66 replies to this topic

[idyemyhairbrown]

Jeru_Sorrin, on 08 March 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Maybe its that it was the same faction was facing the same faction and they have yet to make a new one.

Yeah, that's true, I hope so! But it does make sense from a balancing perspective to have same generic base units for all Commanders.

[Rrated]

Remember, this is the first public footage. Much CAN and WILL change even by the time we get beta! Game looks awesome so give us some screenshots soon! Thanks

[Arduu]

This gameplay is just amazing

[Thanatological]

Who was it that I was talking too on steam?

Yep, it looks nice, but it has risen a few concerns of balance for me. Mainly concerning the advantage an offensive  type commander might have over something like a utility type commander.

Edited by Thanatological, 08 March 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[psychoak]

My big question is unit micro.  It would be nice if there isn't any.

Can we get a nice objective oriented unit command system where the unit does it's own thing once you tell it where to go, or are we stuck spending absurd amounts of time focus firing on stuff to be competitive?

[Thanatological]

Rewatch the video..The units will have the ability too react..and if there is no micro at all then I have no interest..Its not competitive it can't be so. Can we call checkers competitive? No. because if one knows what they are doing the first player to go can't lose regardless. The same thing here applies if there in no depth its just mass and order units one way then again its pointless.

A game with no AI too its units is just bad design these days. Too say that thats a mircomangement thing is wrong.  Micromanagement is not the controlling of groups of units. It would be using abilities one by one of each of those units, too get the job done. It would be the movement of many small groups of units around ect ect. It would be the management on a more in-depth scale then selecting everything and clicking move here.

[idyemyhairbrown]

You do not need micro to make a game competitive...look at the Tug of Wars game types in SC2 - you build to counter units the enemy sends at you and visa versa, while efficiently managing resource gathering

[psychoak]

If it's standard RTS fare, we're boned.  Focus fire will dominate the sphere of tactical action.  A commander that doesn't rapidly act to neutralize threats in as efficient a manner as possible will immediately doom his team.

LOL works through predictable behavior.  Turrets and minions prioritize other minions, and only focus on a champion to protect their own champion.  If they act in a directed fashion, farming is no longer possible for melee, and turrets must be avoided in previously safe situations because you are vulnerable to immediate focus at any time.  The game becomes boringly passive.

[idyemyhairbrown]

psychoak, on 08 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

If it's standard RTS fare, we're boned.  Focus fire will dominate the sphere of tactical action.  A commander that doesn't rapidly act to neutralize threats in as efficient a manner as possible will immediately doom his team.

LOL works through predictable behavior.  Turrets and minions prioritize other minions, and only focus on a champion to protect their own champion.  If they act in a directed fashion, farming is no longer possible for melee, and turrets must be avoided in previously safe situations because you are vulnerable to immediate focus at any time.  The game becomes boringly passive.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking and why I mentioned commander autonomy is too high.

[IanD967]

Thanatological, on 08 March 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Who was it that I was talking too on steam?

Yep, it looks nice, but it has risen a few concerns of balance for me. Mainly concerning the advantage an offensive  type commander might have over something like a utility type commander.

That would be me

I am still wondering how hard it would be to pick anything else other than a offensive support commander other something like a utility commander or something.

As for the units: even if they are the same type that doesn't mean they cannot be re-skinned and passed as something else (no need for any stat tweaks)

Edited by IanD967, 08 March 2012 - 03:47 PM.

[idyemyhairbrown]

Yeah, even simply cosmetic differences per faction would be desirable. I was hoping for qualitative differences, but I understand the added time and cost something like that would require.

[MartyNev]

idyemyhairbrown, on 08 March 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I wrote this under the 'News' discussion, but I'll post it here as well.

What I like:
The graphics are a lot better than what I was expecting for the game considering it's pre-beta. The dragon tail disappearing into the ground was the only thing that signalled 'alpha stage' still.
The unique abilities of the Commanders to provide deeper gameplay and higher strategy

What I don't like:
The autonomy of the Commander seems too high. I don't understand what is incentivizing the players from not engaging in a boring 'resource-harvest, tech-up, mass units' type of game play. Obviously, from the hero perspective, this is exactly what you don't want. Rather, you want a fast-paced game with constant action. The heroes are 8 out of the 10 players in this game, but it seems that they won't be doing much unless the Commander decides to throw his armies out to fight.

