@Katitof said:
That million of copies is sold within 5-10 years, not 6 months after release.
and there's no indication DoW III will ever get there, judging by how few units have been moved through late summer/autumn even with huge discounts. Not sure why you think that argument holds any water.
@Katitof said:
I did not got SC2, because the day it was released it already had extremely dated graphic and mechanics, yet millions of people fell to blizzards marketing and got inferior product only because it was wrapped nicely despite not being innovative at all.
Starcraft 2 was a much better game. Period. It didn't do much of anything new and it DID have outdated graphics, but graphics were never a selling part of the franchise and the game delivered on its value proposition, which was an update of SC2. The degree of its success is up for debate but marketing and packaging don't explain it.
@Katitof said:
The numbers only prove that gameplay, graphics, innovation or lack of it completely doesn't matter if you're good at marketing and have known name.
This is another example of the silly narrative you've been peddling since release and it's getting more and more ridiculous the heavier the facts pile up against you. This absurd idea that folks just don't know any better and that they're completely fooled by marketing and hype is just a convenient and 100% made up narrative. It can neither be proven nor disproved, but you happily apply it where and how it serves your purposes.
@Katitof said:
Look at Overwatch.
Its NOT the best hero shooter around, its NOT new idea, its very OK game, but that's it. Just OK.
But it was sold to the world as the best thing under the sun and many are convinced of it just because its blizzard.
Overwatch is your "proof"? I guess we just take your word for it that it's just an "OK" game and that the only reason it's popular is because it was developed by Blizzard? Please.
@Katitof said:
You do NOT need superior product to sell it as long as you appeal to the right group and market it good.
Best example of it is the whole existence of Apple-they sell stuff that's pretty, but isn't half as functional as what competition offers, but it still sells its stuff for tremendously high cost.
Quality of product is completely irrelevant as long as you invest enough in marketing.
This statement tells us that you have absolutely no clue how marketing or brand management works.
@Lude said:
I actually agree with those that claim the SP is biggest failure of this game, by a long shot, and the rest of the game has suffered as a result. There are clearly some players who think the MP in this game is great, including myself, and it pushes buttons for me insofar as it is an RTS with the high stakes and breakneck pace of an FPS or other kind of game with strategy still being important. But I'm pretty sure there is only one person who plays this game and enjoys it offline, and that is Draconix on this forum, who plays the MP vs an AI! And I think that most of the bad reputation of the game is from players who did not want just a competetive RTS experience but a full game, and the SP in this game is so poor that with 1.3k hours of game time I have STILL not completed the campaign, because it is utter trash, the bits I played I played only for the cutscenes in between missions and to unlock Codex Macha skin. People bring up Power Core mode, balance, etc. but I think most people who are put off the game by these things are mostly people who have not played the game enough to understand how they work, and the reason people do not give the game the chance it deserves is because of the trash single player, which honestly, should not even have been in the game in my opinion, it should have been marketed as an MP only game with single player tutorial (which is effectively what the SP is).
RTS gamers in general expect the game to have an interest single player, unfortunately it seems like, as it stands now, the design of the game simply does not seem to be compatible with interesting single player, I think in part because of the uselessness of the AI.
I agree with everything except I do think a good campaign is possible in this engine. And I think you give the current SP too much credit as a tutorial. In DOW3 you never play the SP like you play MP. Look at SC or Dark Crusade or any classic RTS. The majority of the missions start by building a base and building an army. Just like MP. In DOW3 you might never have a base or start with a few units, then get a half built base. It's constantly trying to shake things up. It's unique but combined with changing armies every mission, it's pretty disorienting.
I really like the idea of a MP only DOW3. If Relic didn't have the time or money to do a traditional RTS right, they should have just never bothered with SP and made a really feature rich MP game. I don't know if they would have sold a lot but they would have saved a lot of money and WAY less people would be disappointed. Maybe that's what the expansion should be. It's stand alone, 2 new armies, you can play all of the armies in MP, it has last stand and more game modes. You just don't get any campaign. I would be thrilled with that.
