The premise of an RTS game is inventing then executing the best possible strategy to defeat your opponent in real time. Iterating on strategies is one of the great joys of RTS games. To have anything locked, therefore, is to limit this experience and create a pointless chore for players. Importantly, in a just released game with potential imbalances, that means you could get beaten by an OP strategy and be unable to replicate it until playing a few more potentially brutal losses to unlock the tools. You may not find it frustrating, but I have time for just a few rounds of a game every night. So any grind is unwelcome.
A more important question than why hate the skull system is why bother with an unlock system? What does it accomplish?
If the point is to limit player choice while they learn the game, then why not have certain elites and doctrines unlocked from the start instead of letting players choose? Further, making mistakes is one of the key ways people lose. And beyond that: Doctrines are not this complicated system people need to learn slowly. In fact you kinda need to absorb as much of it at a time as possible because you could be playing against literally any doctrines or elites.
If Relic wanted to bring people along slowly into the complexities of the deck building aspect of the game, controlling their elites in doctrine choices in Campaign or a tutorial mode would have been the way to do this.
It was just a pointless chore in front of opening up the strategy of the game. It annoyed me and my friends. And we are equally annoyed at games like Forged Batallion with a similar barrier to fully experiencing the game. Fighting games have largely stopped having character unlocks for the same reason RTS devs should stop this crap: It's not fun or fair in a competitive game to play against tools you don't have access to yourself.
The premise of an RTS game is inventing then executing the best possible strategy to defeat your opponent in real time. Iterating on strategies is one of the great joys of RTS games. To have anything locked, therefore, is to limit this experience and create a pointless chore for players. Importantly, in a just released game with potential imbalances, that means you could get beaten by an OP strategy and be unable to replicate it until playing a few more potentially brutal losses to unlock the tools. You may not find it frustrating, but I have time for just a few rounds of a game every night. So any grind is unwelcome.
A more important question than why hate the skull system is why bother with an unlock system? What does it accomplish?
If the point is to limit player choice while they learn the game, then why not have certain elites and doctrines unlocked from the start instead of letting players choose? Further, making mistakes is one of the key ways people lose. And beyond that: Doctrines are not this complicated system people need to learn slowly. In fact you kinda need to absorb as much of it at a time as possible because you could be playing against literally any doctrines or elites.
If Relic wanted to bring people along slowly into the complexities of the deck building aspect of the game, controlling their elites in doctrine choices in Campaign or a tutorial mode would have been the way to do this.
It was just a pointless chore in front of opening up the strategy of the game. It annoyed me and my friends. And we are equally annoyed at games like Forged Batallion with a similar barrier to fully experiencing the game. Fighting games have largely stopped having character unlocks for the same reason RTS devs should stop this crap: It's not fun or fair in a competitive game to play against tools you don't have access to yourself.
In a game where a significant portion of the design involves choosing out of game abilities and heroes, I don't see what's the big deal about some of it being unlockable. Especially when if you see a specific ability you want to use you can unlock it sooner than other stuff. Elites can get to lvl 3 in a handful of games with them. (Or if you use them in campaign the first time through, even faster.)
I don't see what's the big deal about some of it being unlockable.
Please see my previous post. I explain from a few angles what the big deal is with it being unlockable. You quoted it in its entirety but did not seem to have read it if you're still asking this question.
I don't see what's the big deal about some of it being unlockable.
Please see my previous post. I explain from a few angles what the big deal is with it being unlockable. You quoted it in its entirety but did not seem to have read it if you're still asking this question.
I did read it all, I just don't really agree that it meaningfully limits your strategic option. Like a brand new player will just buy things that look cool and 5 hours later if they're playing multiplayer and say "Man X seems really strong" they can just buy it right away and use it. It stopped brand new players from being overwhelmed with options and it let people pursue things that were interesting. It tied into the campaign really well where you could unlock and test things out there and bring it right into the multiplayer.
I could see it being annoying for people who didn't play the campaign all the way through, because you get a tremendous amount of skulls and XP from doing so, but I thought the system worked fine. You unlock things really quickly and it really just serves as a way to pace the introduction of new content. (Especially Elites who are very complicated)
@Dullahan name one RTS game with gameplay impacting unlocks that has succeeded. I can name a few that have failed just off the top of my head without doing any digging:
DoW3
C&C4
Age of Empires Online
People don't like going into a competition with one hand tied behind their back and there's no meaningful reason to do it to people. If it's so easy to unlock as you say, then there's no reason to lock it out since it won't limit players at all as they'll just get them all in a short time anyway. In which case it's an annoying and confusing system someone has to figure out before it becomes trivial. On the other hand if it's frustrating to unlock as I say, then it is meaningfully limiting player choice and harming people's ability to experiment with the strategies they want to try out when they want to try them out.
I can tell you that's exactly what happened to my friends and I with DoW3. It was a grind to get everything unlocked (even after beating the campaign) and of my friends, only I had done it before the skull system was removed completely. In fact, the removal of the skull system was what got one of my friends to play DoW3 again.
