On September 13 2011 10:21 masterbreti wrote: Also I don't have it quoted but in regards to macroless RTS' are dumbed down RTS' is wrong in every sense.
RTS games auctally have little to do with Macro. Thats why they are not called RTEM or RTM. They are RTS for that Stragety in them. Macro doesn't really add or take away from the complexity of a game. Just make it a different RTS.
If you want more strategy GO PLAY CHESS. Macro management AKA multitasking is a VERY important aspect to RTS games. RTS stands for REAL TIME Strategy. There are a limited number of actions you can do in 1 second, so making that 1 second count is important. You need to execute your decisions and keeping focus under real time pressure is important aspect to good RTS games. Minerals, gas, and population aren't your only resources. Time is an important resource that you need to maximize your efficiency in using/gathering it. Day9 said something along the lines of, macro being an outside resource, because it exists in your head.
I don't like to repeat myself so here's a link for you:
I'm surprised that so many people mistake macro for what it really is. Like I've said many times before: macro is not just spending resources to build units and buildings. It involves all the decisions that affect your economy, when and where to expand, when to tech, when to float and when not to and so on.
SC has the most straightforward macromanagement possible: get resources and spend them, along with all the decisions around it. WC3 and DoW2 take it a step further as you have to deal with more resource types, of which some are gained in the non-standard way (experience in WC3 and DoW2, globals in Dow2), and upkeep. SC players have complained about upkeep in WC3 since forever, unjustly so. Upkeep is an awesome mechanic, especially for smaller scale games. It makes you think really hard on economics and can influence your gameplan heavily. Should you give away map control initially by not producing many units as to keep your upkeep low, which will allow you to tech faster, or should you go for early expansions/map dominance to get enough resources to not be hurt by upkeep and produce larger army?
Absence of dumb production mechanics, which are just an action sink for the most part, doesn't dumb down the game. Macro in DoW2 is pretty hard. The example you gave about it not mattering if you don't control the requisition point for 40 seconds is wrong. It has a huge impact on the game and your economy. Currently in DoW req points "mature", the longer you hold them the more requisition they provide (+10/+20/+30). If you lose a fully matured point you're losing all the income you'd get while you held it AND all the income you won't be getting before it matures fully (which takes some time). Attrition takes heavy toll on your economy in DoW2, replacing models you've lost during skirmishes can bleed you out really fast, this way delaying your tech, new units and wargear. Another big thing is power, gen farm is a significant economical investment, if you get gen bashed you've lost requisition and power income, and the loss hurts expotentially more the longer it takes for you to re-capture and re-build your farm.
Good point Manit0u. I think this complex macro is definitely one thing that puts some people off the game. Some new players might not realise how they spam T1 units and take the map only for the other guy to hold on long enough to bring out a T2 vehicle and just destroy the whole enemy right back into his base. It might feel like it's imba but it's more a problem that the game is a bit more complex than it first looks. Upkeep is wonderful for balancing spamming vs tech builds.
Or you can get attrition wars on smaller maps where you throw units at each other in endless waves from the first 30s meaning that neither of you can afford to tech until you get little edges in each engagement. They can be fun games on small maps, wondering if you can afford that commander upgrade or if you need to save resources for reinforcements etc.
I'm surprised that so many people mistake macro for what it really is. Like I've said many times before: macro is not just spending resources to build units and buildings. It involves all the decisions that affect your economy, when and where to expand, when to tech, when to float and when not to and so on.
SC has the most straightforward macromanagement possible: get resources and spend them, along with all the decisions around it. WC3 and DoW2 take it a step further as you have to deal with more resource types, of which some are gained in the non-standard way (experience in WC3 and DoW2, globals in Dow2), and upkeep. SC players have complained about upkeep in WC3 since forever, unjustly so. Upkeep is an awesome mechanic, especially for smaller scale games. It makes you think really hard on economics and can influence your gameplan heavily. Should you give away map control initially by not producing many units as to keep your upkeep low, which will allow you to tech faster, or should you go for early expansions/map dominance to get enough resources to not be hurt by upkeep and produce larger army?
