Maybe you guy's can set it up so you can have a veto for annihilation/powercore modes just like you do with maps, and have them load up according to the players choice? If the player doesn't veto any of the modes then they can be queued for either. Sounds simple enough to me, and doesn't separate the player base.
@Atlas said:
Jessezen has it right earlier in this thread - Annihilation needs to be put in as a toggle option for the Quick Match players. Maybe you need to check the balance of it, but it absolutely needs to arrive. Why would you put another game mode in and then block it off only to custom games?
I'm pretty concerned about balance myself. I feel like Orks and Eldar will have an advantage over SM in this mode. But I think with balance that can be improved. Maybe make turrets a little cheaper or a little stronger for SM or something. Of course, that might not be necessary, just thinking about Orks having Waagh towers and Eldar transporting buildings, so their bases will probably be harder to crack than SM.
If it proves to be balanceable, I'd be happy to see it included in the rotation.
@Bitterman said:
Right but how many people here have actually played a custom match? I have put 70 hours into DoWIII and I have yet to play one.
Lots of People, most players find it quicker to join a custom game than search. Especially for 3v3. I think about 70 or 80% of my games have been custom.
Because i love DOW, i wanted this game to be good but knew this was not going to work, a lot of the 'haters' wanted more from this game and its clear they have listened. DOW 3 on release was not good enough, you can have games like DOW 1 & 2 then follow it up with something that has less content.
DOW 3 is the closest to i will get to 4 if they change the hell out of it.
"We know there are lots of you who don’t feel the same way."
lol
Nice gif!
Than why shart all over the place trying to get people to not play the game and spread doubt when it was obvious that relic was gonna fix this stuff?
I saw ahnnilation and turrets coming a mile away
Like really dude you cant think ahead?
I haven't been to the forums in a while. Got the email there was an update, and I was like that's pretty freaking awesome. It has a lot of the stuff people had requested / were complaining about. Came back to the forums, thinking, well, well, well, lets see now that these whiners are getting what they want, lets see what they are complaining about now....I should have stayed away, like WHAT THE ACTUAL ++heresy redacted++!!! What is wrong with you assholes, don't ++heresy redacted++ all over the game for this and that, then have a huge balance patch and a huge content patch, in less than 2 months and still ++heresy redacted++ complain. Are you ++heresy redacted++ serious, please, just uninstall your life.
Wow, thats alot of ++heresy redacted++ swearing.....maybe you should have just stayed away?
Thanks for your thoughts but I'm free to express my opinion just like anyone else, as are you @AKaTTACK, if indeed in somewhat of a crude an offensive manner.
Not all games are going to get amazing reviews (unless its the Witcher 3) there's people who like this game, and there is people who don't, its as simple as that. People come here to express what they think should change and have a right to do so.
I also doubt anyone will "uninstall" their life just because a guy call @AKaTTACK with 50 posts had a hissy fit on a computer game forum on the internet.
We havnt reached that phase yet to uninstall ourselves. Give it 2000 more years.
Thank you relic for this patch. This fixes some of my major gripes with the game. But why doctrines should we not be able to build these turrets by default. And also on an unrelated note can I bring up the fact that The Eldar and Orks have a dedicated transport unit (Eldar: Falcon Grav Tank/ Orks: Trukk) which brings me to my question why is there no transport for the Space Marines? I mean why is there no Rhino or Razorback?
@JivanL said:
Thank you relic for this patch. This fixes some of my major gripes with the game. But why doctrines should we not be able to build these turrets by default. And also on an unrelated note can I bring up the fact that The Eldar and Orks have a dedicated transport unit (Eldar: Falcon Grav Tank/ Orks: Trukk) which brings me to my question why is there no transport for the Space Marines? I mean why is there no Rhino or Razorback?
SM has drop pods, the most efficient skimmers, and good heavy infantry. They pay for the already considerable mobility they have, by not having a transport unit, specially not one that can reinforce their squads on the go.