Also a little disappointed that each Commander faction has the same generic units, with the differences being only in their spells/abilities. Was expecting distinguishable units per faction (rather than every faction having the same 'archer' unit, etc.)

BUT DON'T GET ME WRONG! I'm still STOKED FOR THIS GAME! WOOP!

Remember that this was only the first sneak peak of the game's commander side, so forgive Blair and Craig for not showing all of the cool things we've got lined up for the commanders all at once. We'll be releasing more info about commanders, heroes and the rest of the game over time as we get closer to the Beta. Hopefully we'll alleviate some of your concerns as more info and previews are revealed.

As for this first sneak peak, yes Jerv_Sorrin had it correct in respect to the fact that Blair was only showing off one commander faction during his gameplay preview.

[Thanatological]

idyemyhairbrown, on 08 March 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

You do not need micro to make a game competitive...look at the Tug of Wars game types in SC2 - you build to counter units the enemy sends at you and visa versa, while efficiently managing resource gathering

How so? Competitive means of your skill versus another. Many of those games are not a test of skill just a test of knowing how too counter what how and hardly any management. Playing checkers does not require skill. It only requires knowing of the best way too win. You can make the argument its you need too know how too deal with every action or whatever, but there is a set action too every action that ensures victories regardless... Skill would be knowing the best way too deal with a situation or problem that arises that may arise from the other players actions, inaction and play style.

psychoak, on 08 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

If it's standard RTS fare, we're boned.  Focus fire will dominate the sphere of tactical action.  A commander that doesn't rapidly act to neutralize threats in as efficient a manner as possible will immediately doom his team.

LOL works through predictable behavior.  Turrets and minions prioritize other minions, and only focus on a champion to protect their own champion.  If they act in a directed fashion, farming is no longer possible for melee, and turrets must be avoided in previously safe situations because you are vulnerable to immediate focus at any time.  The game becomes boringly passive.

Yes it will become passive if people stand there..but if you played any RTS where units have abilities or have a "Hero" type unit that can increase its own stats you will find even the squishiest of those were a problem too deal with. Focus fire will not be no an issue at all, because minions can be attached too heroes too do all sorta of functions. An idea we were looking for in the other areas of the forum.  Now if this was LoL where minions could kill a hero early on then yes this game will get slow fast...but as its not, as shown in this video, that one hero can endure a large amount of minions long enough for things too happen so, there the game will not get "passive". Even if a commander is slow too react and slow too do anything it will have minimal inpact in low skill games.

idyemyhairbrown, on 08 March 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Yeah, even simply cosmetic differences per faction would be desirable. I was hoping for qualitative differences, but I understand the added time and cost something like that would require.

Agreed

[idyemyhairbrown]

MartyNev, on 08 March 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Remember that this was only the first sneak peak of the game's commander side, so forgive Blair and Craig for not showing all of the cool things we've got lined up for the commanders all at once. We'll be releasing more info about commanders, heroes and the rest of the game over time as we get closer to the Beta. Hopefully we'll alleviate some of your concerns as more info and previews are revealed.

As for this first sneak peak, yes Jerv_Sorrin had it correct in respect to the fact that Blair was only showing off one commander faction during his gameplay preview.

Glad to hear it! Thanks for keeping the community posted.

Thanatological, on 08 March 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

How so? Competitive means of your skill versus another. Many of those games are not a test of skill just a test of knowing how too counter what how and hardly any management. Playing checkers does not require skill. It only requires knowing of the best way too win. You can make the argument its you need too know how too deal with every action or whatever, but there is a set action too every action that ensures victories regardless... Skill would be knowing the best way too deal with a situation or problem that arises that may arise from the other players actions, inaction and play style.

By that logic, chess wouldn't take skill. Regardless, there are all sorts of other ways the game could play out to integrate some sort of microing - being able to take complete control and decide when, where and how many units need to pursue a goal is not a requisite of competitive gameplay. I think many of us are simply concerned at the high level of autonomy the Commander seems to control and the effect on that autonomy on the ability of the champions to enjoy the game.

[psychoak]

The problem with that theory is that the minions you see are all attacking that aptly described tank.  That right there is a commander that just failed to utilized his forces in an efficient fashion.  Focus fire need not apply to a hero, and is entirely situational.  When facing a "tank" backed by easily killed archers, target selection is obvious.

