Lets admit, DoW3 failed because it wasn't designed to appeal the RTS Audience.

StarSauron

Lets admit, DoW3 failed because it wasn't designed to appeal the RTS Audience.

Well I played this "creation" by free weekend and it was even with all the "tiny mini Upgrades" obvious the online numbers will fast die off.

On 18.10.2017 it was already 360 DoW3 vs 580 Soulstorm
On 02.11.2017 today it 200 DoW3 vs 255 in Soulstorm
Man even this mega old counterpart 9 year old game from "2008 Warhammer® 40,000: Dawn of War® - Soulstorm" has already again 2 weeks later more people play it.
http://steamcharts.com/cmp/285190,9450

So how more obvious needs it to be,
so people behind DoW3 understand they did make a bad job ?

Relic did in case of DoW3 a lot of amateurish errors and mismanagement, maybe the problem goes even deeper that simply a bad idea, but they in general don't know anymore how to do it right ?

Look people who are on the forums, are simply concerned to loose this company too, because we have seen this mismanagement can kill off even really good companies.
Like Visceral Games, who did make once good Horror games like Dead Space, but were forced to make dumb Call of Duties like Dead Space 3.

So where started it, to went wrong by DoW3 and why?

---1--- the communication
It's really important to advertise the game properly, never happened by DoW3.

Why announce a game as a sequel to something, if it doesn't have anything in common with its predecessors and isn't even planned that way ?
There is no combat mechanics of DoW2, like 50% base build of DoW1,
must be obvious for anybody who had played for some minutes that games.

---2--- having no vision what the game is supposed to be
and don't have the guts to do something decent.
Try to reinvent the wheel, without the understanding what needs to be fixed.

So the game was presented as Frankenstein MOBA
and later on only small changes were done and it still feels like the same.

---3--- wasn't designed to appeal the RTS Audience
Massive balance problems and game play offers no variety or reliability.

-----To appeal the RTS Audience, you need to balance the game.
== All the Orcs and Space Marine Trooper Units are some kind of combination between Startreck Red Shirts and Starwars Stormtroopers

It simply feels bad to use them,+30% HP buff LOL.
there is no punch behind that units, they are bad at shooting, really slow and die off just after some seconds
they don't have any good abilities, they can't attack fortifications, they melt fast away
they are even bad as cannon fodder, expensive and simply useless.
one of the most toughest guys in Sci-fi lore and you need baby sit them all the time or else they die in seconds.

You just don't have the tools to play the game.

And than you have Eldar Snipers, some kind of divine demigods
extreme cheap, for just 330 wtf, the marines costs like 400 or 500.
you can easy dodge any kind of damage abilities and jump troopers
you cant corner them, because they can teleport and run away
they can easy kill Elites, just run away and shoot
they fast destroy buildings and defences
you don't even need other units, they scout with probes
they can turn invisible and shoot in your back

So while Space Marine/Orcs are goofy Hollywood minions,
Eldar do have a Predator with a sniper rifle.

You cant be Serious to sell this as balanced or even tested game ?
You cant be Serious to tell people you listen to any kind of feedback,
if this is broken since beta?

I have with that dumb tactic = spam Eldar sniper defeat even people who spend like 300 or 500 hours in that game.
No wonder people abandon this if its like the only thing people do online.

-----To appeal the RTS Audience,
you need to offer them different strategies
== the map design, even this Annihilation mod, does offer no variety
maps offer no alternative routes, its just move from left to right.
It simply start at A do go to point B and than fight for C, wait and be bored for like 15 or 20 min till you have good units, than you can assault D and to win destroy E.

A lot people disconnect if you have C, so you play most of the time with boring, broken, lame units.

Orcs and Space Marine Troopers are simply bad, you can't upgrade them to be useful or combine with other stuff to buff them.
Between C and D you send units they melt, enemy does send units they melt. nothing really interesting happens.
Instead of make your units useful, You need to wait and buy really expensive end game units.

So the experience is to have either a boring game or an annoying game.

-----To appeal the RTS Audience, you need effort in the game
== The Skirmish AI is extreme dumb unit spam and easy to defeat
you have just 3 Ai types, easy, medium and hard
how can you expect people who like skirmish to buy such game, if it offers almost nothing ?

