we have loads of that already, but I can't fight my impressions of the game and forcefully love it.
Well here it is where it gets interesting and you are correct at least about me, I do like the game and see great potential in it, yet it is sad that it lacks many things I would like to see diffrent. So for now I lost interest in playing it. I want to see bigger maps and more units for the existing races, for me it feels like I do not really have a choice as to how for example my army composition will look like aside from the elites and doctrines. The number of squads of the units right now are a matter of my elites/doctrines and what my enemy fields. But I would like to see early game cheese or all in tactics where you know there is in 90% no chance to win if you will be stopped and so on. I gave the company/game my support, now it is up to relic to at least let people know what they want to do regarding dow3 or if all they do will be elites/maps/skins. I don't want to ignore the amount of work that has been put into the game since release but those elites/maps/skins will hardly change the situation, at least for me.
Thanks for explaining your gametime and I probably feel the same in that regard.
@Stoner said:
Again, that's tricky. Yes, you are right, not everyone paid full (western) price, but we'd rather play around actual bought units rather than prices, because we're talking about game that sold all over the world, and if in US or western Europe $60 is normal price, in less wealthy regions, $20 would equal to that number (and that's more than -50% sale discount). You still can get good deals with re-sellers, and in some counties there are regional discounts. So, for person who paid even $20-30 bucks is still unrealistic to lay off the game which has literally only online value, and close to no SP content/replayability.
About community backlash, I believe it was truly only result of impressions from the game itself, which some people tend to blow out of proportion. I personally wouldn't mind a little torture for Boulle myself.
I think the backlash is/was uncalled for and unfortunately it turned into a shitsorm, many people bash the game at all costs ( making useless comparisons, statements) they don't want the game to improve they just argue for the sake of it, most recent example would be the other thread, sadly unlike you they are not able to stop and control themselves. To me every DoW be it 1 or 2 was filled with bugs in the beginning and released in a bad state, be it the campaign in 1 or gfwl for 2, the expansions made these games so great imo. As for SP and replayability, do you play TW:W? Many people claim they get that there but I just don't see it, I am not interested in killing stupid armies ( 20 army units / 10 are artillery) you can win that battle with a few cav units... so i think it is ok to focus on mp, however relic needs to step up their game, I also find it stupid that linux/mac/windows are seperated from each other in online.
No it is only natural when there is a demand that is not met that somebody will end up doing it. Realisticly what can we expect from the future? There will be other TW games, until somebody fucks up, maybe a W4 or CoH3 but other than that? The genre has a problem with itself, rts demands a lot of work put into from the dev and the customer, the customer to be good at the game. It is not motivating to spend 30+ minutes in a game to be declared loser or defeated. Other genres don't have these problems. How long is the q time in DoW3? It takes less than 10sec to find the next game in pubg for example. The loss you had doesn't matter that much.
@Stoner said:
That's probably deep psychological discussion we'll need to get into to determine why RTS are so demanding, as you claim, because I honestly think they are not. The only thing any regular mass appeal RTS requires is good motorics, muscle memory and at least some level of situational awareness. It's no brainer that in each of those RTS we discuss, most popular mode is team vs. team. It's less stressful in general, requires a bit lower situational awareness than in 1v1 and seriously, I haven't spend too much time with MOBAs, but every-single-match someone was flaming and trash talking someone, MOBA communities are beyond toxic into hell. I don't remember being constantly flamed or insulted in DOW III much, very rarely someone says something at all. And in the end its all about preferences. Some people just enjoy controlling not single unit, but army. Otherwise RTS genre wouldn't be invented or at least popular at all, but it is, when developer applies effort into making decent one, with satisfying, smooth gameplay mechanics.
For my argumentation I do regard 1v1 and not team games as those are considered fun games by me, they are not what the game should be balanced upon there are just there for fun, doesn't matter that much. If the games are not that demanding why do so many people fail that hard in them? Is it the sheer incompetence of people as mr.cannon fodder for example? Lack in experience? It depends on the game but in SC2 you have quite alot of ladders so people play others with matching skill. I will just leave you this link http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a feel free to check the diffrent modes. You are right that it requires less of everything but that comes with a tradeoff at least in random cause you do not know what your mate is capable of, does he make mistakes and will it cost you the game?
Yep most MOBA communities are toxic af, that is the tradeoff for f2p imo, it attracts certain types of people by default. I encourage people to play it with friends and have a simple rule for randoms, if they flame, mute them cause sometimes you can actually meet really nice people I made lots of friends. I simply enjoy both genres as they do offer diffrent amusement to me.
