[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;47001530]It looks really great. Might be an odd thing to be excited about, but I like how the maps look natural. An odd thing, but StarCraft 2's maps were off-putting to me because they felt very much like purpose-built arenas, especially with the perfectly sculpted high-ground and ramps. I'll definitely pick this up some time, I loved Westwood's series.[/QUOTE]
It's kindad weird, but the part I dislike the most about the videos is the ground texture. Everything seems to mesh into it. Doesn't help that a lot of the units lack a clear and distinct silhouthe so you just get this blob of units and it's hard to actually tell what you're fighting.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;47005959]Well thats kinda how it went in WW2. CoH is very down the middle, it has lots of realistic aspects to it, but is also arcadey enough to try and not make it niche. Real tactics actually work in CoH which is something you couldn't say about Starcraft.
This means if you try to do ill advised tactics you get stomped. (ie: blobbing infantry, relying to heavily on static defense)[/QUOTE]
what you're describing is more of a difference in micro and macro oriented RTSes. Starcraft 2 is incredibly macro oriented. Resource management is key. Units are cheap and tend to have a relatively short lifetime in general. As such you generally mostly try to max out the damage the unit can do before it dies.
COh on the other hand is much more micro and positioning focused. It's also very rock paper scissors. But your macro is significantly less important than in sc 2 due to the way the economy itself works.
[quote]
I agree TBH. SupCom2 was much better balanced and games played out much better overall than they did in the first game. It simply had much better match flow to it with a lot of interesting interactions between the factions, and a lot of interesting options.
It's biggest issue was it sacrificed a lot of what made supcom 1 so awesome to get there. The scale, the art style, the "OH SHIT BAMF" experimental units, etc. SupCom1 was just a bigger, bad-asser game with a much stronger vision behind it.[/quote]
What? Prepatch supcom2 was gunship spam gunship spam and gunship spam. It became a bit better in later patches but there the entire macro aspect of supcom1 was lost. And it was plagued with shitty maps.\
[QUOTE=amos106;47003292]Company of Heroes has the potential to explode onto the main market, but there are so many bad design decisions that are holding it back. Expensive DLC commanders, terrible game performance (top end rigs struggling to run the game at 45 fps on the highest settings!?), micromanagement disparity between the allies and axis, and the 4v4 imbalance are all big issues that Relic doesn't seem interested in fixing. They are trying to push the game forward with 1v1 centered multiplayer, and as a result the balance gets worse the bigger the match size gets. Company of Heroes really doesn't have a big e-sports following so there really isn't much of a reason to focus all of their efforts on balancing and improving small 1v1 and 2v2 arena style matches. If anything they should be focusing on the larger 3v3 and 4v4 matches as that's what players will be playing when they introduce their friends to the game.[/QUOTE]
That's because the only decent way to balance an RTS is to focus on 1v1 to be honest. In part because a 1v1 will be the most common game played. Team games are rarely competitive and exist as more of a fun for option.
When you try to balance for team games, you actually often run into huge issues - Dow2 is a perfect example. The focus there was on 3v3 games to begin with. That meant 1v1 balance was shot, 2v2 was odd and 3v3 was inconsistent at best. I still remember the good old days of the tyranid ravener alpha.
Sure large games are fun, but they should not be the focus of balance in part due to how problematic said balance is.
Im really not liking it. The long waiting times for unit creation and the fact only one faction can build base defences mean if someone slips a unit behind your defences you're fucked, really frustrating. Units are slow as fuck too.
[QUOTE=Netsc;47008711]Im really not liking it. The long waiting times for unit creation and the fact only one faction can build base defences mean if someone slips a unit behind your defences you're fucked, really frustrating. Units are slow as fuck too.[/QUOTE]
The Beta can mount their units on walls which turn them into defensive turrets.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;47004826]I getcha.
On the subject of new wave RTS, what does everybody think about the Wargame series. I feel like it was the eventual next step for RTS where there's no building but at the same time everything you use is a unit.[/QUOTE]
I like Wargame, but it really does have a very very slow build up and the combat is very I wouldn't say relaxed but the tension is more in not knowing where the enemy is and that at any moment you could get ambushed from the next hedgerow.