They do get a Chapter Standart which provides a huge boost in any fight, a doctrine that allows them to reinforce at Listening Posts (Tip of the Spear), another that allows for squad replenishment when a drop pod falls (Gabriel Angelos, elite doctrine), and a doctrine that allows their Tactical squads to outrun most other infantry ingame (Tireless).
All things considered, SM does not have a transport because it would either be redundant, or would make them even more overpowering.
@JivanL said:
Thank you relic for this patch. This fixes some of my major gripes with the game. But why doctrines should we not be able to build these turrets by default. And also on an unrelated note can I bring up the fact that The Eldar and Orks have a dedicated transport unit (Eldar: Falcon Grav Tank/ Orks: Trukk) which brings me to my question why is there no transport for the Space Marines? I mean why is there no Rhino or Razorback?
The reason why turrets are doctrines is to give the player the choice if he wants to implement turrets to his strategy or not. Its not a no brainer doctrine and we need more of these where we gotta make decisions.
Im pretty sure relic is gonna make this doctrine worth its slot i can assure you.
Turrets are probably gonna be DPS machines but have a few weaknesses tied to them.
Doctrine picks define your playstyle early. We added doctrines to give players a way to define different strategies based on their strengths and personal playstyles. Much like Elites, we wanted doctrines to have a meaningful impact in a player's strategy where skillful play is involved, rather than simply manifesting as outright benefits that require little input to be powerful. Ideally, games aren't won based on the choices you made before the game, in your loadout. If that's not the case, then doctrines aren't really a choice - and then that becomes a balance issue. Speaking of ...
Balance considerations. The nice thing about turrets being a doctrine is that it helps add another tuning knob if we run into the issue of map-based economy conflicting with static defenses. There was an earlier version of Dawn of War 3 where turrets ruined all of the fun, and when making changes to a tool that all players had from the get-go, there was a real risk of swinging the fun-meter too far in the other direction. This then turned it from "this doctrine isn't fun, let me pick another" into "this game isn't fun," and you didn't have a choice to opt-out. Additionally, turret doctrine usage will be easier to measure in the data. This will, over time, give us a clearer picture of how often they are used (and under what conditions), but also which playstyles are used as successful counters.
Visibility of opponent intentions. If you are entering a game and you see that doctrine selected - you have an early idea what kind of playstyle you're going up against. You may not know how and where the enemy may place their turrets, but you'd probably be mindful of stepping into range of the middle resource point without scouting first. If turrets were available to everyone without needing to select the doctrine, that's another layer of complexity and nuance that new players need to learn about when they start playing. As a doctrine, they'll have exposure to turrets in a more measured way, steadying that learning curve. And for veterans, it's a big neon sign saying "hey I might turtle, or heavily invest in a single resource point," which gives you an idea of how you'll want to build up your army to shut that down.
All that to say: we wanted turrets to be a choice to be made rather than something added to the entire game ecosystem. This gives us more avenues to balance as well as giving players more avenues to adjust to different playstyles. We'll keep an eye on usage and balance, however, and adjust if needed.
Those are such odd reasons.
Why is "defining a playstyle early" so important or valued? How exactly do they allow a player a way to "define different strategies based on their strengths and personal playstyles" in a way that having bigger freedom of choice wouldn't? If I want to follow a certain playstyle in say any other game, I just pick different units to build and research different technologies first, I don't need to choose before the game. The only thing the simplified doctrine version of the normal system (and locked elite system) does is limit players ability to change path midstream, which limits strategic agency and their ability to counter.
Why do you need to know the opponents intentions before the game starts? Isn't that something you should be working out using your skill rather than the game basically doing it for you? In a normal RTS setting the player is expected to work that stuff out for themselves from scouting and adapting to incoming information. You can use the terms "complexity" and "nuance" all you want, but this doesn't actually add any when in a non doctrine limited play would have many more possible actions. It's another reason why doctrines are so limiting, simplifying and just pointless. It doesn't really level any playing curves in a game that's constantly called out for being really simple anyway, and it's not like turrets are hard to understand or learn.