I could already by first run vs Hard AI win by spam marines.
So why should you play the game, if you are already finished ?

Even if you never before played any Relic RTS or Starcraft 2,
the competition offers there more single player.

#

So what now ? Why was free weekend wasted this way ?
Sure a lot people did give it a second chance.

Well I have seen community did make a lot of game mods and maps,
but I think problem is the game simply has a lot of design issues and lack lot of content.

#

Maybe next time, plan from start on what the game is supposed to be ?

Katitof

Love when clueless people try to work numbers.....

CCU =! active population.

DoW3 got about twice as much active players as SS.
SS CCU is higher, because retention and play time.

Example:
2 active players, 1 from DoW3, 1 from SS.
The SS one plays 3 hours, 5 times a week.
The DoW3 one plays 2 hours twice a week.
That is an active player for both games, the one who plays less doesn't disintegrate, but it won't shot on CCU graph, it'll show on DAU/MAU graph, which you probably don't even know what it is.

Steamcharts is terrible site for any data analysis, because it provides extremely incomplete data that is prone to misinterpretation, which you just did with that wall of text.

And now to your "problems"

1) You do realize DoW2 had literally nothing in common with DoW1, right? Why you're losing your s*it over DoW3 and not over DoW1, when DoW3 got much more in common with DoW1 then DoW2.

2) Being blind and in denial is not equal to devs "not having vision".
The vision is the same: Objective based RTS gameplay instead of traditional, plain and boring annihilation.
You being another drone repeating MOBA this MOBA that in regard to DoW3 only further proofs that you are incapable of forming your own opinion and are parroting someone else words.

3) This is your first RTS or even online PvP game you have ever played?

You clearly show complete lack of understanding costs, unit roles and intended performance, you clarly don't understand why changes are made and how they are supposed to play out. You don't seem to know the difference between squad and model or why different squads have different model count, its all the same for you. You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that units in RTS games are supposed to die AND you contradict yourself all the time, saying units have high HP, but die very fast, you complain about pretty ++heresy redacted++ expensive unit(rangers) as cheap, because you have chosen to ignore its unlock and power cost for your own convenience. You're also completely unaware of the fact that AI is only for newbie players, who can't play the game correctly.

Fww

Is this disguised "Eldar are OP" thread?

steinernein

@StarSauron said:

>
Summary: Eldar is OP, nerf pl0x.

StarSauron

@Fww said:
Is this disguised "Eldar are OP" thread?

@steinernein said:

@StarSauron said:

>
Summary: Eldar is OP, nerf pl0x.

Even if they balance the game, it would be still boring to play.
Because all the DoW3 Trooper units feel bad, if they are slow, weak and die fast off.

@Katitof said:
Love when clueless people try to work numbers.....

CCU =! active population.

DoW3 got about twice as much active players as SS.
SS CCU is higher, because retention and play time.

Example:
2 active players, 1 from DoW3, 1 from SS.
The SS one plays 3 hours, 5 times a week.
The DoW3 one plays 2 hours twice a week.
That is an active player for both games, the one who plays less doesn't disintegrate, but it won't shot on CCU graph, it'll show on DAU/MAU graph, which you probably don't even know what it is.

Steamcharts is terrible site for any data analysis, because it provides extremely incomplete data that is prone to misinterpretation, which you just did with that wall of text.

if we take steam spy, its even more obvious
http://steamspy.com/dev/Relic+Entertainment

Just 349,733 people did play it, even with a free weekend.
Other Relic games have like 1 or 3 Million.

Well of course in last 2 weeks we had free weekend so it does show more people for that time, but if we wait other month it will be way less.

@Katitof said:
And now to your "problems"

1) You do realize DoW2 had literally nothing in common with DoW1, right? Why you're losing your s*it over DoW3 and not over DoW1, when DoW3 got much more in common with DoW1 then DoW2.

DoW2 was advertised like a new entity, DoW3 was advertised as back to the older concepts.
Its an Important difference

@Katitof said:
3) This is your first RTS or even online PvP game you have ever played?

