Firstly, RNG doesn't affect large battles as much. Things tend toward the average. So in your Ork problem, just give them lower damage.
Secondly, what RNG does affect is small unit engagements. It increases volatility. So why would you introduce uncontrollable volatility into the crucial opening stages of a game?
Thank ++heresy redacted++ the devs are already moving in the opposite direction. Clearly they are smart.
@reach said: @Bezagron There is already randomness in a 1v1.
Also all your arguments are dumb af and I'll tell you why.
Firstly, RNG doesn't affect large battles as much. Things tend toward the average. So in your Ork problem, just give them lower damage.
Secondly, what RNG does affect is small unit engagements. It increases volatility. So why would you introduce uncontrollable volatility into the crucial opening stages of a game?
Thank **** the devs are already moving in the opposite direction. Clearly they are smart.
Firstly...no reason for such a language.
Secondly.. there are no dumb arguments. Those are all valid points.
So as far as i know you are one of the guys that cry this game is not following the lore.
But im the same timespan you tell us to just lower the damage of Ork shooting.
So here is why i think this is wrong:
Lootas carry big guns that are the Ork equivalent of a Heavy Bolter.
The whole squad comes equipped with them. Balanced is the sheer number of high strengh shooting by the inaccuracy of the orks.
When you now remove the accuracy and all shots hit (often described as a hail of bullets) but lower the strengh ä, it would just feel as un40k-ish as a full Plasmagun squad for Space Marines.
It would turn a powerful weapon in a weak one.
I rather have them miss more often but see a junk of HP go when it does hit, so i feel and see the strengh of the weapon.
I think all your negative arguing is starting to get strawman arguments.
removing accuracy and so on is actually what would dumb down the game, dumbing down for esports. or in the hopes of it is what hurt coh2 so much already.
@reach said:
You can animate it to have a massive bulletstorm. Problem solved without dumbing down the game. Next.
Ok, not removing already existing mechanic = dumbing down the game, that's a new one.
Having accuracy only adds options, not removes them, worst case it is possible to have it set to "100%" as if it doesn't exist.
not only it opens many nice balancing options and unit concepts, you can for example make rocket launcher miss more often when shooting at a small unit
rather than have it do less damage to guardsman than it does to a baneblade (feels extremely unrealistic that having less armor is more effective at damage mitigation than having more armor like a tank does)
The point about small engagements is quite important, because it includes when a squad is close to being wiped. If you are down to one or two models RNG suddenly has a much bigger effect. If you are pushing the envelope of gameplay this is probably actually where you want the most predictably for good high skilled competitive play.
Did I push it right to the edge or did the dice roll do it?
However, I am going to still vote on the side of retaining accuracy.
Firstly, RNG doesn't affect large battles as much. Things tend toward the average. So in your Ork problem, just give them lower damage.
Secondly, what RNG does affect is small unit engagements. It increases volatility. So why would you introduce uncontrollable volatility into the crucial opening stages of a game?
Thank **** the devs are already moving in the opposite direction. Clearly they are smart.
Okay first not going to know exact as missed post before modded but looks like you still can't have a discussion with someone with a different point of view civilly.
You seem to only want basically "Chess" as a game. Everything predictable, every action has a 100% outcome.
Nothing wrong with that it mades it easy to see player skill as the only factor in the game, no elements of luck that can be blamed on for a win or loss. A very low level simulation of real world combat & strategies because of the removal of luck as a factor (doesn't mean low level game but as a simulation to RL).
I like a more complicated strategy game that looks at closer simulations to real world happening. The randomness & luck of the real world like accuracy with it's chance to hit or miss. But the issue with this type of game is player skill isn't the only factor & the elements of randomness & luck can be blamed on for wins & losses.
But they is great skill in how people & players respond to these random moments. More pressure on them as it's not 100% guaranteed outcome of an action. Will they capitalize on the event or break. The thing in games is it needs to be controlled randomness. At a certain point it becomes total randomness which is all luck & no skill can be attributed to that action. To player skill in responding & controlling these unguaranteed action. This is where balance & design become important.
But when looking at the DoW IP I would of placed it more in the direction I lean to with it's random combat interactions. Has the information provided & balance be amazing over these elements? That's up to the players but I would say it could of be better (especially info access).
As it's been part & it's full removal basically changes the complete combat gameplay so it wouldn't even feel like how DoW combat has been. Why would DoW fans want it removed?
@reach said:
You can animate it to have a massive bulletstorm. Problem solved without dumbing down the game. Next.