If you really want to fix the game, remove the doctrine system, it adds nothing. While you're there make all the elites the same as relic units and always available. Increase player choice and you increase "complexity" "depth" and "nuance" in real ways. Maybe add a more complex technology system than the rather limited one in there now, using some of the remnants of the removed doctrines. While you're there remove escalation phases, there's no need to auto counter rushing for people. All it does is draw out matches while everyone already knows the end result.
Doctrine picks define your playstyle early. We added doctrines to give players a way to define different strategies based on their strengths and personal playstyles. Much like Elites, we wanted doctrines to have a meaningful impact in a player's strategy where skillful play is involved, rather than simply manifesting as outright benefits that require little input to be powerful. Ideally, games aren't won based on the choices you made before the game, in your loadout. If that's not the case, then doctrines aren't really a choice - and then that becomes a balance issue. Speaking of ...
Balance considerations. The nice thing about turrets being a doctrine is that it helps add another tuning knob if we run into the issue of map-based economy conflicting with static defenses. There was an earlier version of Dawn of War 3 where turrets ruined all of the fun, and when making changes to a tool that all players had from the get-go, there was a real risk of swinging the fun-meter too far in the other direction. This then turned it from "this doctrine isn't fun, let me pick another" into "this game isn't fun," and you didn't have a choice to opt-out. Additionally, turret doctrine usage will be easier to measure in the data. This will, over time, give us a clearer picture of how often they are used (and under what conditions), but also which playstyles are used as successful counters.
Visibility of opponent intentions. If you are entering a game and you see that doctrine selected - you have an early idea what kind of playstyle you're going up against. You may not know how and where the enemy may place their turrets, but you'd probably be mindful of stepping into range of the middle resource point without scouting first. If turrets were available to everyone without needing to select the doctrine, that's another layer of complexity and nuance that new players need to learn about when they start playing. As a doctrine, they'll have exposure to turrets in a more measured way, steadying that learning curve. And for veterans, it's a big neon sign saying "hey I might turtle, or heavily invest in a single resource point," which gives you an idea of how you'll want to build up your army to shut that down.
All that to say: we wanted turrets to be a choice to be made rather than something added to the entire game ecosystem. This gives us more avenues to balance as well as giving players more avenues to adjust to different playstyles. We'll keep an eye on usage and balance, however, and adjust if needed.
Those are such odd reasons.
Why is "defining a playstyle early" so important or valued? How exactly do they allow a player a way to "define different strategies based on their strengths and personal playstyles" in a way that having bigger freedom of choice wouldn't? If I want to follow a certain playstyle in say any other game, I just pick different units to build and research different technologies first, I don't need to choose before the game. The only thing the simplified doctrine version of the normal system (and locked elite system) does is limit players ability to change path midstream, which limits strategic agency and their ability to counter.
Saying that doctrines limits the players is a very big misconception imo.
It only limits people that rely on the influenced units too much or only knows how to play one way.
Lets take turret doctrine for example. Just because a person brings turrets to the game doesnt mean necessarily that he isnt going to be aggressive early game or turtle. He might use turrets offensivly to put pressure on your points and deny FoM.
If you play one trick pony or stack doctrines to make 1 unit very good with doctrines thats when you may run into issues.
You can still use undoctrined units. You wont be at a disadvantage, you can even mix up doctrines and focus on a wider selection of units or 2 play styles in one so you can adapt easier.
You just brought me back to this game with this game mode. Now if only you would release Imperial Guard i would be completely happy!! Happy that you are listening to us.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Saying that doctrines limits the players is a very big misconception imo.
It only limits people that rely on the influenced units too much or only knows how to play one way.
Lets take turret doctrine for example. Just because a person brings turrets to the game doesnt mean necessarily that he isnt going to be aggressive early game or turtle. He might use turrets offensivly to put pressure on your points and deny FoM.
If you play one trick pony or stack doctrines to make 1 unit very good with doctrines thats when you may run into issues.
You can still use undoctrined units. You wont be at a disadvantage, you can even mix up doctrines and focus on a wider selection of units or 2 play styles in one so you can adapt easier.