@Lude said:
I actually agree with those that claim the SP is biggest failure of this game, by a long shot, and the rest of the game has suffered as a result. There are clearly some players who think the MP in this game is great, including myself, and it pushes buttons for me insofar as it is an RTS with the high stakes and breakneck pace of an FPS or other kind of game with strategy still being important. But I'm pretty sure there is only one person who plays this game and enjoys it offline, and that is Draconix on this forum, who plays the MP vs an AI! And I think that most of the bad reputation of the game is from players who did not want just a competetive RTS experience but a full game, and the SP in this game is so poor that with 1.3k hours of game time I have STILL not completed the campaign, because it is utter trash, the bits I played I played only for the cutscenes in between missions and to unlock Codex Macha skin. People bring up Power Core mode, balance, etc. but I think most people who are put off the game by these things are mostly people who have not played the game enough to understand how they work, and the reason people do not give the game the chance it deserves is because of the trash single player, which honestly, should not even have been in the game in my opinion, it should have been marketed as an MP only game with single player tutorial (which is effectively what the SP is).
RTS gamers in general expect the game to have an interest single player, unfortunately it seems like, as it stands now, the design of the game simply does not seem to be compatible with interesting single player, I think in part because of the uselessness of the AI.
I agree with everything except I do think a good campaign is possible in this engine. And I think you give the current SP too much credit as a tutorial. You never play the SP like you play MP. Look at SC or Dark Crusade or any classic RTS. The majority of the missions start by building a base and building an army. Just like MP. In DOW3 you might never have a base or start with a few units, then get a half built base. It's constantly trying to shake things up. It's unique but combined with changing armies every mission, it's pretty disorienting.
I really like the idea of a MP only DOW3. If Relic didn't have the time or money to do a traditional RTS right, they should have just never bothered with SP and made a really feature rich MP game. I don't know if they would have sold a lot but they would have saved a lot of money and WAY less people would be disappointed. Maybe that's what the expansion should be. It's stand alone, 2 new armies, you can play all of the armies in MP, it has last stand and more game modes. You just don't get any campaign. I would be thrilled with that.
Well, they could release purely MP focused expansion, meaning two new race without a campaign, just like they did with TWA and TBF expansions for Coh2.
Anyways, doubt that there might be a expansion, but to be honest, I would be suprised if they will really announce a expansion. If so, then I will gladly buy it.
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
That's why there's hope. If they have a great expansion and make a lot of noise about it, Relic can turn things around. I'm talking 2 races, great campaign, last stand and at least as many MP features as DOW1. At it's core DOW3 is a lot of fun, there just isn't anything to recommend other than the most basic MP game mode.
I agree. Even tho MP is still improvable imo, its definetly nice. When you find someone for 1v1 annihilation, that is.
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
That's why there's hope. If they have a great expansion and make a lot of noise about it, Relic can turn things around. I'm talking 2 races, great campaign, last stand and at least as many MP features as DOW1. At it's core DOW3 is a lot of fun, there just isn't anything to recommend other than the most basic MP game mode.
I agree. Even tho MP is still improvable imo, its definetly nice. When you find someone for 1v1 annihilation, that is.
Yikes. I've always preferred team games or FFA. I know you 1v1 guys are hurting out there. Keep hope alive that an expansion brings in some more 1v1 peeps.
What i really meant to say: This game didnt suffer as much from its core concept as from its execution.
That's why there's hope. If they have a great expansion and make a lot of noise about it, Relic can turn things around. I'm talking 2 races, great campaign, last stand and at least as many MP features as DOW1. At it's core DOW3 is a lot of fun, there just isn't anything to recommend other than the most basic MP game mode.
I agree. Even tho MP is still improvable imo, its definetly nice. When you find someone for 1v1 annihilation, that is.
Yikes. I've always preferred team games or FFA. I know you 1v1 guys are hurting out there. Keep hope alive that an expansion brings in some more 1v1 peeps.
Thank you kind Sir
See, im an old sc2 ladderer, i spent almost 2 years playing nothing but zerg ladder every day after school. Good times. But eventually you get tires of everything (and LotV MP is kinda meh). I need a new home!
They should really make a qm queue for annihilation. I mean come ON, how hard can it be?
@TripSin said:
Only some portions of SC2 are free. The custom games (arcade) is free. And I think a limited selection of campaign missions might also be free.
Iirc, you can play free for certain amount of time, and its up to what you do with it.
I wouldnt be surprised if they made the MP f2p at some point in the future, tho.
arcade already means like 100 times more content than dow3 is every going to get, and according to blizzard custom games have the highest amount of players. (same for wc3 and sc1)
Blizzard was smart enough to improve mod support and so on due to popularity of custom games.
Meanwhile relic started working against modders after coh1, at the same time they don't deliver enough content that keeps people interested in their game anymore.