And that changes the total favour of the weapon & the unit from what is portraited in the 40k universe. It's now a weak shower of a bullet storm instead of a powerful inaccurate shot. If you just go from the animation having shots miss but mathematical it's still 100% hit chance it feels odd & not right to the player.
So yes I want the simulation of range accuracy back in DoW 3 like how it was a mechanic in play in DoW 1 & 2. What I would like is for these gameplay effecting stats be available for players to view. Random percentage values are important to know about to make judgements.
Without accuracy all you have for weapons is rate of fire, area of effect & damage to differentiate weapons. It also makes a clean shape clinical combat. Not words I would look at to describe combat in a 40k universe.
Having hard cold numbers written in DoW1 was great. Even if you were not familiar with the unit you could press it and see it's strengths, damage, health, type and at least have a better guess what is it's purpose.
While in DoW2 most new people just charged in with the first unit and getting floor wiped with them cause there isn't anything written on how will those units behave on the field. Or it was completely misleading like those tips before the start of the mission which say what you should counter with what (with units written as counters in most cases not exactly being hard counters without at least a few upgrades)
Taking Accuracy out of the equation would be a very bad decision imo. It is going nicely with lore, it is a staple of Relic's games and never had a problem with it (it is RNG but not nearly as frustrating as special attack one, and even that is ok), and it goes hand in hand with common sense. Taking it out would really be going towards SC2 (and in that case I can better go play SC2 instead of it's copy).
But also give us the actual numbers written somewhere - at least dps, health and armor type.
But also give us the actual numbers written somewhere - at least dps, health and armor type.
This info doesn't even need to permanently take up UI realstate. Pop up tabs/windows could be used to access the finer detailed information with the basic only displayed on unit selection.
The important thing is access to these gameplay stats to make accurate judgment to plan your strategies & tactics.
Dealing with an opponent's unpredictability is infinitely more engaging than rolling the dice against an arbitrary game mechanic.
Why are you handicapping human opponents who offer more realism and variability than any RNG system could ever hope to simulate? For the sake of your roleplay experience, that's why.
Dealing with an opponent's unpredictability is infinitely more engaging than rolling the dice against an arbitrary game mechanic.
Why are you handicapping human opponents who offer more realism and variability than any RNG system could ever hope to simulate? For the sake of your roleplay experience, that's why.
You are talking as if those two things are mutually exclusive. Well they are not, and this mechanic has been in the franchise since the beginning and isn't at all handicapping anyone when everyone experiences it. The has been explained better by other people in this thread, and isn't simply a roll of the dice.
@Seed_of_Power said:
The has been explained better by other people in this thread, and isn't simply a roll of the dice.
Where?
Combat RNG is a poor man's simulation and a dumb man's suspense. It isn't at all necessary for a multiplayer RTS game.
And here we disagree. I prefer a more realistic Strategy game that looks at incorporating & simulating real world combat & events in all their randomness & luck. A combat that as a commander just like in the real world you don't have a 100% guarantee outcome from your troops & workforce. A game that as a Strategist challenges you with similar events & challenges that can occur in the real world.
So this mite be dumb for you but I feel it's alot more challenging & requires a higher level of skill then pure mechanical execution of a game with 100% predictable outcomes. Just like in the real world your not just competing against a opponent but against what the world also throws at you. Must like both previous DoWs. If you don't like this type of messy organic combat why are you interested in DoW?
But really at least you should be happy as currently accuracy as a game mechanic seems to be missing in the gameplay demo. This will just be DoW 3 combat but without the favour or gameplay of DoW combat of old. But they could be again be looking at alienating both DoW 1 & 2 fans if this changes the gameplay favour too much. So again when DoW 4 is released we'll have DoW 1, 2 & 3 fans hoping for a sequel to the game they liked.
Random is not a poor man's mechanic but another tool in providing interesting systems. We will just never agree like you expressing your likes & dislikes others also can. Only time & information will tell in which direction DoW 3 develops in. But your dislike like again makes me wonder why you would like the DoW IP as randomness has played a large part in the IP's mechanics making them more realistic then most RTS out there.
@Seed_of_Power said:
The has been explained better by other people in this thread, and isn't simply a roll of the dice.
Where?
Combat RNG is a poor man's simulation and a dumb man's suspense. It isn't at all necessary for a multiplayer RTS game.
Have you played DoW1 or DoW2?
Even if the damage is seemingly random, a counter squad or just stronger squad seems to always win a battle. That is given.
some squads are close in power, than some randomness might affect the fight,** but** you know when you are in that situation and can avoid fighting or use other means to ensure victory(abilities or other squads, maybe cover). If one critical or special ability (even miss due to accuracy) is the difference between your strategy working or not working maybe your strategy is lacking.