I think you misunderstand. Doctrines just take the unlimited playstyle where you can use all units and research all abilities of a normal RTS, and limits you into a more rigid preset choice with less freedom and flexibility. The whole basis of the system is limiting players, otherwise it would do nothing.
Removing doctrines and elites means both that those choices are made dynamically in the match rather than before, and that you can adapt strategically to anything at any point, making the whole process freer and maintaining strategic agency. It adds nothing new that wasn't in RTS before, just makes a dynamic system more rigid and fixed.
It's quite evident from the low sales and low player count that not many are particularly fond of the locked down elites and doctrine system. If they want players, then they're going to have to do something more fundamental to change the unloved core of the game rather than a remix of powercore with the same gameplay systems.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
Saying that doctrines limits the players is a very big misconception imo.
It only limits people that rely on the influenced units too much or only knows how to play one way.
Lets take turret doctrine for example. Just because a person brings turrets to the game doesnt mean necessarily that he isnt going to be aggressive early game or turtle. He might use turrets offensivly to put pressure on your points and deny FoM.
If you play one trick pony or stack doctrines to make 1 unit very good with doctrines thats when you may run into issues.
You can still use undoctrined units. You wont be at a disadvantage, you can even mix up doctrines and focus on a wider selection of units or 2 play styles in one so you can adapt easier.
I think you misunderstand. Doctrines just take the unlimited playstyle where you can use all units and research all abilities of a normal RTS, and limits you into a more rigid preset choice with less freedom and flexibility. The whole basis of the system is limiting players, otherwise it would do nothing.
Removing doctrines and elites means both that those choices are made dynamically in the match rather than before, and that you can adapt strategically to anything at any point, making the whole process freer and maintaining strategic agency. It adds nothing new that wasn't in RTS before, just makes a dynamic system more rigid and fixed.
It's quite evident from the low sales and low player count that not many are particularly fond of the locked down elites and doctrine system. If they want players, then they're going to have to do something more fundamental to change the unloved core of the game rather than a remix of powercore with the same gameplay systems.
I dont think the elites and doctrines are the reason of low sales. Could be a fraction but not the main reason.
I get your point that giving everyone access to the same tools at all times Gives alot more ingame choices. But I think relic wanted to emphasize more on Army costumization and playstyle tailoring with this one.
Would it maybe help you like the system more if they added a few more upgrades ingame?
Doctrines would be wierd or impossible to add in game as Tech upgrades they would essentially have to throw them all away and start from scratch and add a second unit upgrade building.
@CANNED_F3TUS said:
I dont think the elites and doctrines are the reason of low sales. Could be a fraction but not the main reason.
I get your point that giving everyone access to the same tools at all times Gives alot more ingame choices. But I think relic wanted to emphasize more on Army costumization and playstyle tailoring with this one.
Would it maybe help you like the system more if they added a few more upgrades ingame?
Doctrines would be wierd or impossible to add in game as Tech upgrades they would essentially have to throw them all away and start from scratch and add a second unit upgrade building.
People not loving the base gameplay is probably a big cause of it, as gameplay is central to a game.
The beta allowed a pile of people to test it out, and if they'd had fun they would have been more likely to buy into the game regardless of the other issues surrounding the game, and more of the purchasers would still be around. Loads of games have bad graphics/animations, controversy and minimal content yet maintain playerbases because they're fun.
Having all the choices gives you much more breadth of army customization and playstyle tailoring, doctrines put you down more limited pathways. So if they really want army customization and more viable playstyles then they need to open things up and give people more dynamic choices. Right now one of the biggest complaints people have is how everyone plays basically the same and people use a few limited styles, which makes things very stale, very quickly.
A few small steps isn't going to fix the big problems, it needs big fundamental changes to change the direction things are heading and a rethinking of why the current model doesn't work.
The doctrines would be removed from the game entirely (along with Elites), you'd just start the game as your base faction with no choices made. Certain effects (which should have just been research options in the first place) become researchable. Stuff like better movement speed and specific unit buffs become technologies (basically how it worked in DoW1) anything that doesn't work gets removed. Having more research buildings would help bulk out the rather basic building options, which is another complaint.
