And CoH1, which is the most realistic out of them, is the same. The Axis sides are grossly overpowered, to the point that Axis slots fill up almost immediately in any MP game, and then you wait 30 min for someone to bite the bullet, and play as Allies.
I don't even play CoH, and I despise the soviets. Though in a game, no faction should just overpower another in all aspects, or there is no sense in having the weak factions even be playable on the multiplayer.
@steinernein said:
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.
Think it would be pretty hard to implement some of the features it would get. Jump troops would be imba and simply meta and make ranged infantry almost pointless to field Total war is a bit to clunky for features like tanks. Although TW WH had made innovations like the steam tank its still a semi whack unit to control on the battlefield.
@Bigamo said:
i don't really know why dow3 failed. What i can see are several very broken game systems. But broken gamesystems have been in every single dow game to date. (dow1 cancealing decap building an LP while point was being decaped? lol ).
the hard counter system SAVED WC3, being introduced AFTER game release and in DoW it made the exact opposite path, it made dow1vanilla into a proper E-sport tittle and later got removed for the sake of "simplicity" that just made the game worst.
From perspective of RTS player its extremely obvious.
Starcraft has different factions and if Inexperienced Teams try to copy it,
always result in broken faction mechanics and huge gaps in tech tree.
It just not enough units to have strategies, they already did leave 1 faction away and a lot of units away , still it bad balanced.
I just take Orcs vs Marines. Why do both Factions lack so many units from previous games again ?
To be a dumb Warcraft3/E-Sport/MOBA copy or something .
Orcs feel bad, because you don't have Proper units
Stormboyz man i miss that guys to kill eldar
Looted Tank
Mad Dok to heal
Big Mek to repair
Flash Gitz for shooting
Marines do lack this units
Rhino Transport to do his job
Hellfire Dreadnought
Apothecary to heal
Terminators to get the job done.
DoW3 wasn't planned as RTS, if you look from RTS perspective, you think how make factions playable not diverse.
They have totally broken balance, simply because the game does lack units and factions.
Tech tree gaps is one of the most biggest Problems the game DoW3 did have from start on.
@Bigamo said:
i don't really know why dow3 failed. What i can see are several very broken game systems. But broken gamesystems have been in every single dow game to date. (dow1 cancealing decap building an LP while point was being decaped? lol ).
the hard counter system SAVED WC3, being introduced AFTER game release and in DoW it made the exact opposite path, it made dow1vanilla into a proper E-sport tittle and later got removed for the sake of "simplicity" that just made the game worst.
From perspective of RTS player its extremely obvious.
Starcraft has different factions and if Inexperienced Teams try to copy it,
always result in broken faction mechanics and huge gaps in tech tree.
It just not enough units to have strategies, they already did leave 1 faction away and a lot of units away , still it bad balanced.
I just take Orcs vs Marines. Why do both Factions lack so many units from previous games again ?
To be a dumb Warcraft3/E-Sport/MOBA copy or something .
They dont lack units in a game sense. Just some units have been implemented differently or are not being implimented because that role has already been takin. New units are a possibility with expansions. Just i dont expect them to add units with overlapping roles.
Orcs feel bad, because you don't have Proper units
Stormboyz man i miss that guys to kill eldar
Looted Tank
Mad Dok to heal
Big Mek to repair
Flash Gitz for shooting
These are all potential elites. We also got big mech.
Marines do lack this units
Rhino Transport to do his job
Hellfire Dreadnought
Apothecary to heal
Terminators to get the job done.
We got termies
Rhinos or tazorbacks are not in roster for assymetrical balance purposes.
Apoth could be a potential elite.
DoW3 wasn't planned as RTS, if you look from RTS perspective, you think how make factions playable not diverse.
They have totally broken balance, simply because the game does lack units and factions.
DoW 3 has better balance. Also a variety of units dont improve the gameplay if its halfbaked like UA mod. So much variety but nobody is going to make use of the variety cause there will be a unit in the roster that does the job better than every one of those units. Meta pick.
Tech tree gaps is one of the most biggest Problems the game DoW3 did have from start on.
Can you explain tech tree gaps to me?
Teching works more like DoW 2 you build barracks. Wait till you get power and there you go T 2.
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
@TuskaDemonKilla said:
Half of the units you mentioned are elites buddy
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
At that point you have to wonder... why even have doctrines? Or at the very least why have them implemented in such a restrictive fashion as they currently are.
Everything about DoW3 in terms of factions leaves me yearning for more; is it nostalgia, or is it something else? I always feel like the factions are missing something unlike DoW 1 and even other RTS games. Maybe it's the balance or the meta or whatever else, but I find my options restrictive. I can have fun within the confines but I am always left yearning for more.
@TuskaDemonKilla said:
Half of the units you mentioned are elites buddy
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
At that point you have to wonder... why even have doctrines? Or at the very least why have them implemented in such a restrictive fashion as they currently are.