Only really random thing I saw is space marines in DOW2 that survived after losing 1000+ hp(from ranged fire) when their max hp was only 400 per member. In DoW3 it seems the number of members per squad is more balanced, and retreat mechanic is removed so this should not be happening again.
I really see no reason to dumben the game just because one mechanic is "not necessary", of course the game can work without it, but why?
It doesn't make the game better, it doesn't add any depth, quite the opposite considering the possibilities that are lost if you remove it. (unit design and such, really all written in previous comments)
if you think that e-sport games don't have RNG that is not true as well. I used to play LoL a little and guess what crit chance is chance and having it proc might be a difference between one shooting an opponent or letting him live and kill you(doesn't make it any less popular e-sport or reduce from the prize money, pros just deal with it..). From what I heard Dota2 has similar mechanics.
Skiping over the last post. I will read them at a later point.
Bur something i want to add just came to my mind.
When playing CoH2 the randomness makes some good risk and reward interactions.
When i hunt an enemy tank with my humble Puma and actually get the killing shot in the last second i feel a satisfied abot that fact.
Even when it misses i am ok with, as i also could have hit.
The only frustration comes from multiple misses in row.
But there is a simple solution to that: implement a rule that doesn't allow two (or three, up to discussion) misses in row.
Regarding skill and randomness:
A skilled commander will know about the randomness and risks.
Just like all the real Generals in all the worlds countless wars, they have to deal with randomness too. And only the really skillful will do so with success.
I personally think that without randomness skill plays a lesser role. It then boils down to balance and buildorder rather than a real strategy. Something that can be watched on YouTube and copied and suddendly everyone is a pro.
@Xileh said:
Something that can be watched on YouTube and copied and suddendly everyone is a pro.
Where are all the pros then?
Playing games that make them money & Fame. Sadly the RTS genre has little to provide motivation to jump into as it's declined over the years (Bar maybe the SC scene). It also takes more time & effect to master as they're typically more complex games. Why spend the effect & time when something easier like a MOBA or FPS provides greater reward. Pros go where the audience & the larger pools of money are. Only if DoW can take off & get to an acceptable level will we see Pros gamers look at taking it up. This also goes for any other RTS.
@Xileh said:
Something that can be watched on YouTube and copied and suddendly everyone is a pro.
Where are all the pros then?
Playing games that make them money & Fame. Sadly the RTS genre has little to provide motivation to jump into as it's declined over the years (Bar maybe the SC scene). It also takes more time & effect to master as they're typically more complex games. Why spend the effect & time when something easier like a MOBA or FPS provides greater reward. Pros go where the audience & the larger pools of money are. Only if DoW can take off & get to an acceptable level will we see Pros gamers look at taking it up.
Sure, I think people just gravitate to games that they find fun. Many people dismissed Dawn of War 2 but it still had a community. In that community there were top tier players and what we considered "pros." Sure the prize pools are not large but there are were still dedicated players.
If you are using the definition of "pro" as professional, a person who makes money from a profession, then those people are playing popular games with tournaments with sponsors and large prize pools. Dawn of War 3 can have something like that but first it has to be compelling and fun. Now, compelling and fun is subjective and a moving target. They are going to make a game that tries to reaches the largest audience without killing their core player base. They are going to do that by keeping and tweaking mechanics that have already been in the franchise, like accuracy or heroes.
Side tangent, taking out mechanics and turning a series into something that's already popular isn't in the best interest of that series. It creates comparisons that are not warranted and sets expectations that shouldn't be there.
@Xileh said:
Something that can be watched on YouTube and copied and suddendly everyone is a pro.
Where are all the pros then?
Playing games that make them money & Fame. Sadly the RTS genre has little to provide motivation to jump into as it's declined over the years (Bar maybe the SC scene). It also takes more time & effect to master as they're typically more complex games. Why spend the effect & time when something easier like a MOBA or FPS provides greater reward. Pros go where the audience & the larger pools of money are. Only if DoW can take off & get to an acceptable level will we see Pros gamers look at taking it up.
Sure, I think people just gravitate to games that they find fun. Many people dismissed Dawn of War 2 but it still had a community. In that community there were top tier players and what we considered "pros." Sure the prize pools are not large but there are were still dedicated players.