Personally, my favorite game was World in Conflict, I know its closer to a Real Time Tactical over a Real Time Strategy but the gameplay made it so much fun and intense.
Seems a little bit to Star Craftish, By that I just mean by some of the structures and how some of the stuff on the ground looks like creep.
Decided to buy this. It's really, really good. If you enjoyed CnC 3, you'll enjoy this.
If anyone wants to play feel free to add me.
I'm totally buying this when it comes on sale, Frank Klepacki is my spirit animal
mission 5 is impossible
i have two hand of ruks but i still cant stop the goo from coming
it just keeps coming and coming and coming
how do i do this
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;47006001]I think that while there hasn't been a big wave of new and innovative RTS these past few years, you still get surprises like Wargame.[/QUOTE]
I'd kill for another World in Conflict, or at least a WiC-style game.
Man, the Tactical Assistance or whatever was such a neat idea and brought such a cool dynamic. Also nukes
[QUOTE=haloguy234;47011038]mission 5 is impossible
i have two hand of ruks but i still cant stop the goo from coming
it just keeps coming and coming and coming
how do i do this[/QUOTE]
Once you get the 2nd ruk just rush to the extraction point. keep one in the back and one in the front so the one in the back can Nuke the creeps around the front one.
[QUOTE=dark soul;47011423]Once you get the 2nd ruk just rush to the extraction point. keep one in the back and one in the front so the one in the back can Nuke the creeps around the front one.[/QUOTE]
Do I have to keep my HQ alive? What happened last time I tried it was my walls ended up getting wrecked on one side and one of my ruks got overwhelmed, so I had to use the other one to keep nuking the area around it so it could actually start moving again.
By the time I tried to advance more kept coming and overwhelmed one of my ruks again, and I had to keep pulling back to a repair station.
EDIT
managed to bust the hell out of that corner, along the way I ended up building double walls around my HQ, that works shockingly well actually.
I find it [B]really[/B] cool how the humans seem to have the more advanced tech. That's something rarely seen in sci-fi
When I get the moolah I'm going to go for it.
Looks really promising.
i know everyone hates red alert 3 because "it's to quirky quirky and op units" but in later patches the game did become interesting and i've had some intense matches in it.
While ore mining was definitely too starcraft like and boring I loved the water base building and how you always have a chance to relocate to some extent to keep yourself alive which is terrifying if your base is destroyed and your mcv escapes with minimal health but you still have a huge army. I love the comeback nature of the game as compared to other games where if your base was under attack unless you had another base you were fucked.
The RTS genre is not fairing to well, the only title that interested me since COH and MOW was Planetary Annihilation, but I kind of want a game that has the same old setting as Red alert 2 did, I felt there is so much more you could do with the idea of the Red Alert universe, just RA3 annoyed so many people even though it was really a fun game in my eyes. I felt the same away and thought the RA name was ruined but tbh after a small while I loved RA3 and even Uprising :v
Don't get me wrong, I fucking loved Red Alert 3 because it was completely self aware enough that'd make fun of itself.
Also the units were unique and fun to play with in all the factions.
RA3 is my favorite C&C game .-.
I thought it was a blast, and I loved the hammy voice acting.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47011057]I'd kill for another World in Conflict, or at least a WiC-style game.
Man, the Tactical Assistance or whatever was such a neat idea and brought such a cool dynamic. Also nukes[/QUOTE]
You get the [b]FUCK[/b] outta my Seattle and stay out! :v:
grey goo scifi huh was my reaction within 5 seconds of the video. but now im totally intersted!
[QUOTE=haloguy234;47011462]Do I have to keep my HQ alive? What happened last time I tried it was my walls ended up getting wrecked on one side and one of my ruks got overwhelmed, so I had to use the other one to keep nuking the area around it so it could actually start moving again.
By the time I tried to advance more kept coming and overwhelmed one of my ruks again, and I had to keep pulling back to a repair station.
EDIT
managed to bust the hell out of that corner, along the way I ended up building double walls around my HQ, that works shockingly well actually.[/QUOTE]
Here, please use this thread for discussions about the game:
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1447821[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.