Everything about DoW3 in terms of factions leaves me yearning for more; is it nostalgia, or is it something else? I always feel like the factions are missing something unlike DoW 1 and even other RTS games. Maybe it's the balance or the meta or whatever else, but I find my options restrictive. I can have fun within the confines but I am always left yearning for more.
Originally the whole point of doctrines and elite limit was to personalize your army and make your playstyle or strategy work
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Originally the whole point of doctrines and elite limit was to personalize your army and make your playstyle or strategy work
Yeah, but a lot of the functionality is tied to doctrines rather than the doctrines enhancing things. For example, Heavy Devastator pin and aspects of slow burn really ought to be moved into an armory upgrade and the doctrines that replace those should enhance those aspects.
It would be a different story if I could spend elite points or resources to swap doctrines (and have a global announcement that I am doing so) in the middle of a match. Or pick three, and then unlock more along the way in the middle of match or something.
As it stands right now, it 'feels' far too limited.
Tbh, i find this doctrine system stupid to begin with. (CoH2 was very different, iirc).
Im basically cementing my playstyle before the match, limiting my flexibility in game.
I usually get LP reinforcements and banner cd for that very reason. Goes with everything.
@TuskaDemonKilla said:
Half of the units you mentioned are elites buddy
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
Well for example the Eldar melee Unit does exist as elite and as Linie Unit, or same by Dreadnough Mech of Marines, doesnt make sense to limit.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
are not in roster for assymetrical balance purposes.
So much variety but nobody is going to make use of the variety cause there will be a unit in the roster that does the job better than every one of those units. Meta pick.
Each faction needs a foundation of units to be capable to do the job,
than you can add some mechanics and special units for the flavor
here a little Dictionary for RTS player terms
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort in balance the game
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort to make units for the game
Each developer (except for Blizzard who can put there lot of money) fails to make asymmetrical balance.
Exactly this E-Sport nonsense did kill of Relics competition by the way.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Can you explain tech tree gaps to me?
Problem is simply, RTS player need the tools to play the game.
Have Brocken units is one thing, but not have the unit at all is even bigger insult to our RTS Legacy.
By Orcs, I don't have the Tier 1 Unit to chase Eldar like the Jump Jet trooper.
By Marines, I don't have the Tier2 unit like a transporter the orcs have.
And there are a lot of other gaps in DoW3, you didn't have in previous games
DoW1 was designed by really smart people to appeal the RTS audience with reliable units,
a lot of units to choose your strategy and ability to adjust them for you with upgrades.
@TuskaDemonKilla said:
Half of the units you mentioned are elites buddy
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
Well for example the Eldar melee Unit does exist as elite and as Linie Unit, or same by Dreadnough Mech of Marines, doesnt make sense to limit.
If you completely ignore that in Eldar case, one is plain melee unit while other is specialist ambusher/assassin and in SM case one is just a face smasher tank while other two are very powerful damage dealer and crowd control specialist, then maybe you were right. But if we don't ignore their roles, you're completely wrong.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
are not in roster for assymetrical balance purposes.
So much variety but nobody is going to make use of the variety cause there will be a unit in the roster that does the job better than every one of those units. Meta pick.
Each faction needs a foundation of units to be capable to do the job,
than you can add some mechanics and special units for the flavor
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
here a little Dictionary for RTS player terms
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort in balance the game
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort to make units for the game
Here is a little dictionary for you:
Asymmetrical balance = "I clearly have no idea what does it mean."
Each developer (except for Blizzard who can put there lot of money) fails to make asymmetrical balance.
Exactly this E-Sport nonsense did kill of Relics competition by the way.
Since good asymmetrical balance does NOT equal succesful game, lets see the games which did used asymmetrical balance and did it good:
Grey goo
Red alert and C&C
Company of heroes series
Total Annihilation
Plannetary annihilation
Homeworld DoK
All of these games have asymmetrical balance and that balance is pretty well done.
The ONLY recent strategy that did NOT succeeded with asymmetrical balance is Battlefleet Gothic Armada, where Tau are completely OP
You most certainly have no slightest idea about asymmetrical balance.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Can you explain tech tree gaps to me?
Problem is simply, RTS player need the tools to play the game.
Have Brocken units is one thing, but not have the unit at all is even bigger insult to our RTS Legacy.
Again, you have all the tools you need.
All 3 factions can achieve same things, using different tools.
However, bad artisan will always blame the tools.
You not being able to use units properly does not mean you don't have the right tools.
It just means you're bad at using them.
By Orcs, I don't have the Tier 1 Unit to chase Eldar like the Jump Jet trooper.
By Marines, I don't have the Tier2 unit like a transporter the orcs have.
And there are a lot of other gaps in DoW3, you didn't have in previous games
1) You don't need it, because WAAGH towers provide you huge damage and speed buff.
2) You don't need it, because you can deliver new units straight to the battlefield and have most durable units in game.