These are steps in the right direction. Thank you. I am mildly hopeful for a return to more dawn of war 1&2 like things though. Sync kills and cover and such things.
But all in all? I feel that this is a lovely step in the right directions.
personally i was hoping for Last Stand as DoW3's focus on heroes seems like it would mix quite well with that mode.
but this is a nice start. i'll be keeping an eye on DoW3 and see where it goes. though in the state its in right now, i'll be sticking ot DoW2 (suppression, guardians(craftworld represent colors), choosable leaders, and so on)
@Saffron said: @Kat_RE what about that classical macha skin?
To be honest, it didn't feel like the right time to launch into DLC. We want to get on a better footing before we move into that territory. But, we've got some great skins that we're excited to share down the road!
While like I said I'm glad that this game will get some new content, I would like to see new races, but I doubt that will happen. But still.......
.......I know this take too much work, but I really wish to see new race to this game, even a single race would be nice to me. Of course still doubting it but I really want to see new race to Dow3 coming true............
@Tomoko said:
a very nice step in the right direction.
personally i was hoping for Last Stand as DoW3's focus on heroes seems like it would mix quite well with that mode.
but this is a nice start. i'll be keeping an eye on DoW3 and see where it goes. though in the state its in right now, i'll be sticking ot DoW2 (suppression, guardians(craftworld represent colors), choosable leaders, and so on)
Something like missions with elites as shown on DoW 3s last mission would be better than last stand imo.
@Draconix said:
While like I said I'm glad that this game will get some new content, I would like to see new races, but I doubt that will happen. But still.......
.......I know this take too much work, but I really wish to see new race to this game, even a single race would be nice to me. Of course still doubting it but I really want to see new race to Dow3 coming true............
Be patient, I believed we'll get what a want soon.
@Draconix said:
While like I said I'm glad that this game will get some new content, I would like to see new races, but I doubt that will happen. But still.......
.......I know this take too much work, but I really wish to see new race to this game, even a single race would be nice to me. Of course still doubting it but I really want to see new race to Dow3 coming true............
Be patient, I believed we'll get what a want soon.
Thx for cheering.
Still I would like to Relic staff reply on my post, but they have probably no plans about new races at the moment, due to much work it takes.
Of course if there would a new race, I suspose that will be definitely Necrons due to many hints.
Thx for the reply. I know that you no plans about new races at the moment.
Still it would be cool if you would announce new race, but right now focus at other feedback and then add new race when you're ready.
Btw, Like I said, I suspose that first new race (if there will be any) would be Necrons. If yes then I would like to see some interesting for me units, such as Deathmarks, Cryptek, Annihilation Barge, Triarch Stalker and my one of favorite Necron units - Canoptek Spyder. That would be very nice to me.
40k has the worst fan base I have ever seen, table top or video game. These guys made a awesome game, people bitched, they catered to them and still people complain.
@ShadowseercB said:
40k has the worst fan base I have ever seen, table top or video game. These guys made a awesome game, people bitched, they catered to them and still people complain.
It is not the worst out there, but it is definitely spoiled and way too picky. And I say that while being part of the 40K fanbase.
@ShadowseercB said:
40k has the worst fan base I have ever seen, table top or video game. These guys made a awesome game, people bitched, they catered to them and still people complain.
When I was younger I worked at a comic book shop that of course also sold 40k minis. We also had terrain tables for people to play on etc etc so we'd often have groups of 40k players hanging around doing stuff.
Oh my god they were the worst.
Smelly, churlish and prone to obesity. We'd constantly have rules lawyers stopping entire groups while they combed through the rules looking for the sentence that insures that the one space marine they lost that turn actually survived. Constant passive aggressive arguments about nothing. Regulars took every opportunity to just crush new players and if I had a dollar for every time I'd never see someone again after getting utterly crushed since they had a fluffy army I'd be investing in Relic. And to the point, these guys would constantly whine about how evil GW is, how overpriced the models were, how badly the game sucked and how they were gonna quit all while I'm ringing them up for their weekly purchase of $500 worth of models.