@Stoner said:
TW was ALWAYS riddled with issues, please, do not imply that in older games AI was more intelligent. TW:W2 in fact, AI is actually pretty fine, at least in comparison to R2, Attila or even Empires, where its utterly braindead. Old (but good, no argument) features are gutted from new TWs, that's true, you can call it casualization, but they replacing it with some new features never seen in TW yet. But those who don't like it just play with big overhaul mods, which are plenty, for any taste, or mod yourself, which isn't too hard, and don't give a ++heresy redacted++ about what CA cut out and not. In the very end devs tends to fix most of glaring issues and final vanilla release is usually playable and even satisfying.
I didn't intend to imply that the AI was fine, the AI can only do so much. I don't find much of a diffrence when I play w2 still getting those stacks and a stupid battle ai. They couldve added the new features and keep the old ones for a better experience, they dont seem to contradict each other. The modding argument is quite the thought-terminating-cliché cause with that CA gets a free pass to put less and less effort into their product without consequence ( not saying they did on tw w1 or w2). I think it became clear that you play TW games too, so feel free to ignore the part about if you play it above, I just tend to respond on the fly.
@Cursed said:
Honestly I think that this games biggest downfall was it was just boring to play.
From my own thinking:
Dow1 was exciting because of how overly dramatic it all was with synckills and fresh squad mechanics for units, stuff dropping from the sky, a kick ++heresy redacted++ opening trailer etc. Still had base building in full for the traditional rts fans.
Dow2 had an entirely new cover mechanic, hero's that were full on combat units that changed how your army played. Every squad had some kind of ability or role that made them useful and brought diversity to the game. It didn't have base building which alienated alot of the old rts crew, But it brought a lot of interest for doing things in new and exciting ways, Even if the balance and the bugs it had ultimately killed it.
Yeah and what killed it was the fact that units could switch roles on the fly. It also made for a very shallow RTS experience imo. What also killed it was horrible balance, poor race design with some factions being superior to otger races in every way. ++heresy redacted++ unit design, plague marines, catachan devils, zoanthropes.
Then you've dow3.
What's new or exciting about it? Maybe the elite system and the big walkers. But other than that, everything has been stripped out.
Sync kills for visual pleasure (even if they made the game non competitive, there could've been a toggle somewhere for pro games to turn them on and off)
Dont see the visual pleasure of sync kills. You can watch the same animations so many times until you get bored. Very overrated imo.
A bastardised base building system that didn't keep the hard-core dow1 crew or the "we dont miss bases" dow2 gang happy.
Its a happy middle ground. Not to big to piss of the DoW 2 players but not to simplified to give the impression that it doesnt exist at all. It is still a crucial part of the game.
Stripped down cover mechanics that are just operationally meh
These cover mechanics are better than DoW 1s cover mechanics. So operationally We are good. DoW 2 cover mechanics. Werent even that good in DoW 2.... Unreliable and buildings? Why did they add building cover when its only use was to gain safety from commanders but became redundant the second a somebody picked up a flamer or a hand grenade of the ground.
Units have largely lost all of their abilities
Which is a good thing.
And the actual game mode. I Just don't know what was wrong with vps or annihilate. It gave you something to fight over that wasn't a ++heresy redacted++ bubble.
Also invis patches were new, But hell, they're a source of frustration, not a small advantage that enemy can have which you feel like you can break for a minute before it returns instead of working the second you don't have a unit in there to make stuff visible.
Concealment cover is a good concept. Use AOE weapons, melee troops or have detectors. Easy counter. Its funny cause this type of cover allows you to preserve your units, make ambushes, scout enemy forces. The applications of this mechanic are plentiful.
To be honest, I'm all for dow4 at this point unless the actual game mechanics are switched up in dow3. It'll just continue to be a snooze fest otherwise
Regarding cover: i am not gonna pretend that it was sometimes unreliable in DoW2, bit these bubbles are just horrible.
Why not just make buildings instead of bubbles? (And not make em as hilarousy bad as in DoW2)?
as for your points, ill answer with a few bullet marks to try and not make this a long post
1) exactly 1 unit could switch its role on the fly. yes the game couldve done with more content absolutely, but at its core I found the mechanics that drove the game (cover, no basebuilding, heros, small squads, VP's) exciting. its a pity it was never built upon because it got so caught up in trying to fix what was initially a rushed out and buggy game, lacking content.
2) the synckills might not matter so much for me and you, i too found them annoying at times in dow2 when trying to be competitive and a unit would get caught waiting for one characher to finish a sync kill, but for a big part of the DoW fanbase, it was something they loved, and not having it helped dive them away.