You clearly show complete lack of understanding costs, unit roles and intended performance, you clarly don't understand why changes are made and how they are supposed to play out. You don't seem to know the difference between squad and model or why different squads have different model count, its all the same for you. You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that units in RTS games are supposed to die AND you contradict yourself all the time, saying units have high HP, but die very fast, you complain about pretty ++heresy redacted++ expensive unit(rangers) as cheap, because you have chosen to ignore its unlock and power cost for your own convenience. You're also completely unaware of the fact that AI is only for newbie players, who can't play the game correctly.

1 You can't play a game online with a dead population.
2 You can't play a game if it has bad AI for Skirmish.

Even Age of Empires III from 2005 does offer better AI and more options for it.

Katitof

@StarSauron said:

@Katitof said:
Love when clueless people try to work numbers.....

CCU =! active population.

DoW3 got about twice as much active players as SS.
SS CCU is higher, because retention and play time.

Example:
2 active players, 1 from DoW3, 1 from SS.
The SS one plays 3 hours, 5 times a week.
The DoW3 one plays 2 hours twice a week.
That is an active player for both games, the one who plays less doesn't disintegrate, but it won't shot on CCU graph, it'll show on DAU/MAU graph, which you probably don't even know what it is.

Steamcharts is terrible site for any data analysis, because it provides extremely incomplete data that is prone to misinterpretation, which you just did with that wall of text.

if we take steam spy, its even more obvious
http://steamspy.com/dev/Relic+Entertainment

Just 349,733 people did play it, even with a free weekend.
Other Relic games have like 1 or 3 Million.

Well of course in last 2 weeks we had free weekend so it does show more people for that time, but if we wait other month it will be way less.

That's NOT active players, that's owners, people who have the game in steam library.
And I don't know what did you expect here.
Game 10 years after release with sale about 4 times a year sold more copies then game released 7 months ago and one sale - mind blown.

@Katitof said:
And now to your "problems"

1) You do realize DoW2 had literally nothing in common with DoW1, right? Why you're losing your s*it over DoW3 and not over DoW1, when DoW3 got much more in common with DoW1 then DoW2.

DoW2 was advertised like a new entity, DoW3 was advertised as back to the older concepts.
Its an Important difference

>

DoW2 did not had bas building.
DoW1 had base building.
DoW3 has base building.

DoW2 did not had large armies.
DoW1 had large armies.
DoW3 has large armies.

DoW2 did not had multiple heroes on field.
DoW1 had multiple heroes on field.
DoW3 has multiple heroes on field.

Starting to see pattern?

@Katitof said:
3) This is your first RTS or even online PvP game you have ever played?

You clearly show complete lack of understanding costs, unit roles and intended performance, you clarly don't understand why changes are made and how they are supposed to play out. You don't seem to know the difference between squad and model or why different squads have different model count, its all the same for you. You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that units in RTS games are supposed to die AND you contradict yourself all the time, saying units have high HP, but die very fast, you complain about pretty ++heresy redacted++ expensive unit(rangers) as cheap, because you have chosen to ignore its unlock and power cost for your own convenience. You're also completely unaware of the fact that AI is only for newbie players, who can't play the game correctly.

1 You can't play a game online with a dead population.
2 You can't play a game if it has bad AI for Skirmish.

1) You're clearly a 3v3 players. 3v3 que is fine.

2) Literally all RTS AI is considered bad once you have most basic knowledge about how the game works.
Sorry, but comp stomps are never challenging in any RTS game, unless you make it 1v2 or 1v3.

Even Age of Empires III from 2005 does offer better AI and more options for it.

Setting priorities on AI doesn't make it better.
AoE is extremely heavy macro based, obviously its AI needs different focus as economy is literally apples vs space ships here.

steinernein

@Katitof
DoW1 had more factions out of the box and bad voice acting to bring 'character'.

Katitof

@steinernein said:
@Katitof
DoW1 had more factions out of the box and bad voice acting to bring 'character'.

But the depth level of these DoW1 factions was nowhere near what DoW3 offers.

Chaos and SM were pretty much copies of each other with different skins and very minor differences.
Eldar were most developed and unique, but still was very raw compared to options DoW3 offers.
Most unique thing about orks were waaagh towers to expand pop, guns on every structure(which were irrelevant anyway) and tankbustas instead of actual upgrade for regular infantry.