3) Again, its called asymmetrical balance, different tools to achieve same job, again, you not being able to utilize that does not mean the tools aren't there.
DoW1 was designed by really smart people to appeal the RTS audience with reliable units,
a lot of units to choose your strategy and ability to adjust them for you with upgrades.
DoW1 was designed to have as much of everything as possible.
It was NEVER even remotely balanced, most factions played exactly the same with tiny gimmicks between them.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Most RTSes are asymmetrical. Actually, I think all of them are.
Yeah, giving out examples, you need to mentioned every single title with exception of Z and Age of Empires(there is too much of the same stuff there between factions to treat them as asymmetrical).
And vast majority did achieved unique, interesting factions for their needs.
Screaming that mirrored factions are better then asymmetrical solution is the same as screaming how horse pulled carts are superior means of transportation to the airplanes.
@Katitof said:
DoW1 was designed to have as much of everything as possible.
It was NEVER even remotely balanced, most factions played exactly the same with tiny gimmicks between them.
DoW1 sold better
This proves that DoW1 design is the superior one.
@Katitof said:
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Since good asymmetrical balance does NOT equal succesful game, lets see the games which did used asymmetrical balance and did it good:
Grey goo
Company of heroes series
Total Annihilation
Plannetary annihilation
Homeworld DoK
Grey goo and Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, failed designed as dumb rush games with broken balance
Total Annihilation were extremely mirrored.
Planetary annihilation has only 1 faction
@Katitof said:
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Red alert and C&C
3) Again, its called asymmetrical balance, different tools to achieve same job, again, you not being able to utilize that does not mean the tools aren't there.
Red alert and C&C concept was with lot of mirrored units and lot of units for the flavour.
That was good , this did work for years, till they decided to make the game E-Sport Asymmetrical.
All factions had Tanks, rifle troopers and Anti tank rockets.
The True Reason why C&C is dead, is because of Red Alert 3.
Like their Japan faction with all the transformers, while other factions need 2 units,
you can simply use 1 and he is better at his job that the 2 counterparts lol.
Red Alert 3 was the first C&C not to sell 1 million times,
it's not a coincidence, but obvious for any RTS player fails in the design.
By have no idea about E-Sport/MOBA/Stracraft mechanics and just add them to look like one,
people will pretty soon find out it doesn't work like one. And if they don't work, you have a broken game.
@Katitof said:
DoW1 was designed to have as much of everything as possible.
It was NEVER even remotely balanced, most factions played exactly the same with tiny gimmicks between them.
DoW1 sold better
This proves that DoW1 design is the superior one.
Over how many years again?
You're comparing something that can't be compared.
You're also making a critical mistake believing current market share for RTS games is just as large as it was in 2004.
@Katitof said:
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Since good asymmetrical balance does NOT equal succesful game, lets see the games which did used asymmetrical balance and did it good:
Grey goo
Company of heroes series
Total Annihilation
Plannetary annihilation
Homeworld DoK
Grey goo and Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, failed designed as dumb rush games with broken balance
Total Annihilation were extremely mirrored.
Balance in GG and HW:DoK was very decent.
The reasons for lack of popularity of these games was completely different and completely unrelated to balance, which again, is very good in both of these games.
TA was asymmetric enough to label it as such.
Planetary annihilation has only 1 faction
Got me there.
@Katitof said:
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Red alert and C&C
3) Again, its called asymmetrical balance, different tools to achieve same job, again, you not being able to utilize that does not mean the tools aren't there.
Red alert and C&C concept was with lot of mirrored units and lot of units for the flavour.
That was good , this did work for years, till they decided to make the game E-Sport Asymmetrical.
After first C&C and first RA not even base infantry was mirrored, you're COMPLETELY wrong on this one.
All factions had Tanks, rifle troopers and Anti tank rockets.
All of these rifle troops worked differently, one was better at clearing buildings, other was better at open fights, another had some whacky ability.
Yes, all had tanks, but light, medium, heavy tanks, mammoth/apocalypse or prism tanks were completely different to each other
They had same ARCHETYPE unit, how these units functioned was COMPLETELY different.
That's called asymmetric balance.
The True Reason why C&C is dead, is because of Red Alert 3.
True reason why C&C is dead is EA pressing on deadlines and forcing to cut corners and content just to meet release dates.
If you want to talk about something, make sure you've researched the topic good.
Like their Japan faction with all the transformers, while other factions need 2 units,
And guess what? It wasn't imbalanced at all, Japs had multirole units, but you couldn't spam one to win, you had to mix, because it was impossible not to.
Allies and soviets also had multi role units, battleships on land anyone?
you can simply use 1 and he is better at his job that the 2 counterparts lol.
Except it wasn't.
Red Alert 3 was the first C&C not to sell 1 million times,
it's not a coincidence, but obvious for any RTS player fails in the design.
Stop ignoring the fact that game trends change.
The ONLY games that never lost popularity are FPS and sports games, all other genres had different popularity depending on time period.