3) again, yea, a somewhat middle ground. but i dont think youll find any fan of RTS games who likes basebuilding even slightly happy with it. and alot of people from dow2 were perfectly happy with no base building except for a few things like turrets. sure LP's were brought back, but now all your resource generation is spreadup the map so theres no option to camp which more casual players love to do while they figure the game out.
4) The cover mechanics in dow1 were better. both the concept of negitive and positive buffs depending on where you were standing. thats way better than a bubble which deflects all damage until it pops and then cant be used anymore
5) i agree that invis cover can be a good concept. its implimentation in this game is nothing more than frustrating.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
Its actually a great thing, because it allows for balance.
You know, that thing that was never achieved in DoW2 and DoW1, because of all the "I can do everything" stuff.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
Its actually a great thing, because it allows for balance.
You know, that thing that was never achieved in DoW2 and DoW1, because of all the "I can do everything" stuff.
I disagree, having less or more doesn't automatically determine what allows for balance when you can literally balance everything.
Ah yes I remember Eldar in dow 1 which had very specialist units and were the most broken race in the game. Space marines felt very balanced compared to races like Tau (a specialist race) and Eldar (specialist).
Then you have Imperial guard, they're very specialist as well and they felt balanced. Can you go ahead and explain how a unit that's able to tackle multiple roles is impossible to balance compared to specialist units that may or may not be broken?
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Edit not immune but very suicidal.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
tactical marine upgrades were bad... Then you go to harass some tacticals and out of his ++heresy redacted++ he just get a missele launcher and explodes your rhino... Not what i call fun (or fair).
EDIT: And tactical marines also deal with a lot of treats in dow3, as so people are spaming then non stop, they even have grenades to hard counter their natural hard counter (devastators).
No they were good in my opinion, in dow 1 you couldn't just switch out a tactical squad wargear, they had to die. That and the upgrades allowed them to combat higher tier infantry and vehicles, it did not make those higher tier infantry or vehicles obsolete, those units were still better than a tactical squad. In dow 2 while you could change their loadout, that costed resources and time, and battles weren't exactly long, you couldn't change loadouts on the fly in the midst of a battle; plus DoW2 was a lot more tactical then DoW1, tactical marines didn't instantly kill things, and it's not hard to counter them either.
I'm sorry, I like to devastators, and I have yet to have a 1:1 ratio of tacticals beat my devastators, frag grenade range isn't that if a bloody quarterback. Plasma guns aren't the best investment, and again they can be knocked down or put into melee, all they do is increase dps to a degree. Flamers are short range and in a cone, great against melee, but you really have to time when to use it, sluggas can stun them with scrap, as can howling banshees, stuns also work so it's not the hardest to stop.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
That is a far sentiment, and I can agree with it.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. >So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The >tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
This I can understand but can't agree with, they can't counter vehicles in DoW3. It does not make SM easier to play with, both upgrades are hardly worth getting more than once with how much power everyone gets currently, you're better off getting other squads. Tacticals are already a no brainer just as much as dire avengers and shootas are. Who in their right mind spammed tacticals in dow 1, you had terminators to get and tacticals would support them. Why bother getting plasma when I can get devastators?
@WorlockOrk said:
In dow1 tact spam could be easily contained by every race. If you have played dow1 you would realise that tact spam wasn't succesful strategy unless you get caught teching.
You really dont have any clue really. Even Ig with 2 comies could stop tact spam .
Yeah IG that is another balance discussion all in its own. Mass grenade launchers early game was pretty strong early game and could contain alot of things.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
tactical marine upgrades were bad... Then you go to harass some tacticals and out of his ++heresy redacted++ he just get a missele launcher and explodes your rhino... Not what i call fun (or fair).
EDIT: And tactical marines also deal with a lot of treats in dow3, as so people are spaming then non stop, they even have grenades to hard counter their natural hard counter (devastators).
No they were good in my opinion, in dow 1 you couldn't just switch out a tactical squad wargear, they had to die. That and the upgrades allowed them to combat higher tier infantry and vehicles, it did not make those higher tier infantry or vehicles obsolete, those units were still better than a tactical squad. In dow 2 while you could change their loadout, that costed resources and time, and battles weren't exactly long, you couldn't change loadouts on the fly in the midst of a battle; plus DoW2 was a lot more tactical then DoW1, tactical marines didn't instantly kill things, and it's not hard to counter them either.