On top of that the base game was already disliked by lots of people, but feedback was largely ignored.
If relic wont learn from their mistakes, things will simply get worse.
@steinernein said: three factions, bare bones multiplayer.
I understand campaign as I wasn't blown away by it either, but the hell you're on about with this?
A LOT of RTS games does 3 factions and NEVER expands beyond that and that's apparently perfectly fine for them, but not for DoW to start with 3?
You can't praise starcraft like a mindless zealot in one line and bash dow in another when talking about faction numbers as that's about as high as hypocrisy can get.
Bare bones multiplayer?
Standard matchmaking - check.
Custom games with different objectives - check.(starcraft doesn't offer that)
What more you expect?
If you throw bland statements like that, better be prepared to elaborate.
The world editor for SC1, as far as I know - and correct me if I am wrong - is way more robust than that of DoW3's (or any DoW really).
The three factions in Starcraft also got their own campaign, and quantity some times is its own quality.
While SC1 map editor most definitely offers more, its simply unjust to compare campaigns as they had nowhere near production value behind it.
SC2 on the other hand, being more modern version, did not offered campaigns for all 3 factions from get go, it took 2 expansions to allow for that.
Which brings me to DoW factions; they generally tend to be less dense and reusable than say Starcraft's factions or even the two factions of say Total Annihilation. Because of the way the game is designed, the toys you're given are almost never fully used; for example, you can't mass imperial knights, you can't mass terminators, but in games like SC you had a lot more flexibility -- the combinations were far greater. So, what DoW made up for that was in factions even if it was just mostly a reskin. You can chalk a lot of that to balance and that's fine, but at some point you have to wonder why even have something like the doctrine system.
Apples to oranges.
There are plenty of RTS games with super units limited to one only.
Just because SC doesn't do it, doesn't mean its better or offers more flexibility.
SC in fact offered LESS units then DoW3, you just had battle cruiser instead of predator and DoW3 still adds elites to the mix.
These are two completely different design directions and neither is good or bad-it fits the game or don't.
Hero units are unfitting for SC gameplay, that's why they aren't there, but base unit roster is just as numerous as base DoW one.
All RTS games offer a selection between 10-12 different units in base game, supers are on TOP of that base army, not instead of it.
As for bare bones multiplayer, that's a hyperbole on my part, oops; there still isn't an observer mode, there aren't free for alls either.
DoW2 didn't had initially FFA either and it wasn't a problem.
CoH series also doesn't include FFA and no one bats an eye.
Some games support it, some don't. It doesn't mean the ones who don't are worse, they have simply different gameplay which is unfitting for FFA.
Obs mode is hardly mp mandatory for anything.
Its QOL feature, would be awesome to have it, but we're not losing anything by not having it.
In my opinion it does go even so far to simply lack of RTS core essence.
Units should be capable to do get their job done.
Almost Every Unit in Dow3 feels inferior to his counterparts from other RTS games,
downgraded and useless.
---Lascannon Devastator is supposed to be Anti tank ?
Man he is so slow, weak and takes so long to build up his attack.
---Tactical Marine Squad can get plasma weapon, but they are expensive and doesn't seem like are better.
---Assault Marine Squad can get this sword, but in real play is easy to shoot down.
Elites
--Kill Team Ironmaw Squad has rocket launcher, but its limited to 1 squad.
Even on full Buff, that cost Power Troopers are weak, so why waste power for this?
You have a lot of income of Requisition and Power is limited, so Tech Units are extreme Buffed.
---C&C
My Tier 1 Rocket troopers from C&C since 1995 would be instant trained in huge mass
and could easy deal with it and they are designed as trash units. They can go even deal alone vs Epics .
My tier 2 Telsa troopers and Cyborgs would deal with anything
And 1997, I can like put them into an Underground troop Transporter or a flying troop transporter.
I know in Warhammer Lore they lost many technologies, but not have 20 years later any kind of trooper transporter, LOL.
----Age of Empires
1997 my Priest would say Wololo and take control of any unit
And heal/repair my units with his prayers.
---Starcraft
1998 Marines had Air transports and medics to support them and this combat drugs
---Dune
2001 my Imperial Sardaukar with their laser rifles would even melt the 9 point Walker elites,
can go in cover and with energy knifes cut through the throat of any enemy trooper.
#
There are simply no buff for these DOw3 units or power ups, to make them useful for me.