DoW1 vanila wasn't really all that good of a game, it have brought new concepts, like objective based gameplay and squads instead of single model units, but it didn't really made a good job with making all factions truly unique.

VanceStubbs_86

@StarSauron said:
Lets admit, DoW3 failed because it wasn't designed to appeal the RTS Audience.

A pretty obvious topic and already discussed several times. Relic tried to appeal to a wider audience with Dawn of War 3. They wonder why people do not play strategy games. The result, the players are overwhelmed. They could not follow what happened on the screen. The solution was to remove most of their game mechanics. Upgrades and abilities have been reduced and general gameplay has been simplified. The end product is well known to you.

Jazz_Sandwich

@VanceStubbs_86 said:
Upgrades and abilities have been reduced and general gameplay has been simplified. The end product is well known to you.

There are fewer upgrades yes, but with regards to abilities I can't agree with that at all. Nearly every squad has an active ability or can at least gain one through doctrines, and active abilities destroy entire squads.

steinernein

@Katitof said:

@steinernein said:
@Katitof
DoW1 had more factions out of the box and bad voice acting to bring 'character'.

But the depth level of these DoW1 factions was nowhere near what DoW3 offers.

Chaos and SM were pretty much copies of each other with different skins and very minor differences.
Eldar were most developed and unique, but still was very raw compared to options DoW3 offers.
Most unique thing about orks were waaagh towers to expand pop, guns on every structure(which were irrelevant anyway) and tankbustas instead of actual upgrade for regular infantry.

DoW1 vanila wasn't really all that good of a game, it have brought new concepts, like objective based gameplay and squads instead of single model units, but it didn't really made a good job with making all factions truly unique.

But that's the thing right? The depth is illusion, it's all about creating that illusions to the point where people think your product is a finished product and are willing to buy in knowing that most players won't discover the 'flaws' until they become part of the top percentage of players in terms of skill. That's kind of why the nostalgia is so strong with these people; they never made it or pushed themselves in any game to become the best. So, yeah go breadth over depth initially and things turn out well.

@VanceStubbs_86 said:

@StarSauron said:
Lets admit, DoW3 failed because it wasn't designed to appeal the RTS Audience.

A pretty obvious topic and already discussed several times. Relic tried to appeal to a wider audience with Dawn of War 3. They wonder why people do not play strategy games. The result, the players are overwhelmed. They could not follow what happened on the screen. The solution was to remove most of their game mechanics. Upgrades and abilities have been reduced and general gameplay has been simplified. The end product is well known to you.

The only game that players wouldn't get initially overwhelmed with in recent ++heresy redacted++ history is Tooth and Nail and even that game has a fairly decent high skill ceiling. And you know what? Mechanically it's pretty ++heresy redacted++ simple. RTSes, if we take its history as its traits, are inherently overwhelming - even DoW 3 you had complaints about units melting, too much ++heresy redacted++ going on the screen etc. Dawn of War 3 is very much so not a game that can reach out to other audiences other than the e-sports scene and they kind of dropped the ball on that (no observer mode, didn't embrace whatever was left of the community, etc. )

Only a special brand of ++heresy redacted++ enjoy RTSes to be honest - you would have to have a pretty deviant mind set to like this ++heresy redacted++.

StarSauron

@Katitof said:

@StarSauron said:
DoW2 was advertised like a new entity, DoW3 was advertised as back to the older concepts.
Its an Important difference

>

DoW2 did not had bas building.
DoW1 had base building.
DoW3 has base building.

Look a "it's technically there" argument is always weak
Was it done properly ? I would say no for 2 reasons.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-iii/dawn-of-war-3-base-building

“Building on 12 years of explosive gameplay, Dawn of War III combines the epic scale of Dawn of War, with the customization and elite heroes of Dawn of War II. Dawn of War III immerses players in the escalating brutality of galactic warfare, where they will lead elite hero units and colossal armies to victory, or oblivion. Powerful super-walkers will tower over the front lines as screen-shaking assaults blister the battlefield in an all-out, over-the-top spectacle.”
The message is bigger, better and exploding more. “This is the Dawn of War that fans have been waiting for” explains executive producer Stephen MacDonald in a statement, “Our biggest units ever? Check. Giant orbital lasers? Check. Base-building, epic heroes, huge battles, it’s all in there.”