I'm sorry, I like to devastators, and I have yet to have a 1:1 ratio of tacticals beat my devastators, frag grenade range isn't that if a bloody quarterback. Plasma guns aren't the best investment, and again they can be knocked down or put into melee, all they do is increase dps to a degree. Flamers are short range and in a cone, great against melee, but you really have to time when to use it, sluggas can stun them with scrap, as can howling banshees, stuns also work so it's not the hardest to stop.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
That is a far sentiment, and I can agree with it.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. >So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The >tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
This I can understand but can't agree with, they can't counter vehicles in DoW3. It does not make SM easier to play with, both upgrades are hardly worth getting more than once with how much power everyone gets currently, you're better off getting other squads. Tacticals are already a no brainer just as much as dire avengers and shootas are. Who in their right mind spammed tacticals in dow 1, you had terminators to get and tacticals would support them. Why bother getting plasma when I can get devastators?
In this game they are not supposed to counter vehicles. You have las devs, dreads certain,elites or predators for that. Also. Even 1 flamer or plasma early on is a good investment. The fact is. There is no need for tacs to counter vehicles there are other options. This gos back to more is not always good.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
tactical marine upgrades were bad... Then you go to harass some tacticals and out of his ++heresy redacted++ he just get a missele launcher and explodes your rhino... Not what i call fun (or fair).
EDIT: And tactical marines also deal with a lot of treats in dow3, as so people are spaming then non stop, they even have grenades to hard counter their natural hard counter (devastators).
No they were good in my opinion, in dow 1 you couldn't just switch out a tactical squad wargear, they had to die. That and the upgrades allowed them to combat higher tier infantry and vehicles, it did not make those higher tier infantry or vehicles obsolete, those units were still better than a tactical squad. In dow 2 while you could change their loadout, that costed resources and time, and battles weren't exactly long, you couldn't change loadouts on the fly in the midst of a battle; plus DoW2 was a lot more tactical then DoW1, tactical marines didn't instantly kill things, and it's not hard to counter them either.
I'm sorry, I like to devastators, and I have yet to have a 1:1 ratio of tacticals beat my devastators, frag grenade range isn't that if a bloody quarterback. Plasma guns aren't the best investment, and again they can be knocked down or put into melee, all they do is increase dps to a degree. Flamers are short range and in a cone, great against melee, but you really have to time when to use it, sluggas can stun them with scrap, as can howling banshees, stuns also work so it's not the hardest to stop.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
That is a far sentiment, and I can agree with it.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. >So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The >tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
This I can understand but can't agree with, they can't counter vehicles in DoW3. It does not make SM easier to play with, both upgrades are hardly worth getting more than once with how much power everyone gets currently, you're better off getting other squads. Tacticals are already a no brainer just as much as dire avengers and shootas are. Who in their right mind spammed tacticals in dow 1, you had terminators to get and tacticals would support them. Why bother getting plasma when I can get devastators?
Devestators are better at crowd control and do pretty good DPS wise you are right they even exceed tacs in dps. But they are not as flexible as tacs with plasma. So this requuires a judgment call.
@WorlockOrk said:
In dow1 tact spam could be easily contained by every race. If you have played dow1 you would realise that tact spam wasn't succesful strategy unless you get caught teching.
You really dont have any clue really. Even Ig with 2 comies could stop tact spam .
Yeah IG that is another balance discussion all in its own. Mass grenade launchers early game was pretty strong early game.
Yeah it was, but it was there only upgrade at a low tier, plasma guns came the next tier. Every faction had some sort of build for squads that were very effective.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
tactical marine upgrades were bad... Then you go to harass some tacticals and out of his ++heresy redacted++ he just get a missele launcher and explodes your rhino... Not what i call fun (or fair).
EDIT: And tactical marines also deal with a lot of treats in dow3, as so people are spaming then non stop, they even have grenades to hard counter their natural hard counter (devastators).
No they were good in my opinion, in dow 1 you couldn't just switch out a tactical squad wargear, they had to die. That and the upgrades allowed them to combat higher tier infantry and vehicles, it did not make those higher tier infantry or vehicles obsolete, those units were still better than a tactical squad. In dow 2 while you could change their loadout, that costed resources and time, and battles weren't exactly long, you couldn't change loadouts on the fly in the midst of a battle; plus DoW2 was a lot more tactical then DoW1, tactical marines didn't instantly kill things, and it's not hard to counter them either.