If I can, at will, pick individual targets with individual troops, I will have to spend massive amounts of time doing just that.  I have zero interest in another 150+APM click spam game.

I am interested in a logical, well developed unit ai that will think for itself and follow more general directives such as guard here, attack move there, follow that.

[idyemyhairbrown]

psychoak, on 08 March 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

The problem with that theory is that the minions you see are all attacking that aptly described tank.  That right there is a commander that just failed to utilized his forces in an efficient fashion.  Focus fire need not apply to a hero, and is entirely situational.  When facing a "tank" backed by easily killed archers, target selection is obvious.

If I can, at will, pick individual targets with individual troops, I will have to spend massive amounts of time doing just that.  I have zero interest in another 150+APM click spam game.

I am interested in a logical, well developed unit ai that will think for itself and follow more general directives such as guard here, attack move there, follow that.

+1

[Jeru_Sorrin]

MartyNev, on 08 March 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Remember that this was only the first sneak peak of the game's commander side, so forgive Blair and Craig for not showing all of the cool things we've got lined up for the commanders all at once. We'll be releasing more info about commanders, heroes and the rest of the game over time as we get closer to the Beta. Hopefully we'll alleviate some of your concerns as more info and previews are revealed.

As for this first sneak peak, yes Jerv_Sorrin had it correct in respect to the fact that Blair was only showing off one commander faction during his gameplay preview.

Good to know stuff. And I hope that the new factions have gameplay styles, ablities, and units to coplement the faction and commander. But BTW it's not jerv its jeru. Easy mistake with this type of font but please try to pay a few seconds more on spelling.

Edited by Jeru_Sorrin, 08 March 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Thanatological]

idyemyhairbrown, on 08 March 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

By that logic, chess wouldn't take skill. Regardless, there are all sorts of other ways the game could play out to integrate some sort of microing - being able to take complete control and decide when, where and how many units need to pursue a goal is not a requisite of competitive gameplay. I think many of us are simply concerned at the high level of autonomy the Commander seems to control and the effect on that autonomy on the ability of the champions to enjoy the game.

Can we at least apply some though too what we say? By your logic 1+1=4.  No chess is not an react too action based on what the action is. There is a more deeper meaning too each and every move. So much so that no one approach is a going too ensure you a  win, like in checkers and the "tug of war" type maps you refer too. The fact is I don't want too player checkers thats just boring, it is not a competitive game. If I can't make CHOICES that EFFECT the outcome beyond pick red or blue, then there is no competitive element too a game.  Of course if you want the game too be able stream roll people regardless of what they do or have then you really need too stop playing anything with a competitive intent. I don't like having an advantage, I like being at a disadvantage because thats where one learns best from.

Im not saying select one unit one by one out of thousands, but like I am saying DON"T remove mircomangement or commanding on a smaller scale..So don't make it a wall of units with no concern of what you build.

psychoak, on 08 March 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

The problem with that theory is that the minions you see are all attacking that aptly described tank.  That right there is a commander that just failed to utilized his forces in an efficient fashion.  Focus fire need not apply to a hero, and is entirely situational.  When facing a "tank" backed by easily killed archers, target selection is obvious.

If I can, at will, pick individual targets with individual troops, I will have to spend massive amounts of time doing just that.  I have zero interest in another 150+APM click spam game.

I am interested in a logical, well developed unit ai that will think for itself and follow more general directives such as guard here, attack move there, follow that.

Sorry, but I am going too have too say something really rude...Did you read my entire post? If you want me too hit one button too have all units just attack everything without me every having too do anything fine..Then I don't want too play.

Edited by Thanatological, 08 March 2012 - 07:49 PM.

[Ekko_Tek]

Looking good so far - agree with some of the Warcraft III allusions - it made me think of that too - but obviously only as a point of reference. Some of the comments so far made me laugh - game is not even in beta stage yet people!

[Thanatological]

Ekko_Tek, on 08 March 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Looking good so far - agree with some of the Warcraft III allusions - it made me think of that too - but obviously only as a point of reference. Some of the comments so far made me laugh - game is not even in beta stage yet people!

I was right about map design and the attach units too heros things! So maybe not all of what we think of is off.

Edited by Thanatological, 08 March 2012 - 07:52 PM.