It's a stupid, pointless gatekeeper over people's fun. Having an unlock system in a single player game/mode can give a sense of progression and shape a player's experience.
But game-impacting unlock systems in competitive multiplayer games need to be done with for good. There's absolutely no leg for them to stand on and the defense for them is repetitive and self-defeating.
@Decepticats said: @Dullahan name one RTS game with gameplay impacting unlocks that has succeeded. I can name a few that have failed just off the top of my head without doing any digging:
DoW3
C&C4
Age of Empires Online
People don't like going into a competition with one hand tied behind their back and there's no meaningful reason to do it to people. If it's so easy to unlock as you say, then there's no reason to lock it out since it won't limit players at all as they'll just get them all in a short time anyway. In which case it's an annoying and confusing system someone has to figure out before it becomes trivial. On the other hand if it's frustrating to unlock as I say, then it is meaningfully limiting player choice and harming people's ability to experiment with the strategies they want to try out when they want to try them out.
I can tell you that's exactly what happened to my friends and I with DoW3. It was a grind to get everything unlocked (even after beating the campaign) and of my friends, only I had done it before the skull system was removed completely. In fact, the removal of the skull system was what got one of my friends to play DoW3 again.
It's a stupid, pointless gatekeeper over people's fun. Having an unlock system in a single player game/mode can give a sense of progression and shape a player's experience.
But game-impacting unlock systems in competitive multiplayer games need to be done with for good. There's absolutely no leg for them to stand on and the defense for them is repetitive and self-defeating.
CoH2 had unlockable commanders that required dozens of hours of grinding on release. Some are even paid DLC. They since added a War Spoils system that works similarly to the Skulls system that lets you purchase specific commanders or whatever but on release it just required you to level up to unlock many of them. (And your only chance of getting DLC commanders was a random drop after a game.) There was also bulletins which were like doctrines except the bonuses were pretty worthless, but many people were convinced having 3% extra conscript accuracy was a game changer and dictated who won games.
As for why have the system at all: it paces learning the game. Instead of having 10 different Elites unlocked right from the get go it gives you the 3 most basic Elites (theoretically anyway) to start with. You buy doctrines and then immediately try them out (because you just actively chose to invest in them) rather than having a dozen choices from the get go. It's just a way to channel player learning and introduce content overtime rather than all at once.
I realize people don't like the mechanic, but I think the perceived impact is significantly higher than its actual impact. No one is losing games because they don't have a specific doctrine or an Elite unlocked just yet. Although a key difference is DoW3 has mirror matches, unlike CoH2, so I think this also increased the perception that not having a specific ability was a disadvantage. Especially when there was some notably overpowered doctrinal abilities on release like Ven Dread's Command, Wraithlord's Command and Stormboyz Command.
Removing it made a lot of people happy and so that's a good argument to not have the system (or to reserve the system for cosmetics and non-gameplay impacting elements) but I don't think its inclusion was a bad idea. (Other than the playerbase hated it.) Rainbow Six Siege is a good example of a game with a similar unlock system that worked just fine. You would unlock basic operators for a small cost that represented 2-5 games, but it paced your learning of the unique operators rather than overwhelming you with 16 from the get go. You would buy an operator and then play it for a few games before unlocking a new one, and so by the time you finished unlocking everything you had passing familiarity with everyone. They also gave you currency for doing stuff like playing Singleplayer "Situations" that functioned as glorified tutorials or for literally watching tutorial videos, so if you did that stuff you would unlock more operators faster. Of course the expectations of FPS playerbases towards unlocks is very different than RTS playerbase and ultimately I think that's why such systems thrive in the FPS genre while they are universally derided in the RTS genre. But I don't blame Relic for wanting to include them because such systems have demonstratably increased player retention and are a useful tool for pacing player learning as demonstrated by Rainbow Six Siege.
Another thing many games are doing these days is not even letting you engage in competitive play until you have a certain threshold of experience. CSGO, Rainbow Six, msot MOBAs etc all prevent you from playing ranked play until after X hours or whatever. This sort of system frustrates me personally a lot more (because I am the "jump into ranked and learn there kind of guy) but it's the same idea. Out of curiosity how do you feel about such a system? Would the skulls system be less offensive if you couldn't engage in "true" competitive play until a certain level of unlocks was achieved?
@Dullahan Edit: this was no way to convince you. It will just make you feel defensive.
There's nothing wrong with liking an unlock system. I just think when designers put them in a competitive game they are setting limitations on players. We play games to liberate ourselves from grind and bureaucracy. And we love competing in them, in part, because they are fair while life isn't.
@Dullahan
Didn't the War Spoils system make it more of a grind (duplicate items are a regular occurrence and items in general are rather expensive for the little supply that you get every so often) as opposed to reaching the maximum rank and completing objectives in the old system (granted I don't think you could grind for commanders in the old system)?