I'm sorry, I like to devastators, and I have yet to have a 1:1 ratio of tacticals beat my devastators, frag grenade range isn't that if a bloody quarterback. Plasma guns aren't the best investment, and again they can be knocked down or put into melee, all they do is increase dps to a degree. Flamers are short range and in a cone, great against melee, but you really have to time when to use it, sluggas can stun them with scrap, as can howling banshees, stuns also work so it's not the hardest to stop.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
That is a far sentiment, and I can agree with it.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. >So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The >tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
This I can understand but can't agree with, they can't counter vehicles in DoW3. It does not make SM easier to play with, both upgrades are hardly worth getting more than once with how much power everyone gets currently, you're better off getting other squads. Tacticals are already a no brainer just as much as dire avengers and shootas are. Who in their right mind spammed tacticals in dow 1, you had terminators to get and tacticals would support them. Why bother getting plasma when I can get devastators?
Devestators are better at crowd control and do pretty good DPS wise you are right they even exceed tacs in dps. But they are not as flexible as tacs with plasma. So this requuires a judgment call.
Just a friendly reminder, you can edit posts to add onto them
One plasma early on isn't that good of an investment, a flamer is probably worth it though. These upgrades also require judgement calls, they're definitely not no brainers however.
@WorlockOrk said:
In dow1 tact spam could be easily contained by every race. If you have played dow1 you would realise that tact spam wasn't succesful strategy unless you get caught teching.
You really dont have any clue really. Even Ig with 2 comies could stop tact spam .
Yeah IG that is another balance discussion all in its own. Mass grenade launchers early game was pretty strong early game and could contain alot of things.
Yes, grenade launchers are t1.5 so if you cant survive until t2 to get hb on tacts you get owned in t1.5. So if you owermass tacts you will get caught in t1.5 and bye bye.
Same went for chaos. Its what they usually. Always go with.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
tactical marine upgrades were bad... Then you go to harass some tacticals and out of his ++heresy redacted++ he just get a missele launcher and explodes your rhino... Not what i call fun (or fair).
EDIT: And tactical marines also deal with a lot of treats in dow3, as so people are spaming then non stop, they even have grenades to hard counter their natural hard counter (devastators).
No they were good in my opinion, in dow 1 you couldn't just switch out a tactical squad wargear, they had to die. That and the upgrades allowed them to combat higher tier infantry and vehicles, it did not make those higher tier infantry or vehicles obsolete, those units were still better than a tactical squad. In dow 2 while you could change their loadout, that costed resources and time, and battles weren't exactly long, you couldn't change loadouts on the fly in the midst of a battle; plus DoW2 was a lot more tactical then DoW1, tactical marines didn't instantly kill things, and it's not hard to counter them either.
I'm sorry, I like to devastators, and I have yet to have a 1:1 ratio of tacticals beat my devastators, frag grenade range isn't that if a bloody quarterback. Plasma guns aren't the best investment, and again they can be knocked down or put into melee, all they do is increase dps to a degree. Flamers are short range and in a cone, great against melee, but you really have to time when to use it, sluggas can stun them with scrap, as can howling banshees, stuns also work so it's not the hardest to stop.
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
That is a far sentiment, and I can agree with it.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. >So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The >tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
This I can understand but can't agree with, they can't counter vehicles in DoW3. It does not make SM easier to play with, both upgrades are hardly worth getting more than once with how much power everyone gets currently, you're better off getting other squads. Tacticals are already a no brainer just as much as dire avengers and shootas are. Who in their right mind spammed tacticals in dow 1, you had terminators to get and tacticals would support them. Why bother getting plasma when I can get devastators?
Devestators are better at crowd control and do pretty good DPS wise you are right they even exceed tacs in dps. But they are not as flexible as tacs with plasma. So this requuires a judgment call.
Just a friendly reminder, you can edit posts to add onto them
One plasma early on isn't that good of an investment, a flamer is probably worth it though. These upgrades also require judgement calls, they're definitely not no brainers however.
Yeah but i been editing alot or adding on.didnt want post to get swallowed.
Ofcourse they are not nobrainers and early plasma is not as good true. But the options are there and still are effective in their own way.
Menu
Comments
steinernein
@TuskaDemonKilla
The concept behind Power Core isn't exactly training wheels, it's just different. Though it'd be a huuuuuuge stretch to even begin arguing that DoW 3 is just as fast as SC2.
TuskaDemonKilla
Ofc its not "exactly" training wheels. You could also call it build-in breaks.
Cursed
My point on it being boring is that it's brought through very little of what made either dow1 or dow2 fans love those games, so neither of the two groups are left exactly happy with it.
And also, @GuruSkippy, yes, It's fair enough that you found dow2 boring. Personally I found it really exciting but ultimately frustrating because of the bugs and pathing.