While SC1 map editor most definitely offers more, its simply unjust to compare campaigns as they had nowhere near production value behind it.
SC2 on the other hand, being more modern version, did not offered campaigns for all 3 factions from get go, it took 2 expansions to allow for that.
Apples to oranges.
There are plenty of RTS games with super units limited to one only.
Just because SC doesn't do it, doesn't mean its better or offers more flexibility.
SC in fact offered LESS units then DoW3, you just had battle cruiser instead of predator and DoW3 still adds elites to the mix.
These are two completely different design directions and neither is good or bad-it fits the game or don't.
Hero units are unfitting for SC gameplay, that's why they aren't there, but base unit roster is just as numerous as base DoW one.
All RTS games offer a selection between 10-12 different units in base game, supers are on TOP of that base army, not instead of it.
DoW2 didn't had initially FFA either and it wasn't a problem.
CoH series also doesn't include FFA and no one bats an eye.
Some games support it, some don't. It doesn't mean the ones who don't are worse, they have simply different gameplay which is unfitting for FFA.
Obs mode is hardly mp mandatory for anything.
Its QOL feature, would be awesome to have it, but we're not losing anything by not having it.
SC2 offered a more cinematic feeling in lieu of an extended campaign, but this is my point; the production values that Blizzard gives Relic hasn't matched either in sentiment or in more quantitative ways since Homeworld. There are a lot of things that aren't fair to compare but since when is fairness even a thing when they both share the same market space? That's also another argument I would like to make: DoW3 ended up the way it is partially due to funding reasons, and it's pretty amazing they did what they did given the time though their actions afterwards leaves a bit to be desired from a 'small' studio (relative to Blizzard) at least in my opinion.
As for the factions, keep in mind that you could also build sprawling bases and the maps were more free form; there are more play styles that are covered by Starcraft's 3 factions than there are in any Dawn of War game in any single game. The thing about elites in DoW 3 is that you're stuck with a given load out for the entire match, there are strengths and weaknesses of that system but it's influence is best felt in a situation where you're doing a series against the same opponent (if there was a healthy meta etc.) The amount of playstyles covered is what makes me say that the factions of Starcraft are more complete than that of Dawn of War 3's.
And I would argue that we're losing out on a decent chunk by not having an obs mode, but those are ancillary to the core problems of DoW 3 which I will always argue is a content issue - it's also what most reviewers who aren't insane will point out too. For DoW3 it's more unfair because it has a 40k association and people want to play their factions no matter how watered down or silly it is, you can merely look to the table top game and see that as a reflection of what I mean. If it were any other RTS or any other title, then what we have right now is more or less okay if the balance was tweaked a bit.
As for the rest of the multiplayer stuff I'll concede to those points since I did admit that it was a hyperbole; having FFA, and better custom maps (or a better user experience) would go a long way for the 'casual' audience but really doesn't do much at the end of the day same with obs mode.
@jonoliveira12 said:
I never said it was. In my opinion, synch kills are a mistake for any game that aims to have fluid playability.
Actually there are 2 sides of the coin
---1--- synch kills did slow down the speed of the game, this way it did become tactical, which appeals RTS players
synch kills did give unit a behaviour that needed to be known, actually did allow some new strategies
synch kills did give units a really interesting feedback to the player for the game, that he does actually achieve something
So you did have experienced by DOW1/2 a game where thinking and planning is important to win,
and the casual had neat feedback from his units and battlefield,
if he did capture the map new points by point and did see his units slather the enemy,
he did have the feeling maybe not to win the war, but at least some battles.
Was it intentional ? Who knows, fact is that's what this RTS Series did stand for.
---2---
Sacrifice your identity to appeal somebody else, who doesn't even care for you ?
Can this be a good idea ?
Again, this was from several Interviews from Relic their statement what they wanted to do by DoW3.
First of DoW3 failed because it tried to appeal the E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBA Audience.
Any person who know RTS games, would have seen that the creation would result in Inferior copy of Starcraft2
---Relic has Zero experience with E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBA and not the resources to sustain such game
---Starcraft2/E-Sports games do require a patch quality/frequency Relic can't deliver.
---So if you abandon your fan base, why should other people even trust you ?
---And again how they did they try to achieve this ?
By removing all the stuff "E-Sports" doesn't like and adding nothing new to appeal him.
Because they have simply no idea and zero experience about E-Sports/Warcraft 3/MOBAs.
