It is currently Sun 26 May 2013 06:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 09:50 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class

Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 10:35
Posts: 109
Satire wrote:
...
The central problem with the game is the victory conditions, no doubt about it. The sole objective in any game is to kill as much of the enemy as possible, that is it. There is nothing whatsoever else to it, everything else is secondary to achieving this goal. Map control merely exists to gain more points to buy more things to kill more stuff. Flanking exists to outmaneuver your opponent so you may kill more of his units than he can yours. Supply is merely to give you the fuel, munitions and slapped on armor to keep your units functioning better than your opponents.

There is no deeper strategy to the game, what exists is putting together a unit-composition that is superior to your opponents and then out-playing him. It is sad but it is true. I wish it wasn't, I really wish that this game rewarding critical thinking and strategic maneuvering, but it does not.
...


IMO your analysis is false. 8-)

You cannot summarize it only by "Beat your opponent" and claim there is no meta.

You have tons of way for win your game, since you have to kill units, and there is tons of em, tons of way to kill em, a lot of field situational tricks, and a lot of manoeuver opportunities.


Just try to compare W:EE to other RTS with others victory conditions : a lot of them turn in slugfest or clickfest. Especially thoses with vitcory points, like CoH or DoW, same in WiC. Imagine if you apply victory by zone and add no value to unit losses : you will have all zones captured expect one, where there will be a perpetual slugfest between each force. That is happening in other cap based victory game's, and they have no more strategic depth than W:EE. And I dont mention Dune II based gameplay like SC or other, everyone know their flaw points.

There are not any other RTS where you cannot claim the goal is to beat your opponent, and where all meta deserve that goal.

So maybe are you waiting for another game style ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 09:51 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 19:02
Posts: 1028
Space wrote:
Misfit wrote:
Space wrote:
Another way of achieving the same thing is to make it like RUSE - low points start, but fast income from sectors.

Taking ground in W:EE is not important enough, because you can hold off a large force with a fairly cheap defence. If it was changed to be like RUSE, you would be forced to take ground, or within 15 minutes your opponent would have 50 artillery pieces!


This would lead to an even more static game imo. I myself dont like the idea of having only one viable strategy to play a map (get zone x and y and then buy units a and b to beat their unit z, etc). Dunno how else to put it but there are already enough strategy games that revolve around economy and not about tactics.
Adding new victory conditions for new maps is a good idea though.


So what win condition do you suggest then?

Economy is not really that important in W:EE at the moment and neither is map control. Make sectors more valuable by lowering starting money and increasing income rate and suddenly map control is important because you need that money. The other alternative is some kind of capture the flag system, but considering that economy is already tied to map control, then it seems strange not to simply tweak the economy to make sectors more important.


Well first of im not claiming to be able to improve the game and make everyone happy, like people demand it from Eugen. :mrgreen:
Ideas are a dime a dozen, as you can see on every game forum. Everyone is having "great" ideas without looking at the consequences for gameplay, or how to implement them without breaking gameplay.
Im quite sure the devs are thinking about what they can improve and these chaps seem to be pretty communicative and open minded.
Maybe some real goals would improve it, like capturing a hill and hold it until reinf arrive, with a countdown starting when zone is captured to simulate the ETA for reinforcements.
Or put a frontline on the map and whoever has more points in units in opponents theritory wins the round to simulate screening and an attempt to break through. Something similar could be done with one side only defending their frontline and if opponent has units worth of x points behind enemy line after time expires they win.
I could go on and on, but really its a question of implementing ideas, not having them.

But whatever happens to the game i hope its not turning into another economy rts, those have been done to death.

_________________
AccessVirus wrote:
Optics .. all units never Go under ,normal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 12:00 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer

Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 15:14
Posts: 747
Well I dislike current metagamer because its much LESS varied than before. Now its ALWAYS a TOP end MBT clash with a little screen of AA and scout to deny the AAH natural coutner to MBTs.