I know it's hard (impossible) to build something that pleases everyone's expectations, but I think they've done the other (almost) impossible thing here and built something that pleases practically no one.
I appreciate that they were experimenting by choosing this formula, and I hope they continue experimenting as it's the best way that we'll get new things we like. Just with this game now it's probably gone past it. They didn't iterate fast enough, keeping it the same even tho it wasn't working.
Is there a road back? It's hard to say. Personally I hope they start mixing it up in big ways and often, there's no point in worrying about the pro scene or balance now, just focus on making changes to make the game fun and bring in casuals.
It's attracting casuals that eventually turn into pros is what makes a games pro scene. If they can bring the people back by making it fun, then I don't see why they couldn't focus on balancing afterwards.
steinernein
That's the thing about DoW3 , it has more options yet at the same time for whatever reason it feels like there is far less content. Then again, for me, I pine for my Imperial Guard so Space Marines will always feel incomplete.
steinernein
Well, the end result is that a player must consistently out perform another player and in certain stages it matters more than others, but the execution of that some times leaves much to be desired.
What training wheels would mean would mean that the losing player is always competing at the same level as the winning player which does not seem to be the case in DoW 3 under any of the game modes.
Katitof
Just 3 factions does play to that feeling and people looking through the prism of multiple expansions for previous entry aren't helping either - hardly anyone remembers how bad and shallow base DoW2 was.
TuskaDemonKilla
No, with training wheels I mean that its not punishing.
If Zerg builds 6 Drones too much in ZvZ and then he sees enemy ling/bane allin 15 seconds too late cuz he didnt position his first overlord properly, its gg.
Here you can get your army wiped off the map and while it will definetly put you behind, you get one, two more chances to break even after that.
Endstille
Not many but that doesn't prevent them from the attempt, by the way I am sorry for the late answer I got distracted in the other thread. Maybe it would make more sense, however to actually mix up genres is not all that easy as we can see subgenre has been integrated into the root and many just complain and act like it makes it less of a game.
I really don't want to start to argue about those to me they are not actual simulations, AC pretty much raised the standard for everybody (if you are interested all tracks have been laser scanned and so on). You would be surprised, i think people who like racing games in general tend to play GT and or NFS since they do not differ that much, in games like "i racing" or "ac" you have to have a wheel to be able to play, you can play with a pad but that will not have a good result. There is maybe 1/200 people who actually can play good with a pad in those.
Honestly it makes me happy that they make a comeback, I just think that the word "rise" implies that they take over the market which they probably will not do, they fill a demand that most likely older gamers (me incl. 30+) had.
Hm I don't know if you by any chance followed the other thread, i quoted pc magazine, certain devs explained that you can maybe have one rts hit a year and nobody anymore will spend 40-60 million in production for a rts game. Things were not always like that for the genre, there was settlers, cossacks (yeah i know there is a 3rd on steam, lan party and lets go cossacks?) and so on... times just changed. Just look how long we have to wait for another game in a series we do enjoy, w4? dow2 to dow3? While games like CoD / BF get just thrown out.
Well here it is where it gets interesting and you are correct at least about me, I do like the game and see great potential in it, yet it is sad that it lacks many things I would like to see diffrent. So for now I lost interest in playing it. I want to see bigger maps and more units for the existing races, for me it feels like I do not really have a choice as to how for example my army composition will look like aside from the elites and doctrines. The number of squads of the units right now are a matter of my elites/doctrines and what my enemy fields. But I would like to see early game cheese or all in tactics where you know there is in 90% no chance to win if you will be stopped and so on. I gave the company/game my support, now it is up to relic to at least let people know what they want to do regarding dow3 or if all they do will be elites/maps/skins. I don't want to ignore the amount of work that has been put into the game since release but those elites/maps/skins will hardly change the situation, at least for me.
Thanks for explaining your gametime and I probably feel the same in that regard.
I think the backlash is/was uncalled for and unfortunately it turned into a shitsorm, many people bash the game at all costs ( making useless comparisons, statements) they don't want the game to improve they just argue for the sake of it, most recent example would be the other thread, sadly unlike you they are not able to stop and control themselves. To me every DoW be it 1 or 2 was filled with bugs in the beginning and released in a bad state, be it the campaign in 1 or gfwl for 2, the expansions made these games so great imo. As for SP and replayability, do you play TW:W? Many people claim they get that there but I just don't see it, I am not interested in killing stupid armies ( 20 army units / 10 are artillery) you can win that battle with a few cav units... so i think it is ok to focus on mp, however relic needs to step up their game, I also find it stupid that linux/mac/windows are seperated from each other in online.