Genre popularity is NOT constant value. If you pull your head out of your rear and do some actual research, you'll notice that RTS games pre 2000 are more popular then RTS games between 2000 and 2005 and these are more popular then RTS between 2005 and 2010 and so on.
And guess what? Its not because RTS are being made worse and worse.
Its because demographics change, technology change, exposure to gaming change.
By have no idea about E-Sport/MOBA/Stracraft mechanics and just add them to look like one,
people will pretty soon find out it doesn't work like one. And if they don't work, you have a broken game.
Exactly this Error did Relic by DoW3.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you're just throwing random words at this point.
@Katitof said:
DoW1 was designed to have as much of everything as possible.
It was NEVER even remotely balanced, most factions played exactly the same with tiny gimmicks between them.
DoW1 sold better
This proves that DoW1 design is the superior one.
Over how many years again?
You're comparing something that can't be compared.
You're also making a critical mistake believing current market share for RTS games is just as large as it was in 2004.
@Katitof said:
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Since good asymmetrical balance does NOT equal succesful game, lets see the games which did used asymmetrical balance and did it good:
Grey goo
Company of heroes series
Total Annihilation
Plannetary annihilation
Homeworld DoK
Grey goo and Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, failed designed as dumb rush games with broken balance
Total Annihilation were extremely mirrored.
Balance in GG and HW:DoK was very decent.
The reasons for lack of popularity of these games was completely different and completely unrelated to balance, which again, is very good in both of these games.
TA was asymmetric enough to label it as such.
Planetary annihilation has only 1 faction
Got me there.
@Katitof said:
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Red alert and C&C
3) Again, its called asymmetrical balance, different tools to achieve same job, again, you not being able to utilize that does not mean the tools aren't there.
Red alert and C&C concept was with lot of mirrored units and lot of units for the flavour.
That was good , this did work for years, till they decided to make the game E-Sport Asymmetrical.
After first C&C and first RA not even base infantry was mirrored, you're COMPLETELY wrong on this one.
All factions had Tanks, rifle troopers and Anti tank rockets.
All of these rifle troops worked differently, one was better at clearing buildings, other was better at open fights, another had some whacky ability.
Yes, all had tanks, but light, medium, heavy tanks, mammoth/apocalypse or prism tanks were completely different to each other
They had same ARCHETYPE unit, how these units functioned was COMPLETELY different.
That's called asymmetric balance.
The True Reason why C&C is dead, is because of Red Alert 3.
True reason why C&C is dead is EA pressing on deadlines and forcing to cut corners and content just to meet release dates.
If you want to talk about something, make sure you've researched the topic good.
Like their Japan faction with all the transformers, while other factions need 2 units,
And guess what? It wasn't imbalanced at all, Japs had multirole units, but you couldn't spam one to win, you had to mix, because it was impossible not to.
Allies and soviets also had multi role units, battleships on land anyone?
you can simply use 1 and he is better at his job that the 2 counterparts lol.
Except it wasn't.
Red Alert 3 was the first C&C not to sell 1 million times,
it's not a coincidence, but obvious for any RTS player fails in the design.
Stop ignoring the fact that game trends change.
The ONLY games that never lost popularity are FPS and sports games, all other genres had different popularity depending on time period.
Genre popularity is NOT constant value. If you pull your head out of your rear and do some actual research, you'll notice that RTS games pre 2000 are more popular then RTS games between 2000 and 2005 and these are more popular then RTS between 2005 and 2010 and so on.
And guess what? Its not because RTS are being made worse and worse.
Its because demographics change, technology change, exposure to gaming change.
By have no idea about E-Sport/MOBA/Stracraft mechanics and just add them to look like one,
people will pretty soon find out it doesn't work like one. And if they don't work, you have a broken game.
Exactly this Error did Relic by DoW3.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you're just throwing random words at this point.
He doesn't even know that the most OP and overused unit in RA3, was the Soviet Twinblade, because it was cheap, fast, and dealt absurd amounts of single target damage with rocket volleys, while also being able to be stacked like the Mutalisks on Starcraft 1.
Empire of the Rising Sun transformer units, were more a pain to micro into appropriate forms, than they were OP. A simple combo of anti-tank + anti-air, could easily counter Mecha Tengus and Chopper XVs.
At this point, I am wondering if he even did play the game, since it was Allies dominated, with "Dude Swarm" mixed infantry rushes, and "Bomber Rushes" that forced the opponent to stop teching, and waste all his money in AA, if not outright lose because Advanced Aeronautics doctrine made them OP against T1 AA.
At the end of RA3's lifecycle, the only really competitive tactice Japan could pull, was the "Dojo Core Rush", which was an initial resources all-in, as their economy had been nerfed into oblivion, and their "glass cannon" units could just not keep up with the sturdier counterparts of the other factions, since they were also too expensive to reliably replace.
True reason why C&C is dead is EA pressing on deadlines and forcing to cut corners and content just to meet release dates.