So I think some of that translates into the community wherever 40k is used as a setting. There's a hefty helping of entitlement and ignorant complaints.
@ShadowseercB said:
40k has the worst fan base I have ever seen, table top or video game. These guys made a awesome game, people bitched, they catered to them and still people complain.
When I was younger I worked at a comic book shop that of course also sold 40k minis. We also had terrain tables for people to play on etc etc so we'd often have groups of 40k players hanging around doing stuff.
Oh my god they were the worst.
Smelly, churlish and prone to obesity. We'd constantly have rules lawyers stopping entire groups while they combed through the rules looking for the sentence that insures that the one space marine they lost that turn actually survived. Constant passive aggressive arguments about nothing. Regulars took every opportunity to just crush new players and if I had a dollar for every time I'd never see someone again after getting utterly crushed since they had a fluffy army I'd be investing in Relic. And to the point, these guys would constantly whine about how evil GW is, how overpriced the models were, how badly the game sucked and how they were gonna quit all while I'm ringing them up for their weekly purchase of $500 worth of models.
So I think some of that translates into the community wherever 40k is used as a setting. There's a hefty helping of entitlement and ignorant complaints.
LoL. Im glad i dont play TT.
Its a shame that the gaming enviremont of 40 k TT is so toxic.
Like if i had an army and played i wouldnt want to stick my nose in a rulebook for 30 minutes... Id rather play the game and take my opponents word for it and do whatever research on rules i can on my own ++heresy redacted++ time.
Menu
Comments
OriGinS
Maybe you guy's can set it up so you can have a veto for annihilation/powercore modes just like you do with maps, and have them load up according to the players choice? If the player doesn't veto any of the modes then they can be queued for either. Sounds simple enough to me, and doesn't separate the player base.
Creature
I'm pretty concerned about balance myself. I feel like Orks and Eldar will have an advantage over SM in this mode. But I think with balance that can be improved. Maybe make turrets a little cheaper or a little stronger for SM or something. Of course, that might not be necessary, just thinking about Orks having Waagh towers and Eldar transporting buildings, so their bases will probably be harder to crack than SM.
If it proves to be balanceable, I'd be happy to see it included in the rotation.
KanKrusha
Lots of People, most players find it quicker to join a custom game than search. Especially for 3v3. I think about 70 or 80% of my games have been custom.
CANNED_F3TUS
We havnt reached that phase yet to uninstall ourselves. Give it 2000 more years.
JivanL
Thank you relic for this patch. This fixes some of my major gripes with the game. But why doctrines should we not be able to build these turrets by default. And also on an unrelated note can I bring up the fact that The Eldar and Orks have a dedicated transport unit (Eldar: Falcon Grav Tank/ Orks: Trukk) which brings me to my question why is there no transport for the Space Marines? I mean why is there no Rhino or Razorback?
jonoliveira12
SM has drop pods, the most efficient skimmers, and good heavy infantry. They pay for the already considerable mobility they have, by not having a transport unit, specially not one that can reinforce their squads on the go.
They do get a Chapter Standart which provides a huge boost in any fight, a doctrine that allows them to reinforce at Listening Posts (Tip of the Spear), another that allows for squad replenishment when a drop pod falls (Gabriel Angelos, elite doctrine), and a doctrine that allows their Tactical squads to outrun most other infantry ingame (Tireless).
All things considered, SM does not have a transport because it would either be redundant, or would make them even more overpowering.
CANNED_F3TUS
The reason why turrets are doctrines is to give the player the choice if he wants to implement turrets to his strategy or not. Its not a no brainer doctrine and we need more of these where we gotta make decisions.
Im pretty sure relic is gonna make this doctrine worth its slot i can assure you.
Turrets are probably gonna be DPS machines but have a few weaknesses tied to them.
Misery
Those are such odd reasons.