For my argumentation I do regard 1v1 and not team games as those are considered fun games by me, they are not what the game should be balanced upon there are just there for fun, doesn't matter that much. If the games are not that demanding why do so many people fail that hard in them? Is it the sheer incompetence of people as mr.cannon fodder for example? Lack in experience? It depends on the game but in SC2 you have quite alot of ladders so people play others with matching skill. I will just leave you this link http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a feel free to check the diffrent modes. You are right that it requires less of everything but that comes with a tradeoff at least in random cause you do not know what your mate is capable of, does he make mistakes and will it cost you the game?
Yep most MOBA communities are toxic af, that is the tradeoff for f2p imo, it attracts certain types of people by default. I encourage people to play it with friends and have a simple rule for randoms, if they flame, mute them cause sometimes you can actually meet really nice people I made lots of friends. I simply enjoy both genres as they do offer diffrent amusement to me.
I didn't intend to imply that the AI was fine, the AI can only do so much. I don't find much of a diffrence when I play w2 still getting those stacks and a stupid battle ai. They couldve added the new features and keep the old ones for a better experience, they dont seem to contradict each other. The modding argument is quite the thought-terminating-cliché cause with that CA gets a free pass to put less and less effort into their product without consequence ( not saying they did on tw w1 or w2). I think it became clear that you play TW games too, so feel free to ignore the part about if you play it above, I just tend to respond on the fly.
Again sorry for the late reply.
CANNED_F3TUS
Yeah and what killed it was the fact that units could switch roles on the fly. It also made for a very shallow RTS experience imo. What also killed it was horrible balance, poor race design with some factions being superior to otger races in every way. ++heresy redacted++ unit design, plague marines, catachan devils, zoanthropes.
Dont see the visual pleasure of sync kills. You can watch the same animations so many times until you get bored. Very overrated imo.
Its a happy middle ground. Not to big to piss of the DoW 2 players but not to simplified to give the impression that it doesnt exist at all. It is still a crucial part of the game.
These cover mechanics are better than DoW 1s cover mechanics. So operationally We are good. DoW 2 cover mechanics. Werent even that good in DoW 2.... Unreliable and buildings? Why did they add building cover when its only use was to gain safety from commanders but became redundant the second a somebody picked up a flamer or a hand grenade of the ground.
Which is a good thing.
Concealment cover is a good concept. Use AOE weapons, melee troops or have detectors. Easy counter. Its funny cause this type of cover allows you to preserve your units, make ambushes, scout enemy forces. The applications of this mechanic are plentiful.
TuskaDemonKilla
Regarding cover: i am not gonna pretend that it was sometimes unreliable in DoW2, bit these bubbles are just horrible.
Why not just make buildings instead of bubbles? (And not make em as hilarousy bad as in DoW2)?
Cursed
@CANNED_F3TUS
Obviously you are happier with dow3 than I am.
as for your points, ill answer with a few bullet marks to try and not make this a long post
1) exactly 1 unit could switch its role on the fly. yes the game couldve done with more content absolutely, but at its core I found the mechanics that drove the game (cover, no basebuilding, heros, small squads, VP's) exciting. its a pity it was never built upon because it got so caught up in trying to fix what was initially a rushed out and buggy game, lacking content.
2) the synckills might not matter so much for me and you, i too found them annoying at times in dow2 when trying to be competitive and a unit would get caught waiting for one characher to finish a sync kill, but for a big part of the DoW fanbase, it was something they loved, and not having it helped dive them away.
3) again, yea, a somewhat middle ground. but i dont think youll find any fan of RTS games who likes basebuilding even slightly happy with it. and alot of people from dow2 were perfectly happy with no base building except for a few things like turrets. sure LP's were brought back, but now all your resource generation is spreadup the map so theres no option to camp which more casual players love to do while they figure the game out.
4) The cover mechanics in dow1 were better. both the concept of negitive and positive buffs depending on where you were standing. thats way better than a bubble which deflects all damage until it pops and then cant be used anymore
5) i agree that invis cover can be a good concept. its implimentation in this game is nothing more than frustrating.
Wikkyd
No, when the majority of units are so cookie cutter only able to do one thing, that is not a good thing. Too much is bad sure, but so is too little.
Katitof
Its actually a great thing, because it allows for balance.
You know, that thing that was never achieved in DoW2 and DoW1, because of all the "I can do everything" stuff.
Wikkyd
I disagree, having less or more doesn't automatically determine what allows for balance when you can literally balance everything.