Happened on my opinion 1to1 by DoW3.
@Katitof said:
Stop ignoring the fact that game trends change.
The ONLY games that never lost popularity are FPS and sports games, all other genres had different popularity depending on time period.
Genre popularity is NOT constant value. If you pull your head out of your rear and do some actual research, you'll notice that RTS games pre 2000 are more popular then RTS games between 2000 and 2005 and these are more popular then RTS between 2005 and 2010 and so on.
Released
1995 first C&C Command & Conquer Tiberian Dawn with good sales
2007 Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, sold 1 million times.
2008 Command & Conquer: Alarmstufe Rot 3, sold 300.000 times.
So for 12 years the series were successful, Fan base still there, market for RTS games still there.
So the question is, what happened by RA3, that did kill the Series ?
@ jonoliveira12 and Katitof I would like from you an answer for this, your point of view.
I have this simple theory, there is a trend what RTS developers do, but its not the trend what RTS players want.
Same I see now by Relic games 1to1 the same like by C&C games,
Since 1999 till 2013 they were delivering solid RTS quality for 14 years
Homeworld and Company of Heroes 2 are undeniable one of the best in History.
Than DoW3 start to make changes, that don't make sense at all, for a really huge amount of people.
@TuskaDemonKilla said:
Half of the units you mentioned are elites buddy
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
Well for example the Eldar melee Unit does exist as elite and as Linie Unit, or same by Dreadnough Mech of Marines, doesnt make sense to limit.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
are not in roster for assymetrical balance purposes.
So much variety but nobody is going to make use of the variety cause there will be a unit in the roster that does the job better than every one of those units. Meta pick.
Each faction needs a foundation of units to be capable to do the job,
than you can add some mechanics and special units for the flavor
here a little Dictionary for RTS player terms
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort in balance the game
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort to make units for the game
Probably the dumbest thing i have ever read. I wonder what dictionary you got this from. Its actually quite the opposite. Symmetrical balance is easy cause every race has tge same exact tools to do the job.....
Each developer (except for Blizzard who can put there lot of money) fails to make asymmetrical balance.
Exactly this E-Sport nonsense did kill of Relics competition by the way.
No poorly balanced game, poorly implimented features and an abundance of RNG did that.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Can you explain tech tree gaps to me?
Problem is simply, RTS player need the tools to play the game.
Have Brocken units is one thing, but not have the unit at all is even bigger insult to our RTS Legacy.
By Orcs, I don't have the Tier 1 Unit to chase Eldar like the Jump Jet trooper.
By Marines, I don't have the Tier2 unit like a transporter the orcs have.
And there are a lot of other gaps in DoW3, you didn't have in previous games
This goes back to assymetrical balance. Orks do have the unit to chase eldar. Its a unit with 3 axles and 6 wheels. It is the wartrukk.
DoW1 was designed by really smart people to appeal the RTS audience with reliable units,
a lot of units to choose your strategy and ability to adjust them for you with upgrades.
Sofar you have been speaking nothing but sillyness.
True reason why C&C is dead is EA pressing on deadlines and forcing to cut corners and content just to meet release dates.
Happened on my opinion 1to1 by DoW3.
@Katitof said:
Stop ignoring the fact that game trends change.
The ONLY games that never lost popularity are FPS and sports games, all other genres had different popularity depending on time period.
Genre popularity is NOT constant value. If you pull your head out of your rear and do some actual research, you'll notice that RTS games pre 2000 are more popular then RTS games between 2000 and 2005 and these are more popular then RTS between 2005 and 2010 and so on.
Released
1995 first C&C Command & Conquer Tiberian Dawn with good sales
2007 Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, sold 1 million times.
2008 Command & Conquer: Alarmstufe Rot 3, sold 300.000 times.
So for 12 years the series were successful, Fan base still there, market for RTS games still there.
So the question is, what happened by RA3, that did kill the Series ?
@ jonoliveira12 and Katitof I would like from you an answer for this, your point of view.
I have this simple theory, there is a trend what RTS developers do, but its not the trend what RTS players want.
Same I see now by Relic games 1to1 the same like by C&C games,
Since 1999 till 2013 they were delivering solid RTS quality for 14 years
Homeworld and Company of Heroes 2 are undeniable one of the best in History.
Than DoW3 start to make changes, that don't make sense at all, for a really huge amount of people.
What Red Alert 3 did wrong was 3 simple things.
1- Gated Economy. In all other C&C games, the player must contend large portiins of the map, in order to maintain his economy. This forces players to interact with the map constantly, and allowed C&C games to have meaningful open maps, even asymmetric ones, without falling into "imbalanced positioning" that games like Starcraft can have, if maps are not carefully balanced and have perfect symmetry.
2- Focus on unit abilities, rather than unit roles. Tsunami tanks couldn't actually perform like tanks, unless you activated their nanoshield ability, Bullfrog transports couldn't just unload their infantry, they had to shoot form the man-cannon (real ingame name), which made it impossible for soviet infantry to perform an amphibious attack on any positiin that had AA defenses... and many other examples, like the infamous Cryocopter, which was completely useless on it's own.