@ReubenUK said: @Dullahan
Didn't the War Spoils system make it more of a grind (duplicate items are a regular occurrence and items in general are rather expensive for the little supply that you get every so often) as opposed to reaching the maximum rank and completing objectives in the old system (granted I don't think you could grind for commanders in the old system)?
Possibly, I haven't honestly touched the game much since before war spoils was a thing.
In the original game you unlocked some commanders from leveling up. Then they satrted adding DLC commanders that you had to buy. Until Western Front Armies added random drops and stuff.
CoH2 is the poster child for awkward attempts at monetization.
Well the industry in general has had its hand slapped over the last few years in terms of micro-transactions and DLC. Just look at Star Wars Battleground as the most recent example. Loot boxes and other poorly-priced or poorly-implemented DLC have disgusted a large number of gamers. Massive success stories like LoL have convinced publishers this is the model to follow, but again they fail to understand the how and the why of what makes it work.
In LoL's case, you can get started with the game paying nothing and it never really feels like you're at a disadvantage for not having all sorts of micro-transaction purchases under your belt. There is weekly rotation of 14 champions you can play for free, and then there is a long list of older champions that can be purchased with "experience" (IP or blue essence) for dirt cheap. There are also starter bundles that offer 20 old (but mostly still balanced) champions for less than the cost of a new game, and that would give you everything you needed to compete from the start. I've been playing off an on for 7 years and I've never felt compelled to buy anything for real money other than the occasional skin. THIS is the sort of micro-transaction model that works - one where you don't feel you need to buy to compete, progress or be relevant. Overwatch, PUBG and Fortnite are following that model.
@Decepticats said: @GeneralSkull If people want to talk about the subject on the thread you've linked we can all see it. No need to post it on every other active thread.
I like these ideas (alternate history) for games
Iron Harvest
Frost Punk
and Metro exodus
are all new games that challenge our minds, offers a very interesting gameplay system and makes us think how and what made this timeline happen
@GeneralSkull said:
I like these ideas (alternate history) for games
Iron Harvest
Frost Punk
and Metro exodus
are all new games that challenge our minds, offers a very interesting gameplay system and makes us think how and what made this timeline happen
Iron Harvest indeed looks for a promising project, but as I said, I won't have hopes so high, because there is always a risk of changing plans. Still I will gladly add to my library since its interesting for me in both gameplay and setting.
Frostpunk, not so much for me, cause its more like city simulator, which i don't prefer.
And Metro Exodus, for me its looks like a shooter.
Have you saw a movie about artilery mechs's animation on Iron Harvest's facebook? Well, right now they are blockouts, but what's interested me is most about these shown two mechs is their size in comparision to standard infantry. Judging how much big are compared to soldier, I can assume that these two artilery mechs must be a heavy armor mechs since Saxony Gatling Mech, which is medium armor, is not as much bigger, if wider at least than Polania Recon Mech with a light armor, both featured in Iron Harvest demo.
I would also point on that, while checking their third now Devblog they showed a picture of Artilery Mechs blockouts with two more Mechs with other roles, probably heavy armor as well. Which means that each faction will probably have few huge heavy armor mechs in its arsenal. Which is somehow interesting to me, judging how many Heavy Tanks most Coh2 factions had in its full roster. Thought not only Coh2. Supcom franchise featured multiple super units (Experimental Units) Ashes of the Singularity throught Dreadnoughts and Juggernauts and even infamous recently Dow3 had two Super Units for each faction. And if it could be supported more by Relic, then we would see more Super units for existing factions, but well. We can now still dream.
Finally, if someone knows and interested, Iron Harvest's Alpha 1 will begin somewhere in the first half of August, it will feature a reworked challenge map from demo with two new infantry, two new mechs, and first of two weapons systems, and maybe even second challenge map and skirmish map. Feel free to say anything about it.
Hadn't seen the Iron Harvest facebook page until today. Relic, your studio should be doing the same thing with its projects such as AoE IV. Teasing out concept art, a post here and there featuring an asset(s), posts here and there about developments or ongoing work with the title, a monthly devblog, etc. Staying dead silent about projects while other studios communicate and gather feedback just makes Relic appear to again not care about interacting with the customer base to check that they are making a product that players actually want.
I must say @Chronoslayer , that times had changed, but yeah, Relic should communicate more with community as you say. Cause it was lack of communication that killed Dow3 most, sadly.
Also not sure about it, but some fan claimed that AoE4 is probably cancelled at this point, since there isn't any news about AoE4 lately. But I think even if it isn't true, I'm starting to afraid that AoE4 might not be a success, especially how Microsoft with Forgotten Empires handled AoE DE, which might potentially affect future AoE titles, including AoE4. I hope that Relic would survive this, but probably its not that easy.........