If you are using the definition of "pro" as professional, a person who makes money from a profession, then those people are playing popular games with tournaments with sponsors and large prize pools. Dawn of War 3 can have something like that but first it has to be compelling and fun. Now, compelling and fun is subjective and a moving target. They are going to make a game that tries to reaches the largest audience without killing their core player base. They are going to do that by keeping and tweaking mechanics that have already been in the franchise, like accuracy or heroes.
Side tangent, taking out mechanics and turning a series into something that's already popular isn't in the best interest of that series. It creates comparisons that are not warranted and sets expectations that shouldn't be there.
This I agree with & yes I'm using Pro as in Professional Gamer that makes a living of playing games much like a Football professional or any sports man/woman. These Professional Gamers are typically the players that can watch almost any game spend sometime & play at the competitive prize winning level of play. They just have very good computer control skills that the mechanical execution of any game is a minor issue with the largest part being learning the mechanics & meta of these games.
Dota also have RNG, it just isn't completely random, it uses the same system that WC3 uses. The system is called "pseudorandom" and it works somewhat like this:
If your passive thunderclap skill has 25% to proc and it doesn't in the first hit, the second hit will have 50% chance to proc (25%+25%), if the second doesn't proc the third will have 75% and so on until it procs and the % gets resets. i'm not sure if it is like this or you got diminishing returns in the +% that was added after the miss. The thing is: You can't go a through the full game without having the skill proc at least once.
That systems has been proven to work even in small fights (WC3 and Dota have it), if Relic is going to copy those kind of game at least copy the good parts of it and not just the dumbed down(from a RTS perspective) ones.
@Sindri said:
Dota also have RNG, it just isn't completely random, it uses the same system that WC3 uses. The system is called "pseudorandom" and it works somewhat like this:
If your passive thunderclap skill has 25% to proc and it doesn't in the first hit, the second hit will have 50% chance to proc (25%+25%), if the second doesn't proc the third will have 75% and so on until it procs and the % gets resets. i'm not sure if it is like this or you got diminishing returns in the +% that was added after the miss. The thing is: You can't go a through the full game without having the skill proc at least once.
That systems has been proven to work even in small fights (WC3 and Dota have it), if Relic is going to copy those kind of game at least copy the good parts of it and not just the dumbed down(from a RTS perspective) ones.
If anything the strategy games that Relic makes are the most akin to Warcraft 3 if anything and not MOBAs. Hero based armies with base building.
I'd prefer to see RNG mechanics in the game as well. If anything, the game is already dangerously too close to Starcraft 2 for my own tastes, keeping this classic mechanic franchise would be better, IMHO.
Definitely. Maybe taking both accuracy and evasiveness into account? For example a space marine has a very high accuracy and medium evasiveness, Eldar vice-versa, and orcs both low, which they make up for in rate of fire and numbers?
I think accuracy adds more depth into the game. HOWEVER, they should limit accuracy to a degree that it doesn't overly affect the game's outcome. In COH2 the RNG is king. In DoW 1, the RNG influence on the game was perfectly balanced. They should focus on that kind of balance.
Dealing with an opponent's unpredictability is infinitely more engaging than rolling the dice against an arbitrary game mechanic.
Why are you handicapping human opponents who offer more realism and variability than any RNG system could ever hope to simulate? For the sake of your roleplay experience, that's why.
Dont act like the game would not work in a competitive environment when it actually had accuracy modifiers. The accuracy mechanic is actually predictable. If we talk about RNG like COH2 mortars thats something different, but you act like accuracy and morale are RNG too. Did you really play the predecessor games? I get the impression that you just played SC2 for more than 10 hours.
Accuracy worked perfectly fine in dow1 and the fact that it didnt become a true esport was not due to the fact that it had morale, accuracy and other interesting mechanics. There were other issues with the game, mainly related to popularity and no support by relic at that time in terms of patches.
You act like making the game a SC2 clone with choke points etc. is the only true success formula but this is such an illusion to believe that those factors will make the game popular or make SC2 folks switch over.
@Fr3quency it didn't make it to an eSport because its skill ceiling was too shallow. A WCG showing is pretty good, much more I can say for CoH or DoW2.
RNG won't make or break a games competitiveness, but in an RTS environment it will hurt it's chances rather than help it. That is undeniable.
RNG while in direct control is exciting e.g. DotA, CS, BW (very limited). RNG when not in total control is merely management (squad based mechanics). RTS has built in RNG because of the high unit count, there is no reason to increase volatility.
Hopefully that was helpful to help you understand things.
@reach said: @Fr3quency it didn't make it to an eSport because its skill ceiling was too shallow. A WCG showing is pretty good, much more I can say for CoH or DoW2.
