Originally posted by Burning thought
ofc it is, you simply dont understand the enjoyment building a base can bring a person, if Age of empires 3 consisted of a single building you had to protect which built all your units it would be boring and not half as interesting, some games in the RTS genre work well with building a base, or an empire, if your one of those people who just rushes with units and is only intersted in units and as little base buildings thats fine...for you...So really all it is, is a base? just like a base its hard to destroy etc etc, just like a base built completly by players, but some people like having the building aspect of choosing where they put their buildings, building placement can easily be just as strategical/tactical as using soldiers themselves and many would claim just as enjoyable, if you dont understand that then you likely have not played Supreme commander for instance.
Building placement as strategy is simply crap. In any case, that;s not what it is- it is a pacing structure disguised as strategy. If you have fallen for that- well, sorry. But it has nothing to do with good gameplay. And what is certainly true is that abusive building placement has buggered uip many a strategy game over time.
And yes I have played Supreme Commander. It is just one of many games that prove the poiunt- the only thing od any value that buildings broughtto the game was artificial pacing that is no longer needed.
If you are translating the removal of base building as making the game about 'just rushing with yuor forces' the... you seriousy need to step back and take a clearer look at the situation.
Raoul- well, they are pretty much staking their reputation on it. If they bugger it up then that is pretty much that. But if it works... well then... a lot of games are going to look stupid in comparison.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Building placement as strategy is simply crap. In any case, that;s not what it is- it is a pacing structure disguised as strategy. If you have fallen for that- well, sorry. But it has nothing to do with good gameplay. And what is certainly true is that abusive building placement has buggered uip many a strategy game over time.And yes I have played Supreme Commander. It is just one of many games that prove the poiunt- the only thing od any value that buildings broughtto the game was artificial pacing that is no longer needed.
If you are translating the removal of base building as making the game about 'just rushing with yuor forces' the... you seriousy need to step back and take a clearer look at the situation.
tbh, i think there is an element of strategy involved in building placement, in a defensive sense anyways. given how strongly the enemy can attack your bases, the proper placement of turrets, reactors and unit building structures can mean the difference between spending two hours on a map and six.
is it a HUGE part of the strategy? no. is it a way of pacing? sure. but i don't think it can be completely disregarded as being just a pacing utility.
all of this, of course, could be made redundant by DOW's new mechanic, and i am looking forward to seeing it...
Raoul- well, they are pretty much staking their reputation on it. If they bugger it up then that is pretty much that. But if it works... well then... a lot of games are going to look stupid in comparison.
😂
fingers crossed...
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Building placement as strategy is simply crap. In any case, that;s not what it is- it is a pacing structure disguised as strategy. If you have fallen for that- well, sorry. But it has nothing to do with good gameplay. And what is certainly true is that abusive building placement has buggered uip many a strategy game over time.And yes I have played Supreme Commander. It is just one of many games that prove the poiunt- the only thing od any value that buildings broughtto the game was artificial pacing that is no longer needed.
If you are translating the removal of base building as making the game about 'just rushing with yuor forces' the... you seriousy need to step back and take a clearer look at the situation.
Raoul- well, they are pretty much staking their reputation on it. If they bugger it up then that is pretty much that. But if it works... well then... a lot of games are going to look stupid in comparison.
Simply crap? what a well thought out argument 😆
no its not simply crap, the way you place buildings can make an incredible diffrence on gameplay, noobs building buildings in front of their base which should be behind for example can waste their time and end up losing even with superior forces, its also a way of stemming the tide of units, if you want to stop a peticulour unit being built because your using forces that are weak to that unit (i.e, your using Dreadnaughts so you want to stop your enemy building Anti vehichle infantry) you can destroy the building.
Also your thinking of the tactical side of hiding buildings, in DOWn 2, it seems that as soon as you have guns big enough you know exactley where to fire your weapons..the big single base structure, in games with base building you wouldnt necesserily have the first idea, it forces players to know their terrain and area, its another strategy factor that can be monumental, which is now thrown out the window for a more basic approach.