Smaller tanks were more different between themselves and were more interesting. ATGM units now do not have range to effectively engage tanks. AAH now have too short range to engage tanks even on the top end choppers.

I really think this game needs the bug on ATGM fixed and a slight increase on ALL atgm range ( like 5-7.5%).

Tanks do not and cannot advance wildly in the open in real life! They would be made into shreds by AAH and ATGM infantry and atgm vehicles if they rush madly. But in this game they can fire and kil the ATGM unit before the missile hits the tank!

I try every day different tactics. But I feel I am loosign my time because the one that gives me by far the best result is a simply idiotic heavy tanks full rush with a small AA defense and 2 scouts on ANY non huge map. I do nto feat ATGM defenses at all when doing that.. and this is wrong!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 12:22 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class
User avatar

Joined: Sat 7 Apr 2012 11:24
Posts: 124
Agree with the OP, especially on the spectator mode for tournaments and streams.

Regarding the victory conditions, our tournament's settings 1v1 1500pts 25 min. timed worked very well. I still like to see a territory-based victory condition but timed games actually play different enough if the time is reasonably short.

_________________

Formerly shugyosha on these forums and still shugyosha ingame
Lusiad_NZ wrote:
Patch the players instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 12:31 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 19:02
Posts: 1028
tiago wrote:
Well I dislike current metagamer because its much LESS varied than before. Now its ALWAYS a TOP end MBT clash with a little screen of AA and scout to deny the AAH natural coutner to MBTs.

Smaller tanks were more different between themselves and were more interesting. ATGM units now do not have range to effectively engage tanks. AAH now have too short range to engage tanks even on the top end choppers.

I really think this game needs the bug on ATGM fixed and a slight increase on ALL atgm range ( like 5-7.5%).

Tanks do not and cannot advance wildly in the open in real life! They would be made into shreds by AAH and ATGM infantry and atgm vehicles if they rush madly. But in this game they can fire and kil the ATGM unit before the missile hits the tank!

I try every day different tactics. But I feel I am loosign my time because the one that gives me by far the best result is a simply idiotic heavy tanks full rush with a small AA defense and 2 scouts on ANY non huge map. I do nto feat ATGM defenses at all when doing that.. and this is wrong!


And increasing ATGM range would bring more low end tanks on a map? How is that working?

Btw i doubt that ATGMs can sit in a woodline and launch an ATGM on a tank saying "huhu out of range you are" without fear of getting shot in real life. Its a freaking game.

_________________
AccessVirus wrote:
Optics .. all units never Go under ,normal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 14:10 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer

Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 15:14
Posts: 747
yes it woudl because atgm can kil ehavy tanks as easily as small oens as long as they have inferior range to the missile. That would make need to use some small tanks for some tasks.


You know that in real life mi-28 and Apache missiles have ranges over 6 km? And that at 4 km the hellfire has over 80% kill rate? AAH shoudl be bane of tanks.. now in game they are a minor hindrance at best


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 14:16 
Offline
Chief Warrant Officer

Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 15:12
Posts: 616
Misfit wrote:
Maybe some real goals would improve it, like capturing a hill and hold it until reinf arrive, with a countdown starting when zone is captured to simulate the ETA for reinforcements.

Or put a frontline on the map and whoever has more points in units in opponents theritory wins the round to simulate screening and an attempt to break through. Something similar could be done with one side only defending their frontline and if opponent has units worth of x points behind enemy line after time expires they win.
I could go on and on, but really its a question of implementing ideas, not having them.

But whatever happens to the game i hope its not turning into another economy rts, those have been done to death.


OK your first suggestion is no different from increasing economy in captured sections - the money tends to be used to buy reinforcements ;)

Your second suggestion is basically capture the flag - this is used in FPS games to cause a ticket bleed. That is because you can't spawn more players in a FPS, so instead artificial deaths are imposed on the losing side. In RTS games you have armies and can spawn more units with money to cause the enemies ticket loss. Same thing - different method.