RNG won't make or break a games competitiveness, but in an RTS environment it will hurt it's chances rather than help it. That is undeniable.
RNG while in direct control is exciting e.g. DotA, CS, BW (very limited). RNG when not in total control is merely management (squad based mechanics). RTS has built in RNG because of the high unit count, there is no reason to increase volatility.
Hopefully that was helpful to help you understand things.
skill ceiling is not the central aspect for esports as seen in league of legends vs Dota2 skill requirements (no creep denying etc.) or the most prominent case: heroes of the storm, a much easier and simplier game than both but still with more esports than dow ever had. eSports depends on community size and prize money.
You could easly make a dow1 remastered and sponsor the game like riot does with lol for the same effect.
Its funny how you call out dow1 to have shallow skill ceiling. Did you play the game at all at a somewhat competitive level, at least ESL? If your definition of "demands for skill ceiling for the game to be competitive" is SC2 then we need to start ditching the squad mechanic altogether or the drop pod mechanic. In dow1 you had to bind all units but also unit production buildings, you dont need this in dow3 apparently with the drop pods being visible all the time.
Dont make laughable claims about dow1 skill ceiling. Compared to what I have seen in dow3 so far, dow1 is MILES ahead in terms of micro and macro management.
I agree with you on RNG part but you clearly dont have an idea how accuracy worked in dow1. There was zero RNG in that, because the accuracy in that game was PREDICTABLE. Its not like a COH2 mortar that can either miss completely or wipe your weapon team completely. Please do your research before claiming that accuracy=RNG. It is not per se, if implemented properly.
And that last sencentece of yours: keep your arrogant, teaching word shells to yourself. You have no idea about alot of things that you talk about, so its really not justified at all.
I would like to see an accuracy mechanic, and I think DoW2's worked well enough but it stood out badly sometimes due to the low refire rate of many weapons. Everything seems to be a lot faster in DoW3, so I think that same system would work well.
Menu
Comments
reach
@Bezagron There is already randomness in a 1v1.
[Redacted. Please see the Terms & Conditions for posting guidelines.]
Firstly, RNG doesn't affect large battles as much. Things tend toward the average. So in your Ork problem, just give them lower damage.
Secondly, what RNG does affect is small unit engagements. It increases volatility. So why would you introduce uncontrollable volatility into the crucial opening stages of a game?
Thank ++heresy redacted++ the devs are already moving in the opposite direction. Clearly they are smart.
Xileh
Firstly...no reason for such a language.
Secondly.. there are no dumb arguments. Those are all valid points.
So as far as i know you are one of the guys that cry this game is not following the lore.
But im the same timespan you tell us to just lower the damage of Ork shooting.
So here is why i think this is wrong:
Lootas carry big guns that are the Ork equivalent of a Heavy Bolter.
The whole squad comes equipped with them. Balanced is the sheer number of high strengh shooting by the inaccuracy of the orks.
When you now remove the accuracy and all shots hit (often described as a hail of bullets) but lower the strengh ä, it would just feel as un40k-ish as a full Plasmagun squad for Space Marines.
It would turn a powerful weapon in a weak one.
I rather have them miss more often but see a junk of HP go when it does hit, so i feel and see the strengh of the weapon.
I think all your negative arguing is starting to get strawman arguments.
reach
You can animate it to have a massive bulletstorm. Problem solved without dumbing down the game. Next.
nachocheese
removing accuracy and so on is actually what would dumb down the game, dumbing down for esports. or in the hopes of it is what hurt coh2 so much already.
raviel
Ok, not removing already existing mechanic = dumbing down the game, that's a new one.
Having accuracy only adds options, not removes them, worst case it is possible to have it set to "100%" as if it doesn't exist.
not only it opens many nice balancing options and unit concepts, you can for example make rocket launcher miss more often when shooting at a small unit
rather than have it do less damage to guardsman than it does to a baneblade (feels extremely unrealistic that having less armor is more effective at damage mitigation than having more armor like a tank does)
SharKnight
well he does have some insightful points to be fair.
KanKrusha
Bouncing off Reach's animation suggestion, the other way to do it would be to have fixed shots in a salvo miss. Then it would be predictable
eg.
60% accuracy hit-miss-hit-miss-hit-hit-miss-hit-miss-hit
80% accuracy hit-miss-hit-hit-miss-hit-miss-hit-hit-miss
90% accuracy hit-miss-hit-hit-hit-hit-hit-hit-hit-hit
The point about small engagements is quite important, because it includes when a squad is close to being wiped. If you are down to one or two models RNG suddenly has a much bigger effect. If you are pushing the envelope of gameplay this is probably actually where you want the most predictably for good high skilled competitive play.
