EPT- Wich one is more active? has more tournaments? More people online (how many?)?
- Has any of both good "pro" scene?
- Not based on luck (or random events like could make you win a battle)
- More balanced.
thx!
DoW2.. Chaos Rising or Retribution?
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
OoFuzer
Chile436 Posts
- Wich one is more active? has more tournaments? More people online (how many?)? - Has any of both good "pro" scene? - Not based on luck (or random events like could make you win a battle) - More balanced. thx! | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
OoFuzer
Chile436 Posts
| ||
|
brichals
Germany50 Posts
Anyway if you want to play campaign you can pick up Dow2 vanilla and Chaos Rising for cheap. It gives a story following Blood Ravens in a typical 40K environment and it's fun. Chaos Rising follows on from vanilla so when you finish that campaign you import your army with all collectibles and progress to fight the next campaign. Both campaigns are massive. About 40 missions in vanilla although a bit repetitive they are good. Nobody plays Vanilla/CR in multiplayer anymore unless you have friends to hook up with etc. It uses Games For windows Live and is dead. Retribution has a relatively boring campaign but the multiplayer is pretty balanced.Buying Retri lest you use all races in multiplayer. Really it is not in a bad state like people say. It uses Steam for matchmaking and although the player base is smallish it is growing and people have quite positive feelings. There isn't a pro scene as such but you might win some Relic goodies or the odd 50$ in the tournaments there are. There are many good players though. It's a bit niche but its a good game. Normally you get 3,000 - 4,000 players online at one time, active player base is about 50,000 I heard. I would say Retribution has about as many players as one of the smaller blizzard servers like SEA or Taiwan but thats a guesstimate. Anyway, you can get games in 1-4 minutes for normal ELOs. If you are in Chile then I'm not sure how your ping will be and if there are many closeby players in your region. Then the smaller player base might be an issue. I don't know if you play other Steam games and had problems. I have to say that to be honest. Although you might get good connection to US players who have a decent player base, so you can find lag free games. 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. If you want stories and campaigns for the lore DOW 1 also has good campaigns (and DOW1 absolutely rocked, nobody can deny that). Worth picking up and playing as they are dirt cheap nowadays and really a good product. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
Example of how awesome DoW2 can be: http://www.own3d.tv/dow2live#/watch/147651 P. S. Get Retribution. Vanilla DoW2 campaign was nice, CR campaign was crap (and requires vanilla). Retribution is standalone and gets rid of annoying as hell GFWL, it also features campaign for every race, not just Space Marines. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
So for multiplayer you should probably visit rts-sanctuary.com and post in the DoWpro Section, to find some gamers. A mod which improved gameplay and has a still active community. | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 12 2011 19:01 Manit0u wrote: brichals summed it up nicely, really disappointed with Endymion's reply too as he's incorrect in basically every comment about the game. You still can't deny that there are many random effects in CoH and DoW that can change the outcome of the game. It's just not a good game for competition when there is too much randomness generated by the system. :/ | ||
|
Alex)
Scotland263 Posts
On September 12 2011 21:49 hotbreakfest wrote: You still can't deny that there are many random effects in CoH and DoW that can change the outcome of the game. It's just not a good game for competition when there is too much randomness generated by the system. :/ Whats the random effect or luck that Endymion was on about? Can someone explain? | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
Ayestes
United States106 Posts
As far as I'm concerned, DoW2 is just an RTS without macro. Their macro is map control. It's a great game, but it's competitive scene is pretty small. The balance is not nearly as close as StarCraft II for example. | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
 SeleCT comes from Dawn of war 1 multiplayer was a lot of fun, I didn't play a whole lot of it but I really enjoyed the stuff I did. I was more of a bronzeleaguer than anything, but the mechanics and style of the game are really engaging at any level. From what I know at higher levels it becomes an incredibly intense early game microfest, but at lower levels there's a lot of positional warfare since terrain bonuses are huge. Imagine TVT but all infantry based where you're setting up heavy weapons in craters and such to cover lines of approach, setting up flanks and siege lines, leapfrogging units through cover and so forth. | ||
|
NeonFlare
Finland1307 Posts
most of the betrayer dialogues were very good compared to rest of the game. Multiplayer is quite intense at similar skill levels, sure there's lot less to do than in SC and 1v1 can easily become point tag all the way through game unless you manage well with controlling key paths. The thing I really like about it though is how bigger games retain the balance well compared to most other games, you capture nodes for your team, not just for you and the bigger maps can become massive intensive warzones As downside, all players pushing the same route with full force can become quite hard to stop, especially early on, as some units become really scary when massed and have amazing synergy with some others. | ||
|
brichals
Germany50 Posts