Absence of dumb production mechanics, which are just an action sink for the most part, doesn't dumb down the game. Macro in DoW2 is pretty hard. The example you gave about it not mattering if you don't control the requisition point for 40 seconds is wrong. It has a huge impact on the game and your economy. Currently in DoW req points "mature", the longer you hold them the more requisition they provide (+10/+20/+30). If you lose a fully matured point you're losing all the income you'd get while you held it AND all the income you won't be getting before it matures fully (which takes some time). Attrition takes heavy toll on your economy in DoW2, replacing models you've lost during skirmishes can bleed you out really fast, this way delaying your tech, new units and wargear. Another big thing is power, gen farm is a significant economical investment, if you get gen bashed you've lost requisition and power income, and the loss hurts expotentially more the longer it takes for you to re-capture and re-build your farm.
Macro has to do more than just your economy, but you make a well-reasoned case and proved your point. Thank you for correcting me on macro. I actually did enjoy the upkeep mechanic in WC3, but I can understand why SC players would have trouble accepting it. If you have a clear advantage, then you should take it. However, upkeep slightly limits that, and that has always bothered me about it. System-generated randomness was always a bit of a turnoff for me in WC3 (AKA Lv3 Blade Master getting 2 crits in row vs your hero). I feel that the system of WC3 limits the effectiveness of raids on a player's economy, but I can see where the upkeep comes into place. It makes sure that players don't HERP DERP out on protecting their villagers from raids. As an AoM player, I just love it when my Hippikons or Raiding Cavalry catch a bunch of enemy gold miners with their pants down.
I've played much more CoH than DoW1, but my reasoning for the 40 second munitions point is that you only spent time capturing it. On the other hand, you spent hard minerals and time building those SCVs and barracks. Losing the munitions point has cost you a lot of potential resources, but the SCVs and barracks were a slightly bigger investment. I can totally agree with replacing infantry men in squads being a pain in the ass, I really hated that.
Good point Manit0u. I think this complex macro is definitely one thing that puts some people off the game. Some new players might not realise how they spam T1 units and take the map only for the other guy to hold on long enough to bring out a T2 vehicle and just destroy the whole enemy right back into his base. It might feel like it's imba but it's more a problem that the game is a bit more complex than it first looks. Upkeep is wonderful for balancing spamming vs tech builds.
Or you can get attrition wars on smaller maps where you throw units at each other in endless waves from the first 30s meaning that neither of you can afford to tech until you get little edges in each engagement. They can be fun games on small maps, wondering if you can afford that commander upgrade or if you need to save resources for reinforcements etc.
I actually don't see any problem with T2 vehicles owning T1 units. Vehicles can't capture any points and teching to T2 is a heavy investment.
Good point Manit0u. I think this complex macro is definitely one thing that puts some people off the game. Some new players might not realise how they spam T1 units and take the map only for the other guy to hold on long enough to bring out a T2 vehicle and just destroy the whole enemy right back into his base. It might feel like it's imba but it's more a problem that the game is a bit more complex than it first looks. Upkeep is wonderful for balancing spamming vs tech builds.
Or you can get attrition wars on smaller maps where you throw units at each other in endless waves from the first 30s meaning that neither of you can afford to tech until you get little edges in each engagement. They can be fun games on small maps, wondering if you can afford that commander upgrade or if you need to save resources for reinforcements etc.
I actually don't see any problem with T2 vehicles owning T1 units. Vehicles can't capture any points and teching to T2 is a heavy investment.
brichals' post wasn't addressing the fact that T2 vehicles are too strong. What he meant was how upkeep mechanic transfers into spam vs tech decisions you need to make during the game and how it works towards greater balance.
Inexperienced players in DoW (I believe it was true for CoH too) will be spamming T1 units to get early map control and advantage. The most used ones here would be suppression platforms to control the field.
The problem with this tactic is that if you overdo it, you're dead. Sure, you get your early game map control and lead but you fall behind in tech and are stuck with highly immobile and ineffective units when enemy rolls out with his T2 counter he managed to get long before you because he conserved his resources.
On September 12 2011 18:44 brichals wrote: Personally I can't play SC2 anymore after playing DOW1 + 2. . I think DOW 2 is superior in every way except it has a few glitches whereas SC2 is rock stable mostly always.