Ofcourse its needed, how would the system work without buildings? you would just gain X amount of power or something? as i said above its strategic usage of buildings that you could trick your opponent, in Supreme commander your building placement was integral, if you didnt build any buildings and your commander built everything, fired nuclear weapons, did everything by itself...then you wouldnt have the factor of a base, you wouldnt get enjoyment out of seeing hordes dieing before your well laid out defences etc etc
no i was remarking that thats the kind of player you remind me of, a rusher who doesnt give a damn about weapons or defences, just asl ong as he can spam units, the kind of person who thinks "i dont want to w8 until higher tier, i want to be able to spam the best units now!"
Buildings can be important in defence as well, not everyone is an offencive player, some like defensive play, a base is one of the best ways to do it.
Which is ironic considering the majority of my working strategies on DOW battlenet is turtiling...
But hell, if you make that point only in regard to DOW, fine. But to say that building placemet isn't a strategy at all, or is a poor one, is utter nonsense. In Starcraft 1 pro-Starcraft players used supply depots and high HP buildings as a form of makeshift barricade to protect turrets and important structures from melee attacks. The strategy was so good and popular that Blizzard actually incorporated it into the game. Supply depots in SC2 can sink into the ground to act as a type of gate, which can be used to protect your units/buldings, etc.
That's just one example. Using buildings that can fly as decoys, making ten Hatcheries to spawn 30 units in 10 seconds (An integral part of Zerg strategy), etc. And that's just Starcraft. Solid, professional strategies have been created that revolve around base building in Starcraft, Warcraft (go figure), Battle for Middle Earth, Command and Conquer... 😬 To say that base building as a whole is a redundant factor that isn't nescesarry is nonsensical.
First of all, if you find turtling works in DoW then you are not playing it against proper opponents. Get the AI mod or play against decent humans. But, absolutely and 100% for certaiun, turtling DOES NOT WORK in DoW. It is an appalling strategy as it means you do not get the resources you need, tand defensive measures in DoW are FAR less powerful than in Starcraft or Command and Conquer. You turtle in DoW, you will lose.
And honestly, I do find some of the arguments you guys are using as... exceptionally self-delusional. It makes me worry. You are stuck in such circular reasoning- saying something is neded just because it is there. FB's example of using ten hatcheiries to spawn lots of units and saying that is some sort of strategic element is just... too breathtakingly silly for words. As is the concept of tiny irrelevancies to the strategic make-up of a game like 'using flying buildings as decoys'. And you want to use the term 'professional' as some sort of adjective that strengths your argument? That means nothing- people can make use of pointless mechanics for money all they like. They are still pointless.
Raoul- my ire is less aimed at you. My point would be- if you can remove it and the game still works, hence showing a certain redundancy... what actually was the point in the first place? And were building orders, building placement, building arrangement... was all that actually enhancing the game, or getting in the darn way? I submit the latter. Of couse, if they remove it and it doesn't work at all, then they've shot themselves in the foot.
You guys have got to learn to look at the basic ways games work and what mechanics within the game actually achieve- and what they cock up. What you seem to be doing is simply trying to list things buildings can do in a game. That's... irrelevant. Inidividual examples of what you find cool are useless. Answers have to be far more fundamental than that. Buildings are NOT in RTS games to prive any form of strategy in the way you suggest. They are there to slow down and codify the time when you can produce certain units or upgrades. That is honestly ALL they are for. The rest just happens to spin off from that but in doing so tends to cock up games immensly, making them all about fiddly build orders and getting away from what RTS games are really meant to be about- tactical/strategic fighting- and it turnsd a hell of a lot of people off in the process. By far the most aggravating part of Starcraft was having to conform to certain notions of build ordering to get anywhere- it iis horrible, horrible stuff and is part of a massive issue RTS games have, part of why I barely touch them any more.
Using buildinga as barricades is appalling. ABSOLUTELY that kind of thing is part of the problem- a total misuse of the intention behind them. This is something I have the most utter contempt for, and that you would use it to try and justify the point... well. I am certainly never going to be interested in your opinion of what makes a game any good ever, ever again, because that is monstrous.