Why is "defining a playstyle early" so important or valued? How exactly do they allow a player a way to "define different strategies based on their strengths and personal playstyles" in a way that having bigger freedom of choice wouldn't? If I want to follow a certain playstyle in say any other game, I just pick different units to build and research different technologies first, I don't need to choose before the game. The only thing the simplified doctrine version of the normal system (and locked elite system) does is limit players ability to change path midstream, which limits strategic agency and their ability to counter.
Why do you need to know the opponents intentions before the game starts? Isn't that something you should be working out using your skill rather than the game basically doing it for you? In a normal RTS setting the player is expected to work that stuff out for themselves from scouting and adapting to incoming information. You can use the terms "complexity" and "nuance" all you want, but this doesn't actually add any when in a non doctrine limited play would have many more possible actions. It's another reason why doctrines are so limiting, simplifying and just pointless. It doesn't really level any playing curves in a game that's constantly called out for being really simple anyway, and it's not like turrets are hard to understand or learn.
If you really want to fix the game, remove the doctrine system, it adds nothing. While you're there make all the elites the same as relic units and always available. Increase player choice and you increase "complexity" "depth" and "nuance" in real ways. Maybe add a more complex technology system than the rather limited one in there now, using some of the remnants of the removed doctrines. While you're there remove escalation phases, there's no need to auto counter rushing for people. All it does is draw out matches while everyone already knows the end result.
McNash
Interesting, I will wait and see the feedback of the people who play this, hopefully this may be a change in the right direction.
CANNED_F3TUS
Saying that doctrines limits the players is a very big misconception imo.
It only limits people that rely on the influenced units too much or only knows how to play one way.
Lets take turret doctrine for example. Just because a person brings turrets to the game doesnt mean necessarily that he isnt going to be aggressive early game or turtle. He might use turrets offensivly to put pressure on your points and deny FoM.
If you play one trick pony or stack doctrines to make 1 unit very good with doctrines thats when you may run into issues.
You can still use undoctrined units. You wont be at a disadvantage, you can even mix up doctrines and focus on a wider selection of units or 2 play styles in one so you can adapt easier.
Gabriel_Phoenix
You just brought me back to this game with this game mode. Now if only you would release Imperial Guard i would be completely happy!! Happy that you are listening to us.
Misery
I think you misunderstand. Doctrines just take the unlimited playstyle where you can use all units and research all abilities of a normal RTS, and limits you into a more rigid preset choice with less freedom and flexibility. The whole basis of the system is limiting players, otherwise it would do nothing.
Removing doctrines and elites means both that those choices are made dynamically in the match rather than before, and that you can adapt strategically to anything at any point, making the whole process freer and maintaining strategic agency. It adds nothing new that wasn't in RTS before, just makes a dynamic system more rigid and fixed.
It's quite evident from the low sales and low player count that not many are particularly fond of the locked down elites and doctrine system. If they want players, then they're going to have to do something more fundamental to change the unloved core of the game rather than a remix of powercore with the same gameplay systems.
CANNED_F3TUS
I dont think the elites and doctrines are the reason of low sales. Could be a fraction but not the main reason.
I get your point that giving everyone access to the same tools at all times Gives alot more ingame choices. But I think relic wanted to emphasize more on Army costumization and playstyle tailoring with this one.
Would it maybe help you like the system more if they added a few more upgrades ingame?
Doctrines would be wierd or impossible to add in game as Tech upgrades they would essentially have to throw them all away and start from scratch and add a second unit upgrade building.
Misery
People not loving the base gameplay is probably a big cause of it, as gameplay is central to a game.
The beta allowed a pile of people to test it out, and if they'd had fun they would have been more likely to buy into the game regardless of the other issues surrounding the game, and more of the purchasers would still be around. Loads of games have bad graphics/animations, controversy and minimal content yet maintain playerbases because they're fun.
Having all the choices gives you much more breadth of army customization and playstyle tailoring, doctrines put you down more limited pathways. So if they really want army customization and more viable playstyles then they need to open things up and give people more dynamic choices. Right now one of the biggest complaints people have is how everyone plays basically the same and people use a few limited styles, which makes things very stale, very quickly.