@Draconix I can't believe AoE4 is cancelled yet. They are still doing weekly or semi-weekly AoE streams with their team members. I can't imagine they'd be doing that if they'd lost the contract to finish AoE4. Also, I also would suspect pretty strongly that if they lost AoE4, they'd come back to DoW3 to make a race pack as a means to buffer their income while they are working on their other secret project.
I mean, @Dullahan 's Exodus mod already has the game in a pretty awesome place balance wise so all they'd have to do is integrate his changes and then announce more maps to rile people up then bam, hit em with the $10 race pack or whatever it costs. Maybe $15. I'd buy it.
@Decepticats said: @Draconix I can't believe AoE4 is cancelled yet. They are still doing weekly or semi-weekly AoE streams with their team members. I can't imagine they'd be doing that if they'd lost the contract to finish AoE4. Also, I also would suspect pretty strongly that if they lost AoE4, they'd come back to DoW3 to make a race pack as a means to buffer their income while they are working on their other secret project.
I mean, @Dullahan 's Exodus mod already has the game in a pretty awesome place balance wise so all they'd have to do is integrate his changes and then announce more maps to rile people up then bam, hit em with the $10 race pack or whatever it costs. Maybe $15. I'd buy it.
Very nice to know. And while it is a fleeting dream, that would be wonderfull to me if Relic would return to work on Dow3.
Btw, not sure about that but someone on Iron Harvest's facebook stated that its King Art Games who should make Dow3 instead of Relic, even if it is Relic who is the creator of this franchise and thus its rightfull owner. I'm not quite sure about that, what about you all?
@Draconix said:
Btw, not sure about that but someone on Iron Harvest's facebook stated that its King Art Games who should make Dow3 instead of Relic, even if it is Relic who is the creator of this franchise and thus its rightfull owner. I'm not quite sure about that, what about you all?
Iron Harvest is a meme. I'm optimistic that it will be a decent game but I doubt 90% of the people clamouring for it will actually regularly play it post release.
The RTS community loves to hype up upcoming games but once they're released they don't stick with them for more than 5 minutes. Since DoW3's release date I've seen a half dozen or so games get discussed, released and immediately forgotten while people have jumped onto the next game to discuss. Most recently Ancestor's Legacy has come out to a criminally small community.
At this point the only thing that can reinvigorate the genre is Warcraft 4.
@Dullahan I think even Warcraft 4 would struggle if it weren't identical to Warcraft 3. People just don't want to learn a new RTS anymore because it's too hard. MOBAs are popular explicitly because they are easy RTS games. All these people hyping Iron Harvest or Empire Apart or Ancestor's Legacy don't actually want to put in the effort to learn a new game. They want to load it up and instantly be good at it and if they aren't, then it's because the game is trash for whatever convoluted reason. A lot of the people I have arguments with about DoW3 basically say DoW3 sucks because ASM were overpowered at launch. Or DoW3 sucks because Rangers are a little OP now. Which is nonsense. All competitive games have imbalances that have to be worked out over time. It's just them basically saying "I hate this game because I lost at it when I tried to play on instinct and I don't want to learn the skills and strategies to play well."
At least your mod puts DoW3 in a good place balance wise. Just wish the changes would be incorporated to the main game so I could do Quick Match.
Thought speaking of Ancestors Legacy, devs announced its roadmap which starts from upgrades to multi, through DLC campaigns and ends with a Expansion with a new faction. And whats more this game is scheduled to be released on GoG as well, just like Iron Harvest. Which GoG release might potentially increase player numbers of Ancestors Legacy and maybe even Iron Harvest.
Thought wish to Relic decide to go back to Dow3 and release its roadmap, even if it is not possible anymore, but would be still very nice to me.
@Draconix I don't think a GOG release of any game will meaningfully increase it's numbers in the long run. I'd wager most people are seller agnostic and select where to buy based on the price alone.
It might give DoW3 a short term boost to be promoted on GOG as a new release for the platform. But the only way we get a sustained uptick of players is if Relic does a balance and bug fix patch indicating they have not totally abandoned the game.
Thx for showing more of that insight, @Decepticats . Of course, both Ancestors Legacy and Iron Harvest will appear on consoles as well, but I won't ask for that since as I know, releasing RTS on consoles means also dumbing down mechanics to suit console's needs. Not to mention, that PC is said to be king when it comes to graphics, thought its what I learned from others opinions.
Anyways, yeasterday there was a new post on Iron Harvest's facebook showing a vid how its animation system handles rough terrain. While it looks nice and many comments seems hyped, to be honest however, it doesn't amases me so much, even if it really looks for some or even many impressive. Maybe its because that I'm not teenager anymore, but well. Thought its not just Iron Harvest, in other games I don't feel so amazed often, even in Dow3 sometimes is sadly feels stale, mostly because of lack of gameplay content. But doesn't that mean I don't enjoy Dow3 cause I had really some very nice moments in sparrings against AI like late game defense against Orc horde as Space Marines before making a comeback. Also even if Dow3 is a stale game, I can return to it after a long break for some more matches, if I want especially that I played Dow1 SS and Dow2 Ret for long time that I burned out from them. Wish if Relic could give us more content to this game, even if it now impossible.