I was going to ask how you feel it's superior, but on second though, I'm not sure if I'd approve of the answer.
On topic; Fun games, but bad competetively. Just my opinion though.
On September 12 2011 18:44 brichals wrote: Personally I can't play SC2 anymore after playing DOW1 + 2. . I think DOW 2 is superior in every way except it has a few glitches whereas SC2 is rock stable mostly always.
I was going to ask how you feel it's superior, but on second though, I'm not sure if I'd approve of the answer.
On topic; Fun games, but bad competetively. Just my opinion though.
hahaha yeah I get your point, it's difficult to compare these things without getting too involved. For me I wanted a break from SC2 so I tried DOW because I heard many bad thinsg about DOW2. Now I always like 40K anyway so maybe I'm biased but I loved DOW with the squad system and the morale damage and map control economy. It gave me the wow factor that BW did, you know like you can really have massive fun even playing vs AI. Since that SC2 seems plain to me. I now play DOW2 and maybe it's not as good as DOW1 but it's all there is for getting games. Tbh I don't have much time to play SC2, maybe it's more demanding. I'm just saying I prefer DOW2 for my RTS fix atm.
I never got that wow factor with SC2. I know it's a very well made game, immersive and slick. The scouting aspect and builds countering builds is great I think. I got a good 500-1000 hours from it I'm sure.
However, my thoughts are a bit like this. I read around here that Armies of Exigo is also a great RTS so I go over to IGN to read a review. Review goes like "excellent game, well made, great graphics and effects, but it's just a remake of BroodWar and RTS have moved on, we don't want mindless harvesting anymore". This review was from about 2006 time I guess. Now in 2011 we get a remake of BroodWar with half of the abilities removed and weird new macro mechanics seemingly just thrown in and it's the be all and end all of any competitive computer game ever. Now I'm exaggerating a bit but that's kind of how I feel, but I'm willing to accept it's because I could not give more time to laddering in SC2 and I feel I'd be too far behind now to give it a good chance again.
On September 13 2011 22:55 Manit0u wrote: Inexperienced players in DoW (I believe it was true for CoH too) will be spamming T1 units to get early map control and advantage. The most used ones here would be suppression platforms to control the field.
The problem with this tactic is that if you overdo it, you're dead. Sure, you get your early game map control and lead but you fall behind in tech and are stuck with highly immobile and ineffective units when enemy rolls out with his T2 counter he managed to get long before you because he conserved his resources.
Mindlessly spamming too many T1 units is no different than button-mashing in fighting games or spraying blindly in FPS. I don't see any problem with low level tactics being easy to punish.
On September 13 2011 23:12 perser84 wrote: i recoment dow 1 if you want multiplayer that is not luck based
dow 2 is not a real rts they have no base building no macro not even a arrmory to make proper uppgrades
in terms of single player i would say dow 2 and dow chaos rising are the best choice
retrubution has good ingame videos and you can play with different races in the campain
but the mission are the same just the race change so its boring
Please get out, go back to whatever horrible bridge you came from. Not having any of the things oyu mentioned doesnt take away from the fact it's still an RTS.
I must say that this thread went way better than expected. Long and elaborate posts with arguments and counter-arguments adding to the discussion, proper english being used, basically no flames and relatively low troll count.
dawn of war 2 is pretty challenging to play and makes alot of fun. might be a bit harder to get into, but if you read up on it and maybe watch a few vods you should get an understanding fast :3.