3- The game was too focused on early rushes, and most balanced patches ended up nerfing late and mid game units, puting an even greater emphasis on Terror Drone, Dojo Core, Bomber, Dude Swarm, Mecha Tengu... basically all T1-T1.5 unit rushes.
@Nassir_Amit said:
Where is company oh heroes 2 asymetrical?
Are you for real?
Yeha, every faction has 1 basic rifle infantry and Submachine gun/ assault rifle squad accessable , 1 HMG, 1 pak/long range anti tank and 1 mortar. They all have 1 tank destroyer, 1 medium tank and an light tank/ armored cars and an artillery/assault tank or 1 for option . All have access to reenforcement cars or in-field reenforcements.
And each of that works in completely different way.
That's asymmetry.
Plus, not all factions have infantry upgrades, not all factions have light tanks, heavy tanks, light vehicle or transports, not all factions have access to on field artillery, not all factions have access to damage sponges.
Menu
Comments
jonoliveira12
I don't even play CoH, and I despise the soviets. Though in a game, no faction should just overpower another in all aspects, or there is no sense in having the weak factions even be playable on the multiplayer.
CANNED_F3TUS
Aaah misunderstood sorry xD
StarSauron
From perspective of RTS player its extremely obvious.
Starcraft has different factions and if Inexperienced Teams try to copy it,
always result in broken faction mechanics and huge gaps in tech tree.
It just not enough units to have strategies, they already did leave 1 faction away and a lot of units away , still it bad balanced.
I just take Orcs vs Marines. Why do both Factions lack so many units from previous games again ?
To be a dumb Warcraft3/E-Sport/MOBA copy or something .
Orcs feel bad, because you don't have Proper units
Stormboyz man i miss that guys to kill eldar
Looted Tank
Mad Dok to heal
Big Mek to repair
Flash Gitz for shooting
Marines do lack this units
Rhino Transport to do his job
Hellfire Dreadnought
Apothecary to heal
Terminators to get the job done.
DoW3 wasn't planned as RTS, if you look from RTS perspective, you think how make factions playable not diverse.
They have totally broken balance, simply because the game does lack units and factions.
Tech tree gaps is one of the most biggest Problems the game DoW3 did have from start on.
CANNED_F3TUS
They dont lack units in a game sense. Just some units have been implemented differently or are not being implimented because that role has already been takin. New units are a possibility with expansions. Just i dont expect them to add units with overlapping roles.
These are all potential elites. We also got big mech.
We got termies
Rhinos or tazorbacks are not in roster for assymetrical balance purposes.
Apoth could be a potential elite.
DoW 3 has better balance. Also a variety of units dont improve the gameplay if its halfbaked like UA mod. So much variety but nobody is going to make use of the variety cause there will be a unit in the roster that does the job better than every one of those units. Meta pick.
Can you explain tech tree gaps to me?
Teching works more like DoW 2 you build barracks. Wait till you get power and there you go T 2.
TuskaDemonKilla
Half of the units you mentioned are elites buddy
Btw, elites really should be bought in the HQ, not this select 3 crap.
Similar with Doctrines. Why make options when you have to pick 3...in a vacuum, before game starts? Some Doctines should be made baseline, others be made into upgrades. Some changed or remove (activatable root on heavy bolters, really?)
steinernein
At that point you have to wonder... why even have doctrines? Or at the very least why have them implemented in such a restrictive fashion as they currently are.
Everything about DoW3 in terms of factions leaves me yearning for more; is it nostalgia, or is it something else? I always feel like the factions are missing something unlike DoW 1 and even other RTS games. Maybe it's the balance or the meta or whatever else, but I find my options restrictive. I can have fun within the confines but I am always left yearning for more.
CANNED_F3TUS
Originally the whole point of doctrines and elite limit was to personalize your army and make your playstyle or strategy work
steinernein
Yeah, but a lot of the functionality is tied to doctrines rather than the doctrines enhancing things. For example, Heavy Devastator pin and aspects of slow burn really ought to be moved into an armory upgrade and the doctrines that replace those should enhance those aspects.
It would be a different story if I could spend elite points or resources to swap doctrines (and have a global announcement that I am doing so) in the middle of a match. Or pick three, and then unlock more along the way in the middle of match or something.
As it stands right now, it 'feels' far too limited.
TuskaDemonKilla
Tbh, i find this doctrine system stupid to begin with. (CoH2 was very different, iirc).
Im basically cementing my playstyle before the match, limiting my flexibility in game.
I usually get LP reinforcements and banner cd for that very reason. Goes with everything.
StarSauron
Well for example the Eldar melee Unit does exist as elite and as Linie Unit, or same by Dreadnough Mech of Marines, doesnt make sense to limit.