Synch Kills made melee units pointless, except for disruption. The Avatar of Khaine from DoW1 is a well-known example, the unit is useless at killing other units, and like the Greater Knarlox and the Bloodthirster, it is only useful as a battering ram to bring down buildings.
Also, the was suppression worked in DoW2, made melee stupidly easy to counter, to the point it was irrelevant unless it was a Walker (again to be used as a battering ram, to break cover and grind down the HQ), or the unit had useful AoE abilities.
Man, you're saying some ignorant ++heresy redacted++.
As Bigamo mentioned they don't have an observer mode, and they really didn't help foster a community to bring e-sports about. Their actions point that they may have been in parallel for some designs, but overall it wasn't their focus.
Here's food for thought: Dawn of War really doesn't have its own identity beyond 40k + squads with melee/ranged switch.
Sync kills were something only the Dawn of War series had
No, not really. Total War has had Synch Kills since Medieval 2, and there were other games with it.
Yeah and TW is no RTS
I never said it was. In my opinion, synch kills are a mistake for any game that aims to have fluid playability.
There are quiet a few people, who are just there for the epic battles, which sync kills are an big part of
Battles in real life, never nad synch kills, and many of them where incredibly epic.
Synch kills are cartoony, and just a childish power fantasy. Anyone trying crap like that on an Ancient or Medieval battlefield, would become an arrow/javelin/spear sponge, immediately after.
@steinernein said:
Losing control is not a fun experience for most players if the player did not consent to it.
This is true in most games, as the norm is to be playing as a single entity, but in RTS losing control of one unit isn't so awful an experience. Of course it still can cause frustration in certain circumstances, but from what I can see the spectacle of the sync kills made up for it, for a large and vocal amount of people. So I guess there was consent in the instance of sync kills.
Well, the thing is, when it´s an series, people exspect certain features in the way they started to love them and then to build up upon them, and not turn 180 degree
Keep ignoring the fact that the paradigm for each game is different and so are the levels of polish. That's why DoW 2 got a lot of ++heresy redacted++ in the beginning.
Great, and DoW III gets now bashed, because it has yet again chosen another path
---------DoW2 innovation ? Melee we had in DoW1 and this cover system in CoH.
DoW1 and Company of Heroes worked, because it was from start on an own entity.
Well DoW2 was something for Company of Heroes fans, like Total War Warhammer is for Total War Fans.
Relic had some kind of Experience already with the combat mechanic they did put into DoW2.
It was based on the game they did make and had experience Company of Heroes.
It was kind of logical, "we fear Starcraft 2, so for now we play save,
here the combat gameplay you liked from Company of Heroes and it was properly advertised that way,
a completely new experience you newer had before, but actually just a reskin of Company of Heroes.
----------DoW3
so how many MOBAs/E-Sport/Warcraft 3 did make Relic ? Zero!
as Blizzard did make Starcraft2, it was already their third E-Sport RTS game.
Here is simply the problem by DoW3, it does lack massively on substance behind it.
The RTS Series did die off, if their concept was changed, not because people were bored of their concept.
So by your logic, it would better for RTS series, if its core mechanics would only stagnate rather than trying something new?
Its like innovation was a plague of games, even if there is a infinite potential in gaming industries.
It doesn't matter of it's a old school core mechanic or new innovation. The Result must make sense.
In the particular case (incompetently copy pasted from other games) and
(remove good and reliable features) is not make something new or Innovative.
Total War fans hate TWW, they like historical games, not fantasy. Total War Warhammer is only really liked by Warhammer fans, it is too dumbed down for TW fans.
@jonoliveira12 said:
I never said it was. In my opinion, synch kills are a mistake for any game that aims to have fluid playability.
Actually there are 2 sides of the coin
---1--- synch kills did slow down the speed of the game, this way it did become tactical, which appeals RTS players
synch kills did give unit a behaviour that needed to be known, actually did allow some new strategies
synch kills did give units a really interesting feedback to the player for the game, that he does actually achieve something
Sync kills absolutly did nothing for tactics and it did quite the opposite of making you feel like that unit is doing something. Infact when a unit is sync killing something it is doing nothing it is not dealing damage it is unresponsive it is dead weight. You are now making things up to justify sync kills.
So you did have experienced by DOW1/2 a game where thinking and planning is important to win,
and the casual had neat feedback from his units and battlefield,
if he did capture the map new points by point and did see his units slather the enemy,
You can do simple math with certain heros like the chaos lord or force commander and see how debilitating sync kills were for your units. You are not convincing anybody.