Also dawn of war 2 has macro, but its really different compared to other rts games. On youtube there are a few vods about dow2 at the channel of iccuptv (i know they are now renamed into esvtv, but the channel name wasn't changed)
So for Multiplayer get retribution, but a good advice for the single player, play the race you like the most first in the singleplayer xD. Singleplayer in dawn of war 1+2 so far the first 2 parts always have a nice story, since race specific, afterwards they want to use all races, which reduces the quality tremendously. (of the singleplayer that is, its still nice ... but really short for an rts)
mmmm i think i need to play the vanilla single player of dawn of war 2 again x3
I am playing a bunch of DoW 2 Retribution right now. I am a noob, but I did find some pros and cons about the multiplayer:
Pros +When the game starts you jump right into the action. There isn't much of a set-up phase. This makes for a fast paced game. +6 different races and the units look cool and are very well animated. Better than SC2. +Voice acting is phenomenal, on par with SC2 or better. +vehicles are badass. Cons -Too many upgrades. Each unit has like 3 upgrades and often some are activated abilities. It's often impossible to tell what your enemy really has in his army even if you scout him, since not all upgrades are very visible. Even the ones that are often blend in. -Really hard to scout. Your enemy doesn't have a real base so you don't have much of a way to tell what upgrade path he is taking and what tech he is going for until he actually gets it. Unlike in games with bases, where you can see a templar archives going up and realize there a certain tech is being unlocked before he gets it. -Matchmaking is broken, it has never worked for me except once, even with 3000 players online. This is for Retribution which is using Steam.
And not really a negative: While I enjoy the control point system, it's not my favorite, at least the way they did it in this game. Only certain heroes have the ability to fortify control points and that means if you don't play one of those, it turns into a game of tag. The retreat mechanic seems to reinforce this. It's not bad though.
Managing an army that's spread all over the map is a lot harder than it seems on paper. In SC2 you tend to have one giant blob and one or two little satellite squads roaming around for harassment. In DoW2 you can either blob up, or spread out and cover the whole map - the latter usually being the dominant strategy since you're highly susceptible to suppression if you blob up. On the other hand, it's very easy to get distracted by one battle only to lose an entire squad because you weren't paying attention to everybody.
It's a lot of fun, and a much, much better casual team game than SC2 is, but I wouldn't recommend it for competitive 1v1. SC2 has that nailed. There are too many annoying random effects (e.g. special moves from melee units), army imbalances (e.g. some army/hero combos get powerful Infiltration units long before other armies can counter it) and moments where unit control is lost (e.g. sync-kills) for someone desiring competitive 1v1 to put up with.
I do love the team games. I adore the fact that they fucked over the usual 2v2 or 3v3 strategy of blobbing up and rushing one guy. If you do that in DoW2 you'll sacrifice map control (i.e. resources), fall extremely far behind in economy and end up losing the whole map later when they start crushing you with Tier 2 tanks etc. Suppression is also a great mechanic that acts as a strong disincentive to grouping up.
On September 21 2011 01:08 Bibdy wrote: Managing an army that's spread all over the map is a lot harder than it seems on paper. In SC2 you tend to have one giant blob and one or two little satellite squads roaming around for harassment. In DoW2 you can either blob up, or spread out and cover the whole map - the latter usually being the dominant strategy since you're highly susceptible to suppression if you blob up. On the other hand, it's very easy to get distracted by one battle only to lose an entire squad because you weren't paying attention to everybody.
It's a lot of fun, and a much, much better casual team game than SC2 is, but I wouldn't recommend it for competitive 1v1. SC2 has that nailed. There are too many annoying random effects (e.g. special moves from melee units), army imbalances (e.g. some army/hero combos get powerful Infiltration units long before other armies can counter it) and moments where unit control is lost (e.g. sync-kills) for someone desiring competitive 1v1 to put up with.
I do love the team games. I adore the fact that they fucked over the usual 2v2 or 3v3 strategy of blobbing up and rushing one guy. If you do that in DoW2 you'll sacrifice map control (i.e. resources), fall extremely far behind in economy and end up losing the whole map later when they start crushing you with Tier 2 tanks etc. Suppression is also a great mechanic that acts as a strong disincentive to grouping up.
Ah dow2... I had some good times with this game. I got up to ts38 before CR and up to ts41 at the beginning of CR for 3v3, and whenever matchmaking worked ( which was literally 1 out of 100 games- my 3v3 team literally went on a 140-0 winning streak at one point due to facing noobs a whole week), I fought some EPIC battles. I quit playing due to the dumb matchmaking (via GFWL which sucked dick) and the imbalance of the game, as well as being sucked into LoL.
But yes, 2v2 and 3v3 is way more fun than 1v1. I don't know how balanced the game is now but if you find a good teammate(s) and matchmaking is nice enough to give you equally-skilled opponents, it beats SC2 hands down in terms of sheer fun.
EPT