Each faction needs a foundation of units to be capable to do the job,
than you can add some mechanics and special units for the flavor
here a little Dictionary for RTS player terms
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort in balance the game
asymmetrical balance = we did put no effort to make units for the game
Each developer (except for Blizzard who can put there lot of money) fails to make asymmetrical balance.
Exactly this E-Sport nonsense did kill of Relics competition by the way.
Problem is simply, RTS player need the tools to play the game.
Have Brocken units is one thing, but not have the unit at all is even bigger insult to our RTS Legacy.
By Orcs, I don't have the Tier 1 Unit to chase Eldar like the Jump Jet trooper.
By Marines, I don't have the Tier2 unit like a transporter the orcs have.
And there are a lot of other gaps in DoW3, you didn't have in previous games
DoW1 was designed by really smart people to appeal the RTS audience with reliable units,
a lot of units to choose your strategy and ability to adjust them for you with upgrades.
Katitof
If you completely ignore that in Eldar case, one is plain melee unit while other is specialist ambusher/assassin and in SM case one is just a face smasher tank while other two are very powerful damage dealer and crowd control specialist, then maybe you were right. But if we don't ignore their roles, you're completely wrong.
Asymmetrical balance means you have DIFFERENT tools to achieve same objective.
Relic nailed that one.
Its concept as old as first C&C game.
Each faction HAVE a foundation of units capable of doing the same job, they simply aren't meant to do that job the same way.
Here is a little dictionary for you:
Asymmetrical balance = "I clearly have no idea what does it mean."
Since good asymmetrical balance does NOT equal succesful game, lets see the games which did used asymmetrical balance and did it good:
Grey goo
Red alert and C&C
Company of heroes series
Total Annihilation
Plannetary annihilation
Homeworld DoK
All of these games have asymmetrical balance and that balance is pretty well done.
The ONLY recent strategy that did NOT succeeded with asymmetrical balance is Battlefleet Gothic Armada, where Tau are completely OP
You most certainly have no slightest idea about asymmetrical balance.
Again, you have all the tools you need.
All 3 factions can achieve same things, using different tools.
However, bad artisan will always blame the tools.
You not being able to use units properly does not mean you don't have the right tools.
It just means you're bad at using them.
1) You don't need it, because WAAGH towers provide you huge damage and speed buff.
2) You don't need it, because you can deliver new units straight to the battlefield and have most durable units in game.
3) Again, its called asymmetrical balance, different tools to achieve same job, again, you not being able to utilize that does not mean the tools aren't there.
DoW1 was designed to have as much of everything as possible.
It was NEVER even remotely balanced, most factions played exactly the same with tiny gimmicks between them.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
steinernein
@Katitof
Most RTSes are asymmetrical. Actually, I think all of them are.
Katitof
Yeah, giving out examples, you need to mentioned every single title with exception of Z and Age of Empires(there is too much of the same stuff there between factions to treat them as asymmetrical).
And vast majority did achieved unique, interesting factions for their needs.
Screaming that mirrored factions are better then asymmetrical solution is the same as screaming how horse pulled carts are superior means of transportation to the airplanes.
StarSauron
DoW1 sold better
This proves that DoW1 design is the superior one.
Grey goo and Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, failed designed as dumb rush games with broken balance
Total Annihilation were extremely mirrored.
Planetary annihilation has only 1 faction
Red alert and C&C concept was with lot of mirrored units and lot of units for the flavour.
That was good , this did work for years, till they decided to make the game E-Sport Asymmetrical.
All factions had Tanks, rifle troopers and Anti tank rockets.
The True Reason why C&C is dead, is because of Red Alert 3.
Like their Japan faction with all the transformers, while other factions need 2 units,
you can simply use 1 and he is better at his job that the 2 counterparts lol.
Red Alert 3 was the first C&C not to sell 1 million times,
it's not a coincidence, but obvious for any RTS player fails in the design.
By have no idea about E-Sport/MOBA/Stracraft mechanics and just add them to look like one,
people will pretty soon find out it doesn't work like one. And if they don't work, you have a broken game.
Exactly this Error did Relic by DoW3.
Gorb
I'm not sure defining the success of a product solely by its sales is the best way forward, here.
Opinion post.
Katitof
Over how many years again?
You're comparing something that can't be compared.
You're also making a critical mistake believing current market share for RTS games is just as large as it was in 2004.
Balance in GG and HW:DoK was very decent.
The reasons for lack of popularity of these games was completely different and completely unrelated to balance, which again, is very good in both of these games.
TA was asymmetric enough to label it as such.
Got me there.
After first C&C and first RA not even base infantry was mirrored, you're COMPLETELY wrong on this one.
All of these rifle troops worked differently, one was better at clearing buildings, other was better at open fights, another had some whacky ability.
Yes, all had tanks, but light, medium, heavy tanks, mammoth/apocalypse or prism tanks were completely different to each other
They had same ARCHETYPE unit, how these units functioned was COMPLETELY different.
That's called asymmetric balance.