So let's look.
---Dawn of War 1 has simply much more base building, you can build a lot of generators, you upgrade your resource tower,
you can build second HQ to build more generators and you can build mines and defence towers that can be upgraded with rockets.
You have much more locations for your resource towers .

You can't upgrade the DoW3 towers or build a mine field.
You can't increase generator limit by build another HQ and build more of them.

--customization ? LOL DoW3 is a jocke
You can't customize the heroes and most of the units.
Even DoW1 has more customization.
The Marine in DoW1 can equip 4 different weapons+ have a stronger member for the Squad,
in DoW3 its just 2 weapons.

So this is Relics interpretation of the game fans have waited for,
with less base build and less customization?

I am not surprised that lot of people were disappointed.

@steinernein said:
@Katitof
DoW1 had more factions out of the box and bad voice acting to bring 'character'.

They didn't even do voices other languages than English. Yes no voice for French, Italian, Russian, German or Spanish.
That's simply some bla bla in micro, could have used voices from previous games, failed even there LOL.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/285190/Warhammer_40000_Dawn_of_War_III/

@Katitof said:

@steinernein said:
@Katitof
DoW1 had more factions out of the box and bad voice acting to bring 'character'.

But the depth level of these DoW1 factions was nowhere near what DoW3 offers.

Chaos and SM were pretty much copies of each other with different skins and very minor differences.
Eldar were most developed and unique, but still was very raw compared to options DoW3 offers.
Most unique thing about orks were waaagh towers to expand pop, guns on every structure(which were irrelevant anyway) and tankbustas instead of actual upgrade for regular infantry.

DoW1 vanila wasn't really all that good of a game, it have brought new concepts, like objective based gameplay and squads instead of single model units, but it didn't really made a good job with making all factions truly unique.

DoW1 wasn't perfect, but it was designed to be RTS game,
that's why it could gain fast a big audience and is one of the best sold games in history.

StarSauron

@VanceStubbs_86 said:
Relic tried to appeal to a wider audience with Dawn of War 3. They wonder why people do not play strategy games. The result, the players are overwhelmed. They could not follow what happened on the screen. The solution was to remove most of their game mechanics. Upgrades and abilities have been reduced and general gameplay has been simplified. The end product is well known to you.

Was it an official statement from Relic ? It could explain a lot.

RTS players are not overwhelmed, to play their games.
RTS players love game mechanics, Upgrades and abilities.

steinernein

@StarSauron said:

@VanceStubbs_86 said:
Relic tried to appeal to a wider audience with Dawn of War 3. They wonder why people do not play strategy games. The result, the players are overwhelmed. They could not follow what happened on the screen. The solution was to remove most of their game mechanics. Upgrades and abilities have been reduced and general gameplay has been simplified. The end product is well known to you.

Was it an official statement from Relic ? It could explain a lot.

RTS players are not overwhelmed, to play their games.
RTS players love game mechanics, Upgrades and abilities.

RTS players aren't monolithic either; a great portion of RTS players (probably like yourself) do not have what it takes to embrace the entire genre as a whole, you represent a sub group - one could even... call it casual, hyuk - and not all of them care about mechanics, upgrades, or abilities in the same way you do. However, most are very easily overwhelmed. Looking at any given ladder and the number of non-participants will tell you that.

VanceStubbs_86

@StarSauron said:
Was it an official statement from Relic ? It could explain a lot.

RTS players are not overwhelmed, to play their games.
RTS players love game mechanics, Upgrades and abilities.

There was no official announcement from Relic. But Philippe Boulle has said something in an interview with a gaming site, where he explains this clarity thing for Dawn of War 3.

Endstille

This is directed @OP of this thread, please get some understanding and dont just throw words around that you picked up.

What management caused problems? Operative, Tactical or Strategical? Who and why with which decision?

Have you ever read "Frankenstein"? It literally has nothing to do with whatever you brought up so go read it and think about the message of the book before you continue to use it wrong.

When you started to talk about balance in DoW3 i stopped to read your post, sorry you obviously forgot the "balance" of the previous games and I have no further intent to waste my time with that nonsense.

steinernein

@WorlockOrk said:
It's obvious !