Ah yes I remember Eldar in dow 1 which had very specialist units and were the most broken race in the game. Space marines felt very balanced compared to races like Tau (a specialist race) and Eldar (specialist).
Then you have Imperial guard, they're very specialist as well and they felt balanced. Can you go ahead and explain how a unit that's able to tackle multiple roles is impossible to balance compared to specialist units that may or may not be broken?
CANNED_F3TUS
No its better for balance. DoW 2 is proof that flex units are no good and is often associated with poor unit design. Just look at the plague marine. A unit that counters vehicles, out trades every infantry in the game and is immune to all melee units and heals and deals damage on death.
Edit not immune but very suicidal.
Same goes for catachan devils a jack of all trades unit that when spammed often breaks team games. (I tried it and it was rediculously trolly) Because of the insane CC and retreat unit wiping power of grenade launchers. Melee damage is insane smoke grenades the melta and shotguns are the icing on the cake.
Wikkyd
I feel like you're focusing on the "too little is bad" part and completely disregarding the "too much is also bad" part The PC has literally everything to deal with everything, and he's still broken in the elite mod and vanilla DoW2.
I mean, tactical marines were balanced in DoW1, they weren't stupidly overpowered or broken, and they could deal with a bunch of threats.
CANNED_F3TUS
I am but just pointing out that its better to have to little than too much.
And that is a problem. SM are the only race with units that have the capability to counter everything. The other races dont have a unit with the wargear options that tactical marines have. So its not good at a balance level because it will make SM much easier to play and make the tac marine a no brainer. Just like it was in DoW 1. Tac marine spam. ++heresy redacted++. The tac marine already is a powerful unit just with plasma and flamer in DoW 3 you got high DPS option or the bye bye melee mobs option....
Wikkyd
No they were good in my opinion, in dow 1 you couldn't just switch out a tactical squad wargear, they had to die. That and the upgrades allowed them to combat higher tier infantry and vehicles, it did not make those higher tier infantry or vehicles obsolete, those units were still better than a tactical squad. In dow 2 while you could change their loadout, that costed resources and time, and battles weren't exactly long, you couldn't change loadouts on the fly in the midst of a battle; plus DoW2 was a lot more tactical then DoW1, tactical marines didn't instantly kill things, and it's not hard to counter them either.
I'm sorry, I like to devastators, and I have yet to have a 1:1 ratio of tacticals beat my devastators, frag grenade range isn't that if a bloody quarterback. Plasma guns aren't the best investment, and again they can be knocked down or put into melee, all they do is increase dps to a degree. Flamers are short range and in a cone, great against melee, but you really have to time when to use it, sluggas can stun them with scrap, as can howling banshees, stuns also work so it's not the hardest to stop.
That is a far sentiment, and I can agree with it.
This I can understand but can't agree with, they can't counter vehicles in DoW3. It does not make SM easier to play with, both upgrades are hardly worth getting more than once with how much power everyone gets currently, you're better off getting other squads. Tacticals are already a no brainer just as much as dire avengers and shootas are. Who in their right mind spammed tacticals in dow 1, you had terminators to get and tacticals would support them. Why bother getting plasma when I can get devastators?
CANNED_F3TUS
Yeah IG that is another balance discussion all in its own. Mass grenade launchers early game was pretty strong early game and could contain alot of things.
CANNED_F3TUS
In this game they are not supposed to counter vehicles. You have las devs, dreads certain,elites or predators for that. Also. Even 1 flamer or plasma early on is a good investment. The fact is. There is no need for tacs to counter vehicles there are other options. This gos back to more is not always good.
CANNED_F3TUS
Devestators are better at crowd control and do pretty good DPS wise you are right they even exceed tacs in dps. But they are not as flexible as tacs with plasma. So this requuires a judgment call.
Wikkyd
Yeah it was, but it was there only upgrade at a low tier, plasma guns came the next tier. Every faction had some sort of build for squads that were very effective.
Wikkyd
Just a friendly reminder, you can edit posts to add onto them
One plasma early on isn't that good of an investment, a flamer is probably worth it though. These upgrades also require judgement calls, they're definitely not no brainers however.
CANNED_F3TUS
Same went for chaos. Its what they usually. Always go with.
CANNED_F3TUS
Yeah but i been editing alot or adding on.didnt want post to get swallowed.
Ofcourse they are not nobrainers and early plasma is not as good true. But the options are there and still are effective in their own way.
Cursed
I guess what I'm asking is, when was the last time this game had you on the edge of your seat because of how close a game was?
It's only happened once for me