Did I push it right to the edge or did the dice roll do it?
However, I am going to still vote on the side of retaining accuracy.
Bezagron
Okay first not going to know exact as missed post before modded but looks like you still can't have a discussion with someone with a different point of view civilly.
You seem to only want basically "Chess" as a game. Everything predictable, every action has a 100% outcome.
Nothing wrong with that it mades it easy to see player skill as the only factor in the game, no elements of luck that can be blamed on for a win or loss. A very low level simulation of real world combat & strategies because of the removal of luck as a factor (doesn't mean low level game but as a simulation to RL).
I like a more complicated strategy game that looks at closer simulations to real world happening. The randomness & luck of the real world like accuracy with it's chance to hit or miss. But the issue with this type of game is player skill isn't the only factor & the elements of randomness & luck can be blamed on for wins & losses.
But they is great skill in how people & players respond to these random moments. More pressure on them as it's not 100% guaranteed outcome of an action. Will they capitalize on the event or break. The thing in games is it needs to be controlled randomness. At a certain point it becomes total randomness which is all luck & no skill can be attributed to that action. To player skill in responding & controlling these unguaranteed action. This is where balance & design become important.
But when looking at the DoW IP I would of placed it more in the direction I lean to with it's random combat interactions. Has the information provided & balance be amazing over these elements? That's up to the players but I would say it could of be better (especially info access).
As it's been part & it's full removal basically changes the complete combat gameplay so it wouldn't even feel like how DoW combat has been. Why would DoW fans want it removed?
And that changes the total favour of the weapon & the unit from what is portraited in the 40k universe. It's now a weak shower of a bullet storm instead of a powerful inaccurate shot. If you just go from the animation having shots miss but mathematical it's still 100% hit chance it feels odd & not right to the player.
So yes I want the simulation of range accuracy back in DoW 3 like how it was a mechanic in play in DoW 1 & 2. What I would like is for these gameplay effecting stats be available for players to view. Random percentage values are important to know about to make judgements.
Without accuracy all you have for weapons is rate of fire, area of effect & damage to differentiate weapons. It also makes a clean shape clinical combat. Not words I would look at to describe combat in a 40k universe.
Mr_Ruin
Having hard cold numbers written in DoW1 was great. Even if you were not familiar with the unit you could press it and see it's strengths, damage, health, type and at least have a better guess what is it's purpose.
While in DoW2 most new people just charged in with the first unit and getting floor wiped with them cause there isn't anything written on how will those units behave on the field. Or it was completely misleading like those tips before the start of the mission which say what you should counter with what (with units written as counters in most cases not exactly being hard counters without at least a few upgrades)
Taking Accuracy out of the equation would be a very bad decision imo. It is going nicely with lore, it is a staple of Relic's games and never had a problem with it (it is RNG but not nearly as frustrating as special attack one, and even that is ok), and it goes hand in hand with common sense. Taking it out would really be going towards SC2 (and in that case I can better go play SC2 instead of it's copy).
But also give us the actual numbers written somewhere - at least dps, health and armor type.
Bezagron
This info doesn't even need to permanently take up UI realstate. Pop up tabs/windows could be used to access the finer detailed information with the basic only displayed on unit selection.
The important thing is access to these gameplay stats to make accurate judgment to plan your strategies & tactics.
reach
@Bezagron
Dealing with an opponent's unpredictability is infinitely more engaging than rolling the dice against an arbitrary game mechanic.
Why are you handicapping human opponents who offer more realism and variability than any RNG system could ever hope to simulate? For the sake of your roleplay experience, that's why.
Seed_of_Power
You are talking as if those two things are mutually exclusive. Well they are not, and this mechanic has been in the franchise since the beginning and isn't at all handicapping anyone when everyone experiences it. The has been explained better by other people in this thread, and isn't simply a roll of the dice.
reach
Where?
Combat RNG is a poor man's simulation and a dumb man's suspense. It isn't at all necessary for a multiplayer RTS game.
Bezagron
And here we disagree. I prefer a more realistic Strategy game that looks at incorporating & simulating real world combat & events in all their randomness & luck. A combat that as a commander just like in the real world you don't have a 100% guarantee outcome from your troops & workforce. A game that as a Strategist challenges you with similar events & challenges that can occur in the real world.