Sorry, but if you cannot see that building 'placement', specifically, is not a viable means of providing strategy within a game... then you have not got a proper perspective on game making. What you certainly have to do is reverse the perspective and imagine how games might have been if there had never been any base building, and seriously try an consider what benefits any game would have had by trying to put it in. The answer being- virtually none.
But, thank Christ, Relic DOES. And in the end all they might end up proving is that their ideas don't work- but someine is trying, and that can only be a good thing.
No offence, Ush, but you don't think you're being a tad over the top? granted, using buildings as barricades and natural barriers is a bit ridiculous. on the other hand, on certain maps on the harder difficulties, proper turret placement can mean the difference between being overrun, and defending a part of the map that you really need to defend.
that, and being able to stick a barracks/vehicle building thingy on the front lines so you can keep your forces at a decent strength, is pretty handy imo...
sure, its a little cheap, but if DOW 2 does away with that, and doesn't give a good alternative for replacing your forces (and you're basically stuck with a set number), a lot of people are going to have major trouble with a lot of the levels.
now, i personally don't mind having a set number of troops. it means i work harder and try to use my brain rather than just throwing troops at the enemy until they're overrun (which is kind of ironic, given how little the people in the games seem to value life), but at the same time, a lot of people will enjoy the games for the pure spectacle of the bloody battles. lots of reinforcing, lots of carnage and death.
if those people end up being short-changed by this game, i don't think that's entirely fair.
if they find a way to make reinforcing and upgrading plausible without the need for almost a dozen buildings, then i'm all for it...
of course, I'm assuming that taking away base building severely hinders the ability to reinforce one's troops (unless they just have a separate command for that). if i'm wrong, my bad.
It does have a means of troop replenishment in the field even in single player (where you have no base buildings at all). They have even not fallen for the old persistency problem of losing any forces at all being campaign fatal (like in Fire Emblem) by making your squad leaders effectively invulnerable (they come back after the mission is done or are revived by other squad leaders; you only lose when all the leaders are downed). In multiplayer, you can rebuild the lost squads and call in forces to your current location. And frankly, the battles in DOWII look awesome!
Multiplayer vid link:
http://www.thq-games.com/uk/thqtv/index/2507
If I am over the top at all it is only frustration at how.. little thought many punters put into the whole concept of game desgn and how to improve a genre. It depresses me greatly.
Turret placement, specifically- ok, fine. That's perfectly reasonable strategy, nothing to do with pacing and, incidentally, that's still in DOW II, though only if you choose a turret-building leader for your force (as, for example, tte hechmarine can do).
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It does have a means of troop replenishment in the field even in single player (where you have no base buildings at all). They have even not fallen for the old persistency problem of losing any forces at all being campaign fatal (like in Fire Emblem) by making your squad leaders effectively invulnerable (they come back after the mission is done or are revived by other squad leaders; you only lose when all the leaders are downed). In multiplayer, you can rebuild the lost squads and call in forces to your current location.If I am over the top at all it is only frustration at how.. little thought many punters put into the whole concept of game desgn and how to improve a genre. It depresses me greatly.
Turret placement, specifically- ok, fine. That's perfectly reasonable strategy, nothing to do with pacing and, incidentally, that's still in DOW II, though only if you choose a turret-building leader for your force (as, for example, tte hechmarine can do).
ah, ok... that all sounds perfectly reasonable...
Check the link I edited in- shows the HQs for each faction building units, and also the building bits they have retained- improving a power point with power generators, and building a turret. Also shows drop pods landing, whuch carry reinforcements.
See, it is not just about removing base building just for the heck of it. They've kept the base mechanics that actually work and contribute to the game- they have only removed the redundant bits.