Returning to Iron Harvest, maybe it will be a decent game, but right now I don't feel amazed so much with everything they show us so far. So I'm not as much hyped, even if I'm interested in it. Maybe if we wait for August then maybe show us what they have actually to Alpha 1 implemented.
Also I have to note that Polania Rifleman, one of the units of Polania faction, has a changed look now. I remember from first devblog, that devs wanted to give readability faction look to infantry units by giving a different brighter colour scheme and contrast to each of the 3 factions, even if it means sacrificing some realism. The previous look of infantry was said to hard to see and a bit boring, so interesting that they went into some clarity for a infantry.
@Draconix I am skeptical an RTS released on console without drastic alterations can be compelling. I'm not motivated by animations handling rough terrain as who cares that the cannon tips and tilts as it goes over a hill? That's cool to watch. But videogames aren't about watching. They are about playing.
If the gameplay doesn't work or isn't compelling, there's no amount of complex animation interactions that will redeem it.
@Decepticats said: @Draconix I am skeptical an RTS released on console without drastic alterations can be compelling. I'm not motivated by animations handling rough terrain as who cares that the cannon tips and tilts as it goes over a hill? That's cool to watch. But videogames aren't about watching. They are about playing.
If the gameplay doesn't work or isn't compelling, there's no amount of complex animation interactions that will redeem it.
Indeed. Luckilly for their fans, King Art Games states that for them gameplay always comes first. But we have to see it themselves.
Thought overall, even if it will be decent, for me it will be still actually a CoH clone anyways. Just like Dow3 was considered by haters as a Starcraft clone sadly. Even Ancestors Legacy is more like CoH in Medieval to me althought without manual base building as most RTS had (building are builded automatically, but without ability to place them.)
Menu
Comments
Decepticats
@Dullahan No RTS game should have unlocks.
The premise of an RTS game is inventing then executing the best possible strategy to defeat your opponent in real time. Iterating on strategies is one of the great joys of RTS games. To have anything locked, therefore, is to limit this experience and create a pointless chore for players. Importantly, in a just released game with potential imbalances, that means you could get beaten by an OP strategy and be unable to replicate it until playing a few more potentially brutal losses to unlock the tools. You may not find it frustrating, but I have time for just a few rounds of a game every night. So any grind is unwelcome.
A more important question than why hate the skull system is why bother with an unlock system? What does it accomplish?
If the point is to limit player choice while they learn the game, then why not have certain elites and doctrines unlocked from the start instead of letting players choose? Further, making mistakes is one of the key ways people lose. And beyond that: Doctrines are not this complicated system people need to learn slowly. In fact you kinda need to absorb as much of it at a time as possible because you could be playing against literally any doctrines or elites.
If Relic wanted to bring people along slowly into the complexities of the deck building aspect of the game, controlling their elites in doctrine choices in Campaign or a tutorial mode would have been the way to do this.
It was just a pointless chore in front of opening up the strategy of the game. It annoyed me and my friends. And we are equally annoyed at games like Forged Batallion with a similar barrier to fully experiencing the game. Fighting games have largely stopped having character unlocks for the same reason RTS devs should stop this crap: It's not fun or fair in a competitive game to play against tools you don't have access to yourself.
Dullahan
In a game where a significant portion of the design involves choosing out of game abilities and heroes, I don't see what's the big deal about some of it being unlockable. Especially when if you see a specific ability you want to use you can unlock it sooner than other stuff. Elites can get to lvl 3 in a handful of games with them. (Or if you use them in campaign the first time through, even faster.)
Decepticats
Please see my previous post. I explain from a few angles what the big deal is with it being unlockable. You quoted it in its entirety but did not seem to have read it if you're still asking this question.
Dullahan
I did read it all, I just don't really agree that it meaningfully limits your strategic option. Like a brand new player will just buy things that look cool and 5 hours later if they're playing multiplayer and say "Man X seems really strong" they can just buy it right away and use it. It stopped brand new players from being overwhelmed with options and it let people pursue things that were interesting. It tied into the campaign really well where you could unlock and test things out there and bring it right into the multiplayer.
I could see it being annoying for people who didn't play the campaign all the way through, because you get a tremendous amount of skulls and XP from doing so, but I thought the system worked fine. You unlock things really quickly and it really just serves as a way to pace the introduction of new content. (Especially Elites who are very complicated)
Decepticats
@Dullahan name one RTS game with gameplay impacting unlocks that has succeeded. I can name a few that have failed just off the top of my head without doing any digging:
People don't like going into a competition with one hand tied behind their back and there's no meaningful reason to do it to people. If it's so easy to unlock as you say, then there's no reason to lock it out since it won't limit players at all as they'll just get them all in a short time anyway. In which case it's an annoying and confusing system someone has to figure out before it becomes trivial. On the other hand if it's frustrating to unlock as I say, then it is meaningfully limiting player choice and harming people's ability to experiment with the strategies they want to try out when they want to try them out.