1- Dow 3 failed because it was not really dow game;

2- It generated so much hate because they marketed different product as a continuity of dow (it's like marketing diablo as a ghost reecon game);

3- As an rts game, Dow 3 is even bigger demotion in rts history than [email protected];

4- Relic didn't consider any feedback from community;

5 - Old fans were litteraly stabbed in back.

Yeah, it couldn't have been the lack of polish, incomplete feature list, lack of content, lack of funding, and forgettable campaign right? Or that the RTS market is somewhat niche (and 40k making it even more niche) ? Or the mismatch between the developers, community, and marketing?

Man, I miss the days where I used to rely solely on manufactured opinions.

Katitof

@WorlockOrk said:
It's obvious !

1- Dow 3 failed because it was not really dow game;

Stop repeating that like a parrot when you yourself are incapable of saying what DoW is.
All these nostalgia driven drones yap constantly how its not a DoW while not being able to say a singular argument that wouldn't have "Ultimate apocalypse MOD" in it.

2- It generated so much hate because they marketed different product as a continuity of dow (it's like marketing diablo as a ghost reecon game);

They said they go back to the roots.
Not that they dig up old grave, polish long dead skeleton inside and sell it to us.

3- As an rts game, Dow 3 is even bigger demotion in rts history than [email protected];

And the charts, sell numbers and statistics you based that on are.................?
Sorry, its not kindergarden here, you want to throw big statement, support it with actual data.

4- Relic didn't consider any feedback from community;

DoW3 was originally supposed to be ACTUAL MOBA/ARPG hybrid.
It ended up as it is not SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE feedback from community.

5 - Old fans were litteraly stabbed in back.

What old fans?
Old fans are more divided then Germany in 1947.
You're speaking exclusively for yourself here since I, as an old fan, am not disappointed in the game.

StarSauron

@VanceStubbs_86 said:

@StarSauron said:
Was it an official statement from Relic ? It could explain a lot.

RTS players are not overwhelmed, to play their games.
RTS players love game mechanics, Upgrades and abilities.

There was no official announcement from Relic. But Philippe Boulle has said something in an interview with a gaming site, where he explains this clarity thing for Dawn of War 3.

Well I would not blame for this 1 single person, but the entire team.
Somehow they all got miss guided.

And that does concern me, from a view Point of RTS player
everything about DoW3 is simply wrong.

@WorlockOrk said:
It's obvious !

1- Dow 3 failed because it was not really dow game;

2- It generated so much hate because they marketed different product as a continuity of dow (it's like marketing diablo as a ghost reecon game);

3- As an rts game, Dow 3 is even bigger demotion in rts history than [email protected];

4- Relic didn't consider any feedback from community;

5 - Old fans were litteraly stabbed in back.

+1
But did they learn and understand this lesson ?
For a lot RTS players it was obvious already from the Beta,
it's somehow not what RTS game should be.

Problem is they were creating this game from start on and still working on it,
but still seem not to see, what is for a really huge amount of people obvious issues.

@Endstille said:
This is directed @OP of this thread, please get some understanding and dont just throw words around that you picked up.

Well if the game was OK, I assume than more people should play it, than 8 year old DOW Soulstorm.

@Endstille said:
Have you ever read "Frankenstein"? It literally has nothing to do with whatever you brought up so go read it and think about the message of the book before you continue to use it wrong.

Frankenstein Monster is really good description for DoW3,
Dr. Frankenstein is a genius
but his creation was Dumb and a lot of people hated it.

@Endstille said:
When you started to talk about balance in DoW3 i stopped to read your post, sorry you obviously forgot the "balance" of the previous games and I have no further intent to waste my time with that nonsense.

So because the games of the past had some flaws, its OK to deliver same flaws again and again ?
At certain point people will simply see no improvement and stay simply by the old game.

Draconix

@SKYL0K said:
It seems to me that Relic is just now realising what they have done with this game,seeing from their questions.This game still holds mixed reviews with only 50 votes required to go under mixed.They were told for months what to do by the community but nothing(except some balance changes in recent time).How many people bought this game?And only 500 play it.Mostly those are the same people who are playing it daily.If they can make expansion like the Dark Crusade which brought massive improvements, It could bring a lot of players.Even now we are suggesting same things for months to them so they can add them and still nothing.This way I think that things will only go from bad to worse in this game.