True reason why C&C is dead is EA pressing on deadlines and forcing to cut corners and content just to meet release dates.
If you want to talk about something, make sure you've researched the topic good.
And guess what? It wasn't imbalanced at all, Japs had multirole units, but you couldn't spam one to win, you had to mix, because it was impossible not to.
Allies and soviets also had multi role units, battleships on land anyone?
Except it wasn't.
Stop ignoring the fact that game trends change.
The ONLY games that never lost popularity are FPS and sports games, all other genres had different popularity depending on time period.
Genre popularity is NOT constant value. If you pull your head out of your rear and do some actual research, you'll notice that RTS games pre 2000 are more popular then RTS games between 2000 and 2005 and these are more popular then RTS between 2005 and 2010 and so on.
And guess what? Its not because RTS are being made worse and worse.
Its because demographics change, technology change, exposure to gaming change.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you're just throwing random words at this point.
jonoliveira12
He doesn't even know that the most OP and overused unit in RA3, was the Soviet Twinblade, because it was cheap, fast, and dealt absurd amounts of single target damage with rocket volleys, while also being able to be stacked like the Mutalisks on Starcraft 1.
Empire of the Rising Sun transformer units, were more a pain to micro into appropriate forms, than they were OP. A simple combo of anti-tank + anti-air, could easily counter Mecha Tengus and Chopper XVs.
At this point, I am wondering if he even did play the game, since it was Allies dominated, with "Dude Swarm" mixed infantry rushes, and "Bomber Rushes" that forced the opponent to stop teching, and waste all his money in AA, if not outright lose because Advanced Aeronautics doctrine made them OP against T1 AA.
At the end of RA3's lifecycle, the only really competitive tactice Japan could pull, was the "Dojo Core Rush", which was an initial resources all-in, as their economy had been nerfed into oblivion, and their "glass cannon" units could just not keep up with the sturdier counterparts of the other factions, since they were also too expensive to reliably replace.
StarSauron
If there are not enough sales, most companies don't survive.
Considering Ra3 killed C&C, what ever they did, it was wrong.
Happened on my opinion 1to1 by DoW3.
Released
1995 first C&C Command & Conquer Tiberian Dawn with good sales
2007 Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, sold 1 million times.
2008 Command & Conquer: Alarmstufe Rot 3, sold 300.000 times.
So for 12 years the series were successful, Fan base still there, market for RTS games still there.
So the question is, what happened by RA3, that did kill the Series ?
@ jonoliveira12 and Katitof I would like from you an answer for this, your point of view.
I have this simple theory, there is a trend what RTS developers do, but its not the trend what RTS players want.
Same I see now by Relic games 1to1 the same like by C&C games,
Since 1999 till 2013 they were delivering solid RTS quality for 14 years
Homeworld and Company of Heroes 2 are undeniable one of the best in History.
Than DoW3 start to make changes, that don't make sense at all, for a really huge amount of people.
Gorb
From a strictly financial perspective, absolutely. But that's generally not how consumers measure success!
CANNED_F3TUS
Probably the dumbest thing i have ever read. I wonder what dictionary you got this from. Its actually quite the opposite. Symmetrical balance is easy cause every race has tge same exact tools to do the job.....
No poorly balanced game, poorly implimented features and an abundance of RNG did that.
This goes back to assymetrical balance. Orks do have the unit to chase eldar. Its a unit with 3 axles and 6 wheels. It is the wartrukk.
Sofar you have been speaking nothing but sillyness.
Katitof
Are you for real?
jonoliveira12
What Red Alert 3 did wrong was 3 simple things.
1- Gated Economy. In all other C&C games, the player must contend large portiins of the map, in order to maintain his economy. This forces players to interact with the map constantly, and allowed C&C games to have meaningful open maps, even asymmetric ones, without falling into "imbalanced positioning" that games like Starcraft can have, if maps are not carefully balanced and have perfect symmetry.
2- Focus on unit abilities, rather than unit roles. Tsunami tanks couldn't actually perform like tanks, unless you activated their nanoshield ability, Bullfrog transports couldn't just unload their infantry, they had to shoot form the man-cannon (real ingame name), which made it impossible for soviet infantry to perform an amphibious attack on any positiin that had AA defenses... and many other examples, like the infamous Cryocopter, which was completely useless on it's own.
3- The game was too focused on early rushes, and most balanced patches ended up nerfing late and mid game units, puting an even greater emphasis on Terror Drone, Dojo Core, Bomber, Dude Swarm, Mecha Tengu... basically all T1-T1.5 unit rushes.
Katitof
And each of that works in completely different way.
That's asymmetry.
Plus, not all factions have infantry upgrades, not all factions have light tanks, heavy tanks, light vehicle or transports, not all factions have access to on field artillery, not all factions have access to damage sponges.
jonoliveira12
Only on the last point. DoW3 units play by roles, not abilities, and the economy is definitely not gated, since it IS the map, in a broad sense.