I can tell you that's exactly what happened to my friends and I with DoW3. It was a grind to get everything unlocked (even after beating the campaign) and of my friends, only I had done it before the skull system was removed completely. In fact, the removal of the skull system was what got one of my friends to play DoW3 again.
It's a stupid, pointless gatekeeper over people's fun. Having an unlock system in a single player game/mode can give a sense of progression and shape a player's experience.
But game-impacting unlock systems in competitive multiplayer games need to be done with for good. There's absolutely no leg for them to stand on and the defense for them is repetitive and self-defeating.
Dullahan
CoH2 had unlockable commanders that required dozens of hours of grinding on release. Some are even paid DLC. They since added a War Spoils system that works similarly to the Skulls system that lets you purchase specific commanders or whatever but on release it just required you to level up to unlock many of them. (And your only chance of getting DLC commanders was a random drop after a game.) There was also bulletins which were like doctrines except the bonuses were pretty worthless, but many people were convinced having 3% extra conscript accuracy was a game changer and dictated who won games.
As for why have the system at all: it paces learning the game. Instead of having 10 different Elites unlocked right from the get go it gives you the 3 most basic Elites (theoretically anyway) to start with. You buy doctrines and then immediately try them out (because you just actively chose to invest in them) rather than having a dozen choices from the get go. It's just a way to channel player learning and introduce content overtime rather than all at once.
I realize people don't like the mechanic, but I think the perceived impact is significantly higher than its actual impact. No one is losing games because they don't have a specific doctrine or an Elite unlocked just yet. Although a key difference is DoW3 has mirror matches, unlike CoH2, so I think this also increased the perception that not having a specific ability was a disadvantage. Especially when there was some notably overpowered doctrinal abilities on release like Ven Dread's Command, Wraithlord's Command and Stormboyz Command.
Removing it made a lot of people happy and so that's a good argument to not have the system (or to reserve the system for cosmetics and non-gameplay impacting elements) but I don't think its inclusion was a bad idea. (Other than the playerbase hated it.) Rainbow Six Siege is a good example of a game with a similar unlock system that worked just fine. You would unlock basic operators for a small cost that represented 2-5 games, but it paced your learning of the unique operators rather than overwhelming you with 16 from the get go. You would buy an operator and then play it for a few games before unlocking a new one, and so by the time you finished unlocking everything you had passing familiarity with everyone. They also gave you currency for doing stuff like playing Singleplayer "Situations" that functioned as glorified tutorials or for literally watching tutorial videos, so if you did that stuff you would unlock more operators faster. Of course the expectations of FPS playerbases towards unlocks is very different than RTS playerbase and ultimately I think that's why such systems thrive in the FPS genre while they are universally derided in the RTS genre. But I don't blame Relic for wanting to include them because such systems have demonstratably increased player retention and are a useful tool for pacing player learning as demonstrated by Rainbow Six Siege.
Another thing many games are doing these days is not even letting you engage in competitive play until you have a certain threshold of experience. CSGO, Rainbow Six, msot MOBAs etc all prevent you from playing ranked play until after X hours or whatever. This sort of system frustrates me personally a lot more (because I am the "jump into ranked and learn there kind of guy) but it's the same idea. Out of curiosity how do you feel about such a system? Would the skulls system be less offensive if you couldn't engage in "true" competitive play until a certain level of unlocks was achieved?
Decepticats
@Dullahan Edit: this was no way to convince you. It will just make you feel defensive.
There's nothing wrong with liking an unlock system. I just think when designers put them in a competitive game they are setting limitations on players. We play games to liberate ourselves from grind and bureaucracy. And we love competing in them, in part, because they are fair while life isn't.
ReubenUK
@Dullahan
Didn't the War Spoils system make it more of a grind (duplicate items are a regular occurrence and items in general are rather expensive for the little supply that you get every so often) as opposed to reaching the maximum rank and completing objectives in the old system (granted I don't think you could grind for commanders in the old system)?
Dullahan
Possibly, I haven't honestly touched the game much since before war spoils was a thing.
In the original game you unlocked some commanders from leveling up. Then they satrted adding DLC commanders that you had to buy. Until Western Front Armies added random drops and stuff.
CoH2 is the poster child for awkward attempts at monetization.
Amoc
Well the industry in general has had its hand slapped over the last few years in terms of micro-transactions and DLC. Just look at Star Wars Battleground as the most recent example. Loot boxes and other poorly-priced or poorly-implemented DLC have disgusted a large number of gamers. Massive success stories like LoL have convinced publishers this is the model to follow, but again they fail to understand the how and the why of what makes it work.