So this mite be dumb for you but I feel it's alot more challenging & requires a higher level of skill then pure mechanical execution of a game with 100% predictable outcomes. Just like in the real world your not just competing against a opponent but against what the world also throws at you. Must like both previous DoWs. If you don't like this type of messy organic combat why are you interested in DoW?
But really at least you should be happy as currently accuracy as a game mechanic seems to be missing in the gameplay demo. This will just be DoW 3 combat but without the favour or gameplay of DoW combat of old. But they could be again be looking at alienating both DoW 1 & 2 fans if this changes the gameplay favour too much. So again when DoW 4 is released we'll have DoW 1, 2 & 3 fans hoping for a sequel to the game they liked.
Random is not a poor man's mechanic but another tool in providing interesting systems. We will just never agree like you expressing your likes & dislikes others also can. Only time & information will tell in which direction DoW 3 develops in. But your dislike like again makes me wonder why you would like the DoW IP as randomness has played a large part in the IP's mechanics making them more realistic then most RTS out there.
raviel
Have you played DoW1 or DoW2?
Even if the damage is seemingly random, a counter squad or just stronger squad seems to always win a battle. That is given.
some squads are close in power, than some randomness might affect the fight,** but** you know when you are in that situation and can avoid fighting or use other means to ensure victory(abilities or other squads, maybe cover). If one critical or special ability (even miss due to accuracy) is the difference between your strategy working or not working maybe your strategy is lacking.
Only really random thing I saw is space marines in DOW2 that survived after losing 1000+ hp(from ranged fire) when their max hp was only 400 per member. In DoW3 it seems the number of members per squad is more balanced, and retreat mechanic is removed so this should not be happening again.
I really see no reason to dumben the game just because one mechanic is "not necessary", of course the game can work without it, but why?
It doesn't make the game better, it doesn't add any depth, quite the opposite considering the possibilities that are lost if you remove it. (unit design and such, really all written in previous comments)
if you think that e-sport games don't have RNG that is not true as well. I used to play LoL a little and guess what crit chance is chance and having it proc might be a difference between one shooting an opponent or letting him live and kill you(doesn't make it any less popular e-sport or reduce from the prize money, pros just deal with it..). From what I heard Dota2 has similar mechanics.
Xileh
Skiping over the last post. I will read them at a later point.
Bur something i want to add just came to my mind.
When playing CoH2 the randomness makes some good risk and reward interactions.
When i hunt an enemy tank with my humble Puma and actually get the killing shot in the last second i feel a satisfied abot that fact.
Even when it misses i am ok with, as i also could have hit.
The only frustration comes from multiple misses in row.
But there is a simple solution to that: implement a rule that doesn't allow two (or three, up to discussion) misses in row.
Regarding skill and randomness:
A skilled commander will know about the randomness and risks.
Just like all the real Generals in all the worlds countless wars, they have to deal with randomness too. And only the really skillful will do so with success.
I personally think that without randomness skill plays a lesser role. It then boils down to balance and buildorder rather than a real strategy. Something that can be watched on YouTube and copied and suddendly everyone is a pro.
reach
Where are all the pros then?
Bezagron
Playing games that make them money & Fame. Sadly the RTS genre has little to provide motivation to jump into as it's declined over the years (Bar maybe the SC scene). It also takes more time & effect to master as they're typically more complex games. Why spend the effect & time when something easier like a MOBA or FPS provides greater reward. Pros go where the audience & the larger pools of money are. Only if DoW can take off & get to an acceptable level will we see Pros gamers look at taking it up. This also goes for any other RTS.
Seed_of_Power
Sure, I think people just gravitate to games that they find fun. Many people dismissed Dawn of War 2 but it still had a community. In that community there were top tier players and what we considered "pros." Sure the prize pools are not large but there are were still dedicated players.
If you are using the definition of "pro" as professional, a person who makes money from a profession, then those people are playing popular games with tournaments with sponsors and large prize pools. Dawn of War 3 can have something like that but first it has to be compelling and fun. Now, compelling and fun is subjective and a moving target. They are going to make a game that tries to reaches the largest audience without killing their core player base. They are going to do that by keeping and tweaking mechanics that have already been in the franchise, like accuracy or heroes.
Side tangent, taking out mechanics and turning a series into something that's already popular isn't in the best interest of that series. It creates comparisons that are not warranted and sets expectations that shouldn't be there.
Bezagron
This I agree with & yes I'm using Pro as in Professional Gamer that makes a living of playing games much like a Football professional or any sports man/woman. These Professional Gamers are typically the players that can watch almost any game spend sometime & play at the competitive prize winning level of play. They just have very good computer control skills that the mechanical execution of any game is a minor issue with the largest part being learning the mechanics & meta of these games.