A few small steps isn't going to fix the big problems, it needs big fundamental changes to change the direction things are heading and a rethinking of why the current model doesn't work.
The doctrines would be removed from the game entirely (along with Elites), you'd just start the game as your base faction with no choices made. Certain effects (which should have just been research options in the first place) become researchable. Stuff like better movement speed and specific unit buffs become technologies (basically how it worked in DoW1) anything that doesn't work gets removed. Having more research buildings would help bulk out the rather basic building options, which is another complaint.
Dacryphilia
These are steps in the right direction. Thank you. I am mildly hopeful for a return to more dawn of war 1&2 like things though. Sync kills and cover and such things.
But all in all? I feel that this is a lovely step in the right directions.
Tomoko
a very nice step in the right direction.
personally i was hoping for Last Stand as DoW3's focus on heroes seems like it would mix quite well with that mode.
but this is a nice start. i'll be keeping an eye on DoW3 and see where it goes. though in the state its in right now, i'll be sticking ot DoW2 (suppression, guardians(craftworld represent colors), choosable leaders, and so on)
Saffron
@Kat_RE what about that classical macha skin?
Kat_RE
To be honest, it didn't feel like the right time to launch into DLC. We want to get on a better footing before we move into that territory. But, we've got some great skins that we're excited to share down the road!
Draconix
While like I said I'm glad that this game will get some new content, I would like to see new races, but I doubt that will happen. But still.......
.......I know this take too much work, but I really wish to see new race to this game, even a single race would be nice to me. Of course still doubting it but I really want to see new race to Dow3 coming true............
CANNED_F3TUS
Something like missions with elites as shown on DoW 3s last mission would be better than last stand imo.
Like a Last stand diablo hybrid would be badass.
AngelofDeth
Be patient, I believed we'll get what a want soon.
Draconix
Thx for cheering.
Still I would like to Relic staff reply on my post, but they have probably no plans about new races at the moment, due to much work it takes.
Of course if there would a new race, I suspose that will be definitely Necrons due to many hints.
Kat_RE
@Draconix We've already answered it here!
Draconix
Thx for the reply. I know that you no plans about new races at the moment.
Still it would be cool if you would announce new race, but right now focus at other feedback and then add new race when you're ready.
Btw, Like I said, I suspose that first new race (if there will be any) would be Necrons. If yes then I would like to see some interesting for me units, such as Deathmarks, Cryptek, Annihilation Barge, Triarch Stalker and my one of favorite Necron units - Canoptek Spyder. That would be very nice to me.
Saffron
@Kat_RE thanks for an answer
ShadowseercB
40k has the worst fan base I have ever seen, table top or video game. These guys made a awesome game, people bitched, they catered to them and still people complain.
jonoliveira12
It is not the worst out there, but it is definitely spoiled and way too picky. And I say that while being part of the 40K fanbase.
Arc
When I was younger I worked at a comic book shop that of course also sold 40k minis. We also had terrain tables for people to play on etc etc so we'd often have groups of 40k players hanging around doing stuff.
Oh my god they were the worst.
Smelly, churlish and prone to obesity. We'd constantly have rules lawyers stopping entire groups while they combed through the rules looking for the sentence that insures that the one space marine they lost that turn actually survived. Constant passive aggressive arguments about nothing. Regulars took every opportunity to just crush new players and if I had a dollar for every time I'd never see someone again after getting utterly crushed since they had a fluffy army I'd be investing in Relic. And to the point, these guys would constantly whine about how evil GW is, how overpriced the models were, how badly the game sucked and how they were gonna quit all while I'm ringing them up for their weekly purchase of $500 worth of models.
So I think some of that translates into the community wherever 40k is used as a setting. There's a hefty helping of entitlement and ignorant complaints.
CANNED_F3TUS
LoL. Im glad i dont play TT.
Its a shame that the gaming enviremont of 40 k TT is so toxic.
Like if i had an army and played i wouldnt want to stick my nose in a rulebook for 30 minutes... Id rather play the game and take my opponents word for it and do whatever research on rules i can on my own ++heresy redacted++ time.