Pretty much all RTS games have economy because it works and it adds a layer of strategy to games (Boom or rush choice). Capture the flag in an FPS game like BF3 is basically economy, but you just don't see it that way because you don't see a $ symbol. Minimising the effect of economy like it is in W:EE currently, simply takes away a level of strategy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 15:12 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 19:02
Posts: 1028
tiago wrote:
yes it woudl because atgm can kil ehavy tanks as easily as small oens as long as they have inferior range to the missile. That would make need to use some small tanks for some tasks.


You know that in real life mi-28 and Apache missiles have ranges over 6 km? And that at 4 km the hellfire has over 80% kill rate? AAH shoudl be bane of tanks.. now in game they are a minor hindrance at best


And tanks can shoot hovering helicopters with their maingun, Stingers have 6 km range (not to mention the BUK), Bradleys dont carry 10 men, etc, etc. It isnt a real life simulation but a game that has to sacrifice some realism for gameplay.
Giving all ATGMs a range of 2500+ m could very well render low end tanks completely useless. They would need to close 600m to be able to shoot back. I really dont see that increasing their usability. Besides Helicopters are! the bane of MBTs in game, its just that AA is the bane of helicopters... :geek:

You should ask you a question: is the diversity stalling because some units got improved or because more people understand that some units are terrible options. Even without The Patch would you still use Starships today if you used them a month ago, or Sheridans?
Or is it simply a fact that people play to compete and dont feel like using valuable deck slots for redundant units anymore?
Honestly, i dont think the game would look much different now without The Patch.

_________________
AccessVirus wrote:
Optics .. all units never Go under ,normal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 16:25 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Fri 27 Jan 2012 20:59
Posts: 241
Location: People's Republic of Poland
Satire wrote:
DeuZerre wrote:
A victory isn't one when you lose too many units.


You should tell that to the Soviet Union... They lost how many men to each German... Or to the Vietnamese.


I dont buy it. Soviets (or Vietnameese) didnt won becouse of capturing strategic points. Moreover, soviets won becouse Nazis were bleed white to death having much smaller man power than allies.

But offcourse I also want this new victory condition, just to see how good it could be (in CoH it works pretty damn good)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 3 May 2012 17:31 
Offline
Lieutenant
User avatar

Joined: Thu 22 Mar 2012 13:22
Posts: 1005
Satire wrote:
Just a foreword before anyone goes calling me inept and unfit to comment... I am ranked 5th globally(I'd rather not mention this, but people around here can be rather... Foolish).

The problem with W:EE has nothing whatsoever to do with the units, yes there are adjustments to be made here and there but these issues pale in comparison to the greater issue at hand.

The central problem with the game is the victory conditions, no doubt about it. The sole objective in any game is to kill as much of the enemy as possible, that is it. There is nothing whatsoever else to it, everything else is secondary to achieving this goal. Map control merely exists to gain more points to buy more things to kill more stuff. Flanking exists to outmaneuver your opponent so you may kill more of his units than he can yours. Supply is merely to give you the fuel, munitions and slapped on armor to keep your units functioning better than your opponents.

There is no deeper strategy to the game, what exists is putting together a unit-composition that is superior to your opponents and then out-playing him. It is sad but it is true. I wish it wasn't, I really wish that this game rewarding critical thinking and strategic maneuvering, but it does not.


Well, real war is about comparing units and then thinking is it wise to attack or not. If you can have less than 20% losses on attack, you pursue that action as that allows you to hold the captured area and continue attack without compromises.

That is what is missing in this game, the speed is even still too fast (rushing and spamming) and it is focused too much around tanks and killing instead defense, securing strategically important positions and tactical maneuvers in combat.

It would help a lot if victory conditions could be changed exactly to support more the sector defenses / attacks instead just killing everyone in time.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group