I honestly cannot make any analysis at all of the value of buildings that produce better units than another building, or buildings that oinly do tech researches, or supply buildings. The first two are just repating what could be done elsewhere- pointless runaround pacing- and the third... well, if you cannot tell that supply buildings are pacing then there are real issues. They'd be the first ting I got rid of in any RTS game. If you cannot make the mechanics of how much troops cost work well enough to keep control of what people build, then you've cocked your game up. Forcing people to build supply depots is an admisison of game design failure. They do nothing other than slow the game down.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Check the link I edited in- shows the HQs for each faction building units, and also the building bits they have retained- improving a power point with power generators, and building a turret. Also shows drop pods landing, whuch carry reinforcements.See, it is not just about removing base building just for the heck of it. They've kept the base mechanics that actually work and contribute to the game- they have only removed the redundant bits.
I honestly cannot make any analysis at all of the value of buildings that produce better units than another building, or buildings that oinly do tech researches, or supply buildings. The first two are just repating what could be done elsewhere- pointless runaround pacing- and the third... well, if you cannot tell that supply buildings are pacing then there are real issues. They'd be the first ting I got rid of in any RTS game. If you cannot make the mechanics of how much troops cost work well enough to keep control of what people build, then you've cocked your game up. Forcing people to build supply depots is an admisison of game design failure. They do nothing other than slow the game down.
damn, that looks gorgeous...
and yeah, it looks more streamlined than before, which can only be a good thing imo... it looks like the game puts more emphasis on capturing and holding control points, relics and critical locations than its predecessors too, unless i misunderstood parts of the vid...
i am so going to have to buy a new pc just to play this game...
Taking and holding is indeed the emphasis- though I think it was in Company of Heroes they perfected that from DoW original. In fact, rather a lot of DoWII is improvements on CoH- CoH got a LOT of criticial praise. Certainly the entire fire suppression system (you pin troops with heavy fire on the flanks and move in with assault troops, that kind of thing) is entirely from CoH. Though now it is all with sci-fi over-the-top awesomness!
As it looks, there is absolutely no point in DOWII of doing anything other than getting out there and holding points... because it's very clear that there is little to do in your base!
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Taking and holding is indeed the emphasis- though I think it was in Company of Heroes they perfected that from DoW original. In fact, rather a lot of DoWII is improvements on CoH- CoH got a LOT of criticial praise. Certainly the entire fire suppression system (you pin troops with heavy fire on the flanks and move in with assault troops, that kind of thing) is entirely from CoH. Though now it is all with sci-fi over-the-top awesomness!As it looks, there is absplutely no point in DOWII of doing anything other than getting out there and holding points... because it's very clear that there is little to do in your base!
😂
yeah, exactly... i need to go back and play COH... i was halfway through the first one when i get the DOW boxset for my bday, and poor COH hasn't seen the light of day since...
So in the end, this whole "nothing to do in your base" is reducing players options....great...
Ush your problem seems to be you come off as a guy who simply doesnt like base building, youve given no examples of how it slows down games yet the rest of us have given you plenty of examples where base building is more than just pacing, placement of buildings can create strategies all by themselves, if you dont like base building dont play games with it, go and play World in conflict or something, but wailing about how base building is a terrible mechanic and giving no real reasons rather than constantly repeating how bad we are for enjoying it just makes you look ridiculous.
Originally posted by Burning thought
So in the end, this whole "nothing to do in your base" is reducing players options....great...Ush your problem seems to be you come off as a guy who simply doesnt like base building, youve given no examples of how it slows down games yet the rest of us have given you plenty of examples where base building is more than just pacing, placement of buildings can create strategies all by themselves, if you dont like base building dont play games with it, go and play World in conflict or something, but wailing about how base building is a terrible mechanic and giving no real reasons rather than constantly repeating how bad we are for enjoying it just makes you look ridiculous.
You cannot see how base building slows down gameplay?
I cannot even be bothered to argue with people that cannot recognise basic principles.- equally so those who think abusive use of buildings outside their intended use has anything to do with improving gameplay. Such views do make me despair for gaming though, as they are the views of people tha ttend to wreck games. I really don't care if people with such views find me ridiculous, because they shown they have no respectable critical faculty with which to make such a declaration worthwhile.
Beta of this starts very soon for those who own Soulstorm; a week later for others.