In LoL's case, you can get started with the game paying nothing and it never really feels like you're at a disadvantage for not having all sorts of micro-transaction purchases under your belt. There is weekly rotation of 14 champions you can play for free, and then there is a long list of older champions that can be purchased with "experience" (IP or blue essence) for dirt cheap. There are also starter bundles that offer 20 old (but mostly still balanced) champions for less than the cost of a new game, and that would give you everything you needed to compete from the start. I've been playing off an on for 7 years and I've never felt compelled to buy anything for real money other than the occasional skin. THIS is the sort of micro-transaction model that works - one where you don't feel you need to buy to compete, progress or be relevant. Overwatch, PUBG and Fortnite are following that model.
GeneralSkull
https://community.dawnofwar.com/discussion/16292/dawn-of-war-3-game-vs-dawn-of-war-3-comics-which-is-the-best-or-the-worst#latest
Decepticats
@GeneralSkull If people want to talk about the subject on the thread you've linked we can all see it. No need to post it on every other active thread.
@Gorb
GeneralSkull
just advertising
GeneralSkull
I like these ideas (alternate history) for games
Iron Harvest
Frost Punk
and Metro exodus
are all new games that challenge our minds, offers a very interesting gameplay system and makes us think how and what made this timeline happen
Draconix
Iron Harvest indeed looks for a promising project, but as I said, I won't have hopes so high, because there is always a risk of changing plans. Still I will gladly add to my library since its interesting for me in both gameplay and setting.
Frostpunk, not so much for me, cause its more like city simulator, which i don't prefer.
And Metro Exodus, for me its looks like a shooter.
Draconix
Reactivating this thread again.
Have you saw a movie about artilery mechs's animation on Iron Harvest's facebook? Well, right now they are blockouts, but what's interested me is most about these shown two mechs is their size in comparision to standard infantry. Judging how much big are compared to soldier, I can assume that these two artilery mechs must be a heavy armor mechs since Saxony Gatling Mech, which is medium armor, is not as much bigger, if wider at least than Polania Recon Mech with a light armor, both featured in Iron Harvest demo.
I would also point on that, while checking their third now Devblog they showed a picture of Artilery Mechs blockouts with two more Mechs with other roles, probably heavy armor as well. Which means that each faction will probably have few huge heavy armor mechs in its arsenal. Which is somehow interesting to me, judging how many Heavy Tanks most Coh2 factions had in its full roster. Thought not only Coh2. Supcom franchise featured multiple super units (Experimental Units) Ashes of the Singularity throught Dreadnoughts and Juggernauts and even infamous recently Dow3 had two Super Units for each faction. And if it could be supported more by Relic, then we would see more Super units for existing factions, but well. We can now still dream.
Finally, if someone knows and interested, Iron Harvest's Alpha 1 will begin somewhere in the first half of August, it will feature a reworked challenge map from demo with two new infantry, two new mechs, and first of two weapons systems, and maybe even second challenge map and skirmish map. Feel free to say anything about it.
Chronoslayer
Hadn't seen the Iron Harvest facebook page until today. Relic, your studio should be doing the same thing with its projects such as AoE IV. Teasing out concept art, a post here and there featuring an asset(s), posts here and there about developments or ongoing work with the title, a monthly devblog, etc. Staying dead silent about projects while other studios communicate and gather feedback just makes Relic appear to again not care about interacting with the customer base to check that they are making a product that players actually want.
Draconix
I must say @Chronoslayer , that times had changed, but yeah, Relic should communicate more with community as you say. Cause it was lack of communication that killed Dow3 most, sadly.
Also not sure about it, but some fan claimed that AoE4 is probably cancelled at this point, since there isn't any news about AoE4 lately. But I think even if it isn't true, I'm starting to afraid that AoE4 might not be a success, especially how Microsoft with Forgotten Empires handled AoE DE, which might potentially affect future AoE titles, including AoE4. I hope that Relic would survive this, but probably its not that easy.........
GeneralSkull
iv made the next review of the dow3 comic if anyone here does not now yet
Decepticats
@Draconix I can't believe AoE4 is cancelled yet. They are still doing weekly or semi-weekly AoE streams with their team members. I can't imagine they'd be doing that if they'd lost the contract to finish AoE4. Also, I also would suspect pretty strongly that if they lost AoE4, they'd come back to DoW3 to make a race pack as a means to buffer their income while they are working on their other secret project.
I mean, @Dullahan 's Exodus mod already has the game in a pretty awesome place balance wise so all they'd have to do is integrate his changes and then announce more maps to rile people up then bam, hit em with the $10 race pack or whatever it costs. Maybe $15. I'd buy it.
Draconix
Very nice to know. And while it is a fleeting dream, that would be wonderfull to me if Relic would return to work on Dow3.
Draconix
Btw, not sure about that but someone on Iron Harvest's facebook stated that its King Art Games who should make Dow3 instead of Relic, even if it is Relic who is the creator of this franchise and thus its rightfull owner. I'm not quite sure about that, what about you all?