@steinernein said:
Losing control is not a fun experience for most players if the player did not consent to it.
This is true in most games, as the norm is to be playing as a single entity, but in RTS losing control of one unit isn't so awful an experience. Of course it still can cause frustration in certain circumstances, but from what I can see the spectacle of the sync kills made up for it, for a large and vocal amount of people. So I guess there was consent in the instance of sync kills.
DoW 1 it was tolerable, but moving into DoW 2 you began to see a lot more complaints, as @Nassir_Amit points out. It's a pretty questionable thing if it creates a negative experience when under any other circumstance it would not be a factor. The thing is when you are affected by it in a negative fashion it generally impacts the game a lot more and is more memorable in all the bad ways. So, again, I really question the way it was implemented in any case.
If the scale of the game is DoW I or bigger, then the sync kills aren t that hard to compensate, as the macro get s more important
Yeah, I get the argument for removing sync kills... in theory. In my experience, however, they never seemed like problem in DOW1. This is probably another result of this game being rushed or running out of money or whatever. Let's just throw sync kills on the big pile of things we want fixed in an expansion.
@StarSauron said:
Total War Warhammer did shameless steal our Idea of (Sync Kills)
And let's look at their ratings and sales lol.
Total War has done Synch Kills since Medieval 2, it stole nothing.
All it proves, is that 40K fans like cartoonish exaggeration, rather than the grim reality of actual combat, where people fall like broken dolls once their body sustained enough structural damage, and no onedoes pirouettes on the battlefield.
Honestly, it would be pretty cool to have a Total Annihilation + 40k (which would make it, literally Epic 40k) because then you could feature titans and have those sync kills.
Menu
Comments
Amoc
and there's no indication DoW III will ever get there, judging by how few units have been moved through late summer/autumn even with huge discounts. Not sure why you think that argument holds any water.
Starcraft 2 was a much better game. Period. It didn't do much of anything new and it DID have outdated graphics, but graphics were never a selling part of the franchise and the game delivered on its value proposition, which was an update of SC2. The degree of its success is up for debate but marketing and packaging don't explain it.
This is another example of the silly narrative you've been peddling since release and it's getting more and more ridiculous the heavier the facts pile up against you. This absurd idea that folks just don't know any better and that they're completely fooled by marketing and hype is just a convenient and 100% made up narrative. It can neither be proven nor disproved, but you happily apply it where and how it serves your purposes.
Overwatch is your "proof"? I guess we just take your word for it that it's just an "OK" game and that the only reason it's popular is because it was developed by Blizzard? Please.
This statement tells us that you have absolutely no clue how marketing or brand management works.
TokyoDream
I agree with everything except I do think a good campaign is possible in this engine. And I think you give the current SP too much credit as a tutorial. In DOW3 you never play the SP like you play MP. Look at SC or Dark Crusade or any classic RTS. The majority of the missions start by building a base and building an army. Just like MP. In DOW3 you might never have a base or start with a few units, then get a half built base. It's constantly trying to shake things up. It's unique but combined with changing armies every mission, it's pretty disorienting.
I really like the idea of a MP only DOW3. If Relic didn't have the time or money to do a traditional RTS right, they should have just never bothered with SP and made a really feature rich MP game. I don't know if they would have sold a lot but they would have saved a lot of money and WAY less people would be disappointed. Maybe that's what the expansion should be. It's stand alone, 2 new armies, you can play all of the armies in MP, it has last stand and more game modes. You just don't get any campaign. I would be thrilled with that.
Draconix
Well, they could release purely MP focused expansion, meaning two new race without a campaign, just like they did with TWA and TBF expansions for Coh2.
Anyways, doubt that there might be a expansion, but to be honest, I would be suprised if they will really announce a expansion. If so, then I will gladly buy it.
TuskaDemonKilla
I agree. Even tho MP is still improvable imo, its definetly nice. When you find someone for 1v1 annihilation, that is.
aghabozorg
guys STARCRAFT 2 is free to play...
TokyoDream
Yikes. I've always preferred team games or FFA. I know you 1v1 guys are hurting out there. Keep hope alive that an expansion brings in some more 1v1 peeps.