Sindri
Dota also have RNG, it just isn't completely random, it uses the same system that WC3 uses. The system is called "pseudorandom" and it works somewhat like this:
If your passive thunderclap skill has 25% to proc and it doesn't in the first hit, the second hit will have 50% chance to proc (25%+25%), if the second doesn't proc the third will have 75% and so on until it procs and the % gets resets. i'm not sure if it is like this or you got diminishing returns in the +% that was added after the miss. The thing is: You can't go a through the full game without having the skill proc at least once.
That systems has been proven to work even in small fights (WC3 and Dota have it), if Relic is going to copy those kind of game at least copy the good parts of it and not just the dumbed down(from a RTS perspective) ones.
Seed_of_Power
If anything the strategy games that Relic makes are the most akin to Warcraft 3 if anything and not MOBAs. Hero based armies with base building.
Vinicius_Zoio
I'd prefer to see RNG mechanics in the game as well. If anything, the game is already dangerously too close to Starcraft 2 for my own tastes, keeping this classic mechanic franchise would be better, IMHO.
Nautiloidor
Definitely. Maybe taking both accuracy and evasiveness into account? For example a space marine has a very high accuracy and medium evasiveness, Eldar vice-versa, and orcs both low, which they make up for in rate of fire and numbers?
Warnoise
I think accuracy adds more depth into the game. HOWEVER, they should limit accuracy to a degree that it doesn't overly affect the game's outcome. In COH2 the RNG is king. In DoW 1, the RNG influence on the game was perfectly balanced. They should focus on that kind of balance.
Fr3quency
Dont act like the game would not work in a competitive environment when it actually had accuracy modifiers. The accuracy mechanic is actually predictable. If we talk about RNG like COH2 mortars thats something different, but you act like accuracy and morale are RNG too. Did you really play the predecessor games? I get the impression that you just played SC2 for more than 10 hours.
Accuracy worked perfectly fine in dow1 and the fact that it didnt become a true esport was not due to the fact that it had morale, accuracy and other interesting mechanics. There were other issues with the game, mainly related to popularity and no support by relic at that time in terms of patches.
You act like making the game a SC2 clone with choke points etc. is the only true success formula but this is such an illusion to believe that those factors will make the game popular or make SC2 folks switch over.
reach
@Fr3quency it didn't make it to an eSport because its skill ceiling was too shallow. A WCG showing is pretty good, much more I can say for CoH or DoW2.
RNG won't make or break a games competitiveness, but in an RTS environment it will hurt it's chances rather than help it. That is undeniable.
RNG while in direct control is exciting e.g. DotA, CS, BW (very limited). RNG when not in total control is merely management (squad based mechanics). RTS has built in RNG because of the high unit count, there is no reason to increase volatility.
Hopefully that was helpful to help you understand things.
Fr3quency
skill ceiling is not the central aspect for esports as seen in league of legends vs Dota2 skill requirements (no creep denying etc.) or the most prominent case: heroes of the storm, a much easier and simplier game than both but still with more esports than dow ever had. eSports depends on community size and prize money.
You could easly make a dow1 remastered and sponsor the game like riot does with lol for the same effect.
Its funny how you call out dow1 to have shallow skill ceiling. Did you play the game at all at a somewhat competitive level, at least ESL? If your definition of "demands for skill ceiling for the game to be competitive" is SC2 then we need to start ditching the squad mechanic altogether or the drop pod mechanic. In dow1 you had to bind all units but also unit production buildings, you dont need this in dow3 apparently with the drop pods being visible all the time.
Dont make laughable claims about dow1 skill ceiling. Compared to what I have seen in dow3 so far, dow1 is MILES ahead in terms of micro and macro management.
I agree with you on RNG part but you clearly dont have an idea how accuracy worked in dow1. There was zero RNG in that, because the accuracy in that game was PREDICTABLE. Its not like a COH2 mortar that can either miss completely or wipe your weapon team completely. Please do your research before claiming that accuracy=RNG. It is not per se, if implemented properly.
And that last sencentece of yours: keep your arrogant, teaching word shells to yourself. You have no idea about alot of things that you talk about, so its really not justified at all.
Orblivion
I would like to see an accuracy mechanic, and I think DoW2's worked well enough but it stood out badly sometimes due to the low refire rate of many weapons. Everything seems to be a lot faster in DoW3, so I think that same system would work well.
reach
Comparing single player mission with 1v1.
Categorically false.