Dullahan
Iron Harvest is a meme. I'm optimistic that it will be a decent game but I doubt 90% of the people clamouring for it will actually regularly play it post release.
The RTS community loves to hype up upcoming games but once they're released they don't stick with them for more than 5 minutes. Since DoW3's release date I've seen a half dozen or so games get discussed, released and immediately forgotten while people have jumped onto the next game to discuss. Most recently Ancestor's Legacy has come out to a criminally small community.
At this point the only thing that can reinvigorate the genre is Warcraft 4.
Decepticats
@Dullahan I think even Warcraft 4 would struggle if it weren't identical to Warcraft 3. People just don't want to learn a new RTS anymore because it's too hard. MOBAs are popular explicitly because they are easy RTS games. All these people hyping Iron Harvest or Empire Apart or Ancestor's Legacy don't actually want to put in the effort to learn a new game. They want to load it up and instantly be good at it and if they aren't, then it's because the game is trash for whatever convoluted reason. A lot of the people I have arguments with about DoW3 basically say DoW3 sucks because ASM were overpowered at launch. Or DoW3 sucks because Rangers are a little OP now. Which is nonsense. All competitive games have imbalances that have to be worked out over time. It's just them basically saying "I hate this game because I lost at it when I tried to play on instinct and I don't want to learn the skills and strategies to play well."
At least your mod puts DoW3 in a good place balance wise. Just wish the changes would be incorporated to the main game so I could do Quick Match.
Draconix
Very interesting insights, @Dullahan and @Decepticats .
Thought speaking of Ancestors Legacy, devs announced its roadmap which starts from upgrades to multi, through DLC campaigns and ends with a Expansion with a new faction. And whats more this game is scheduled to be released on GoG as well, just like Iron Harvest. Which GoG release might potentially increase player numbers of Ancestors Legacy and maybe even Iron Harvest.
Thought wish to Relic decide to go back to Dow3 and release its roadmap, even if it is not possible anymore, but would be still very nice to me.
Anyways your thoughts about GoG release?
Decepticats
@Draconix I don't think a GOG release of any game will meaningfully increase it's numbers in the long run. I'd wager most people are seller agnostic and select where to buy based on the price alone.
It might give DoW3 a short term boost to be promoted on GOG as a new release for the platform. But the only way we get a sustained uptick of players is if Relic does a balance and bug fix patch indicating they have not totally abandoned the game.
Draconix
Thx for showing more of that insight, @Decepticats . Of course, both Ancestors Legacy and Iron Harvest will appear on consoles as well, but I won't ask for that since as I know, releasing RTS on consoles means also dumbing down mechanics to suit console's needs. Not to mention, that PC is said to be king when it comes to graphics, thought its what I learned from others opinions.
Anyways, yeasterday there was a new post on Iron Harvest's facebook showing a vid how its animation system handles rough terrain. While it looks nice and many comments seems hyped, to be honest however, it doesn't amases me so much, even if it really looks for some or even many impressive. Maybe its because that I'm not teenager anymore, but well. Thought its not just Iron Harvest, in other games I don't feel so amazed often, even in Dow3 sometimes is sadly feels stale, mostly because of lack of gameplay content. But doesn't that mean I don't enjoy Dow3 cause I had really some very nice moments in sparrings against AI like late game defense against Orc horde as Space Marines before making a comeback. Also even if Dow3 is a stale game, I can return to it after a long break for some more matches, if I want especially that I played Dow1 SS and Dow2 Ret for long time that I burned out from them. Wish if Relic could give us more content to this game, even if it now impossible.
Returning to Iron Harvest, maybe it will be a decent game, but right now I don't feel amazed so much with everything they show us so far. So I'm not as much hyped, even if I'm interested in it. Maybe if we wait for August then maybe show us what they have actually to Alpha 1 implemented.
Draconix
Also I have to note that Polania Rifleman, one of the units of Polania faction, has a changed look now. I remember from first devblog, that devs wanted to give readability faction look to infantry units by giving a different brighter colour scheme and contrast to each of the 3 factions, even if it means sacrificing some realism. The previous look of infantry was said to hard to see and a bit boring, so interesting that they went into some clarity for a infantry.
Decepticats
@Draconix I am skeptical an RTS released on console without drastic alterations can be compelling. I'm not motivated by animations handling rough terrain as who cares that the cannon tips and tilts as it goes over a hill? That's cool to watch. But videogames aren't about watching. They are about playing.
If the gameplay doesn't work or isn't compelling, there's no amount of complex animation interactions that will redeem it.
Draconix
Indeed. Luckilly for their fans, King Art Games states that for them gameplay always comes first. But we have to see it themselves.
Thought overall, even if it will be decent, for me it will be still actually a CoH clone anyways. Just like Dow3 was considered by haters as a Starcraft clone sadly.
Even Ancestors Legacy is more like CoH in Medieval to me althought without manual base building as most RTS had (building are builded automatically, but without ability to place them.) 