TuskaDemonKilla
Thank you kind Sir
See, im an old sc2 ladderer, i spent almost 2 years playing nothing but zerg ladder every day after school. Good times. But eventually you get tires of everything (and LotV MP is kinda meh). I need a new home!
They should really make a qm queue for annihilation. I mean come ON, how hard can it be?
At the other guy: SC2 isnt free.
TuskaDemonKilla
Iirc, you can play free for certain amount of time, and its up to what you do with it.
I wouldnt be surprised if they made the MP f2p at some point in the future, tho.
nachocheese
arcade already means like 100 times more content than dow3 is every going to get, and according to blizzard custom games have the highest amount of players. (same for wc3 and sc1)
Blizzard was smart enough to improve mod support and so on due to popularity of custom games.
Meanwhile relic started working against modders after coh1, at the same time they don't deliver enough content that keeps people interested in their game anymore.
On top of that the base game was already disliked by lots of people, but feedback was largely ignored.
If relic wont learn from their mistakes, things will simply get worse.
Katitof
While SC1 map editor most definitely offers more, its simply unjust to compare campaigns as they had nowhere near production value behind it.
SC2 on the other hand, being more modern version, did not offered campaigns for all 3 factions from get go, it took 2 expansions to allow for that.
Apples to oranges.
There are plenty of RTS games with super units limited to one only.
Just because SC doesn't do it, doesn't mean its better or offers more flexibility.
SC in fact offered LESS units then DoW3, you just had battle cruiser instead of predator and DoW3 still adds elites to the mix.
These are two completely different design directions and neither is good or bad-it fits the game or don't.
Hero units are unfitting for SC gameplay, that's why they aren't there, but base unit roster is just as numerous as base DoW one.
All RTS games offer a selection between 10-12 different units in base game, supers are on TOP of that base army, not instead of it.
DoW2 didn't had initially FFA either and it wasn't a problem.
CoH series also doesn't include FFA and no one bats an eye.
Some games support it, some don't. It doesn't mean the ones who don't are worse, they have simply different gameplay which is unfitting for FFA.
Obs mode is hardly mp mandatory for anything.
Its QOL feature, would be awesome to have it, but we're not losing anything by not having it.
StarSauron
In my opinion it does go even so far to simply lack of RTS core essence.
Units should be capable to do get their job done.
Almost Every Unit in Dow3 feels inferior to his counterparts from other RTS games,
downgraded and useless.
http://dow.wikia.com/wiki/Dawn_of_War_III/Space_Marines
---Lascannon Devastator is supposed to be Anti tank ?
Man he is so slow, weak and takes so long to build up his attack.
---Tactical Marine Squad can get plasma weapon, but they are expensive and doesn't seem like are better.
---Assault Marine Squad can get this sword, but in real play is easy to shoot down.
Elites
--Kill Team Ironmaw Squad has rocket launcher, but its limited to 1 squad.
Even on full Buff, that cost Power Troopers are weak, so why waste power for this?
You have a lot of income of Requisition and Power is limited, so Tech Units are extreme Buffed.
---C&C
My Tier 1 Rocket troopers from C&C since 1995 would be instant trained in huge mass
and could easy deal with it and they are designed as trash units. They can go even deal alone vs Epics .
My tier 2 Telsa troopers and Cyborgs would deal with anything
And 1997, I can like put them into an Underground troop Transporter or a flying troop transporter.
I know in Warhammer Lore they lost many technologies, but not have 20 years later any kind of trooper transporter, LOL.
----Age of Empires
1997 my Priest would say Wololo and take control of any unit
And heal/repair my units with his prayers.
---Starcraft
1998 Marines had Air transports and medics to support them and this combat drugs
---Dune
2001 my Imperial Sardaukar with their laser rifles would even melt the 9 point Walker elites,
can go in cover and with energy knifes cut through the throat of any enemy trooper.
#
There are simply no buff for these DOw3 units or power ups, to make them useful for me.
TuskaDemonKilla
Well youre right, 1 gamemode can be enough. But if that 1 gamemode sucks...well.
steinernein
SC2 offered a more cinematic feeling in lieu of an extended campaign, but this is my point; the production values that Blizzard gives Relic hasn't matched either in sentiment or in more quantitative ways since Homeworld. There are a lot of things that aren't fair to compare but since when is fairness even a thing when they both share the same market space? That's also another argument I would like to make: DoW3 ended up the way it is partially due to funding reasons, and it's pretty amazing they did what they did given the time though their actions afterwards leaves a bit to be desired from a 'small' studio (relative to Blizzard) at least in my opinion.