So now, when they realised what they done, they should abandon this game for Dow4? I would prefer not. I would prefer for them to use the data they collected from survey to make a expansion for Dow3 that brings not only new races but also some fixes to this game.

Wikkyd

My issue is that most units don't feel unique at all, and are just bland in the way they perform. Tactical marines from DoW1 and DoW2 Scaled well into the late game with their ability to upgrade with a sgt and multiple weapon upgrades to adapt to many situations. Tacticals here don't scale well.

Doctrines help add diversity to the game, but it's really minor honestly. Every race has units that are extremely equivalent to what they do, Tacticals, DA, and Shootas are general ranged combat unit, they all perform the same role and that doesn't charge throughout the game, which really makes things bland and uninteresting.

steinernein

@Wikkyd said:
My issue is that most units don't feel unique at all, and are just bland in the way they perform. Tactical marines from DoW1 and DoW2 Scaled well into the late game with their ability to upgrade with a sgt and multiple weapon upgrades to adapt to many situations. Tacticals here don't scale well.

Doctrines help add diversity to the game, but it's really minor honestly. Every race has units that are extremely equivalent to what they do, Tacticals, DA, and Shootas are general ranged combat unit, they all perform the same role and that doesn't charge throughout the game, which really makes things bland and uninteresting.

The problem is that the doctrines are feature defining rather than enhancing, so you get this bland template if you aren't using the doctrines. However, due to the way the meta is set up you're pretty much forced out of those options and you're left with a bland template unit.

StarSauron

@Bigamo said:
I kind of understand the 2 sides of its debate. But i also think that the two sides are wrong...

Each side desires the game to appeal them.

Problem is, we RTS players are not really presented in online forums,
it's really hard to tell sense into a developer company, to make RTS game the way it should be.

@SKYL0K said:
It seems to me that Relic is just now realising what they have done with this game,seeing from their questions.This game still holds mixed reviews with only 50 votes required to go under mixed.They were told for months what to do by the community but nothing(except some balance changes in recent time).How many people bought this game?And only 500 play it.Mostly those are the same people who are playing it daily.If they can make expansion like the Dark Crusade which brought massive improvements, It could bring a lot of players.Even now we are suggesting same things for months to them so they can add them and still nothing.This way I think that things will only go from bad to worse in this game.

Yes anybody can see that DoW3 is bad and failed, but:

-1- The eternal E-Sport-Heresy lie will continue to exist and corrupt games
-2- E-Sports-Acolytes will continue to lurk on forums and misguide the developers.
-3- There will be always and everywhere voices to simplify games, to rob them of their identity, to appeal a non existing E-Sport Audience
-4- There will be always doubts if good old school concepts work and told to betray the fan bases, to appeal a new non existing E-Sport Audience.

It's hard for a developer to stand up, if every business man wants to cut costs

Blizzard for example did almost copy paste Company of Heroes.
They did make cover system in Starcraft 2, because business man told them so.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5827/starcraft_ii_building_on_the_beta.php?page=2
https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/974356-warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii-chaos-rising/55285758

Blizzard in year 2010
We did actually try a cover system. We tried it frequently, and what it did to our game was prevent a lot of movement from happening on the battlefield. It slowed the game down. Players would move to cover and stop. The other player is like, "Can I get around it? Screw it. I'll just fight." Or, "I'll just build up." The game stagnated.

Our game is about dancing: advance, retreat, advance, using the choke point -- until, "Oh no, the enemy went air, the choke is useless!" It's about give and take. For our game, it was a disaster. It wasn't a perfect cover system. We never got that far, but the early indications were very poor.

It makes somehow sense why Blizzard did copy paste it.
Starcraft concept was already 12 years and Company of Heroes the most favourite game on the market.

Blizzard did listen to its core fans , not to Business man, look where they are now and you Relic.

Blizzard in year 2010
A lot of players view RTS as a continuum: RTS was this, and now changes have been made, and now RTS must start from there. We don't view it that way.

We think each game has its own style and flavor. Each game has its own strengths and weaknesses. What works for us would never work for a Dawn of War, and what works for Dawn of War would never work for us. They're different games, and that's the way it should be.

That's really wise words form the best games developer in the world.