As for the factions, keep in mind that you could also build sprawling bases and the maps were more free form; there are more play styles that are covered by Starcraft's 3 factions than there are in any Dawn of War game in any single game. The thing about elites in DoW 3 is that you're stuck with a given load out for the entire match, there are strengths and weaknesses of that system but it's influence is best felt in a situation where you're doing a series against the same opponent (if there was a healthy meta etc.) The amount of playstyles covered is what makes me say that the factions of Starcraft are more complete than that of Dawn of War 3's.
And I would argue that we're losing out on a decent chunk by not having an obs mode, but those are ancillary to the core problems of DoW 3 which I will always argue is a content issue - it's also what most reviewers who aren't insane will point out too. For DoW3 it's more unfair because it has a 40k association and people want to play their factions no matter how watered down or silly it is, you can merely look to the table top game and see that as a reflection of what I mean. If it were any other RTS or any other title, then what we have right now is more or less okay if the balance was tweaked a bit.
As for the rest of the multiplayer stuff I'll concede to those points since I did admit that it was a hyperbole; having FFA, and better custom maps (or a better user experience) would go a long way for the 'casual' audience but really doesn't do much at the end of the day same with obs mode.
jonoliveira12
Synch Kills made melee units pointless, except for disruption. The Avatar of Khaine from DoW1 is a well-known example, the unit is useless at killing other units, and like the Greater Knarlox and the Bloodthirster, it is only useful as a battering ram to bring down buildings.
Also, the was suppression worked in DoW2, made melee stupidly easy to counter, to the point it was irrelevant unless it was a Walker (again to be used as a battering ram, to break cover and grind down the HQ), or the unit had useful AoE abilities.
jonoliveira12
Battles in real life, never nad synch kills, and many of them where incredibly epic.
Synch kills are cartoony, and just a childish power fantasy. Anyone trying crap like that on an Ancient or Medieval battlefield, would become an arrow/javelin/spear sponge, immediately after.
steinernein
Losing control is not a fun experience for most players if the player did not consent to it.
Jazz_Sandwich
This is true in most games, as the norm is to be playing as a single entity, but in RTS losing control of one unit isn't so awful an experience. Of course it still can cause frustration in certain circumstances, but from what I can see the spectacle of the sync kills made up for it, for a large and vocal amount of people. So I guess there was consent in the instance of sync kills.
jonoliveira12
Total War fans hate TWW, they like historical games, not fantasy. Total War Warhammer is only really liked by Warhammer fans, it is too dumbed down for TW fans.
CANNED_F3TUS
Sync kills absolutly did nothing for tactics and it did quite the opposite of making you feel like that unit is doing something. Infact when a unit is sync killing something it is doing nothing it is not dealing damage it is unresponsive it is dead weight. You are now making things up to justify sync kills.
You can do simple math with certain heros like the chaos lord or force commander and see how debilitating sync kills were for your units. You are not convincing anybody.
steinernein
DoW 1 it was tolerable, but moving into DoW 2 you began to see a lot more complaints, as @Nassir_Amit points out. It's a pretty questionable thing if it creates a negative experience when under any other circumstance it would not be a factor. The thing is when you are affected by it in a negative fashion it generally impacts the game a lot more and is more memorable in all the bad ways. So, again, I really question the way it was implemented in any case.
StarSauron
Total War Warhammer did shameless steal our Idea of (Sync Kills)
And let's look at their ratings and sales lol.
TokyoDream
Yeah, I get the argument for removing sync kills... in theory. In my experience, however, they never seemed like problem in DOW1. This is probably another result of this game being rushed or running out of money or whatever. Let's just throw sync kills on the big pile of things we want fixed in an expansion.
steinernein
If you want to do comparisons like that then you might as well compare it with games like League of Legends and Counter Strike.
But here's a game that didn't have sync kills .... Homeworld, here's another ... Company of Heroes.
jonoliveira12
Total War has done Synch Kills since Medieval 2, it stole nothing.
All it proves, is that 40K fans like cartoonish exaggeration, rather than the grim reality of actual combat, where people fall like broken dolls once their body sustained enough structural damage, and no onedoes pirouettes on the battlefield.
steinernein
Honestly, it would be pretty cool to have a Total Annihilation + 40k (which would make it, literally Epic 40k) because then you could feature titans and have those sync kills.