On September 12 2011 22:27 Alex) wrote: Whats the random effect or luck that Endymion was on about? Can someone explain? There are various aspects of luck in the game, when you consider it's based upon a dice roll tabletop game that is the reason. In the course of a game though it evens out or should do. You may feel like raging if you get a bad call but i don't really see that as a problem. The examples I can think of. Units have a chance to miss with their guns. E.g. A plasma pistol hits light units 80% of the time but large units 100% etc. Some missile launchers etc might have 25% hit chance against some targets for example. I think in BW there was a chance to miss if you fired uphill, its like that but more complex (there are many unit types and modifiers, so much so that I think nobody knows all of them). Stats are hard to find also which can be a bit annoying but there is a guy making a tooltip mod which helps. When you have 2 squads meleeing each other there is a chance that you do a special attack which knocks the other squad over and leaves them a bit unorganised so you can get an advantage. Certain units have a higher melee skill which makes this happen more often but it's still a bit random. You can do synch kills against any units which is an animation making a very gruesome kill, however this lasts for 2-3 seconds so now you have your Space Marine Commander stood in the middle of the battle doing nothing except elaborately disembowelling somebody. This can mess up your plans, your unit takes very little damage during a synch kill so its OK but it can stop you from being where you want to be. Also you might have a squad of 5 units all taking hits and depending on luck you could lose 0,1 or 2 models as when squads target another you can't choose normally which model is attacked. See you control the squad not the individual units. Sometimes you purchase a squad commander that gives you vision or grenade ability for example and it can suck if you lose that guy first, but this has been adressed in the last patch. For some squads the purchased squad leader is now always last to die. These are most of the random effects I can think of but it's not a big problem. They average out, and you have to consider them. If my fresh T1 melee squad fights a T3 melee expert I have to consider there is maybe an 80% chance I will get knocked back and have to retreat. | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
 Although I never was a 40k fan, I preferred fantasy. As people are saying, get Retribution, anything that's not on GFWL, that system is like steam with the user friendliness of a rabid mongoose. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
Overall I find it way more entertaining than your regular RTS. Map control plays the biggest factor here so there's no turtling possible. CoH vehicle model inheritance is great too, when first veh comes out and enemy hasn't got some hard AV readily available the impact it has on the game is huge as it's virutally impregnable to most of the fire coming at it at the point. Altering the map by removing cover that might be vital for enemy etc. At higher level this game requires some amazing micro and multi-tasking skills, not to mention the timings. Macro is different as it's not based on producing stuff en masse but rather getting right things at the right time because even one wrong, tiny purchase (like getting an upgrade for the squad) can set you back so much that it's going to be GG. | ||
|
Latham
9558 Posts
On September 12 2011 23:20 deth2munkies wrote: Real WH40k fans buy the figurines Although I never was a 40k fan, I preferred fantasy. As people are saying, get Retribution, anything that's not on GFWL, that system is like steam with the user friendliness of a rabid mongoose. WH40K figurines.... drugs would be cheaper. Seriously. Play Dow 1 =) real RTS (with base building and teching) + customisable units. The pathing sucks ass though. When you try to unleash a 20/20 infantry and a 20/20 vehicle army the clusterfuck is unimaginable. Dark Crusade and Soulstorm both have a risk style campaign, meaning there's a big map and you set out to conquer it, as do other races. Really fun =) | ||
|
Alex)
Scotland263 Posts
On September 12 2011 23:12 brichals wrote: There are various aspects of luck in the game, when you consider it's based upon a dice roll tabletop game that is the reason. In the course of a game though it evens out or should do. You may feel like raging if you get a bad call but i don't really see that as a problem. The examples I can think of. Units have a chance to miss with their guns. E.g. A plasma pistol hits light units 80% of the time but large units 100% etc. Some missile launchers etc might have 25% hit chance against some targets for example. I think in BW there was a chance to miss if you fired uphill, its like that but more complex (there are many unit types and modifiers, so much so that I think nobody knows all of them). Stats are hard to find also which can be a bit annoying but there is a guy making a tooltip mod which helps. When you have 2 squads meleeing each other there is a chance that you do a special attack which knocks the other squad over and leaves them a bit unorganised so you can get an advantage. Certain units have a higher melee skill which makes this happen more often but it's still a bit random. You can do synch kills against any units which is an animation making a very gruesome kill, however this lasts for 2-3 seconds so now you have your Space Marine Commander stood in the middle of the battle doing nothing except elaborately disembowelling somebody. This can mess up your plans, your unit takes very little damage during a synch kill so its OK but it can stop you from being where you want to be. Also you might have a squad of 5 units all taking hits and depending on luck you could lose 0,1 or 2 models as when squads target another you can't choose normally which model is attacked. See you control the squad not the individual units. Sometimes you purchase a squad commander that gives you vision or grenade ability for example and it can suck if you lose that guy first, but this has been adressed in the last patch. For some squads the purchased squad leader is now always last to die. These are most of the random effects I can think of but it's not a big problem. They average out, and you have to consider them. If my fresh T1 melee squad fights a T3 melee expert I have to consider there is maybe an 80% chance I will get knocked back and have to retreat. Thanks for explaining i played dow 1 and 2 casual nothing serious had no idea there was miss chances | ||
|
Hasuu
Canada178 Posts
Gamereplays.org has the most consistent community, and relicnews.com is the next one. I personally worked on these games and loved every minute of it. | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
Though Their isn't a pro "scene," like sc2, where the top players all have teams and are paid a salary. There are top players who are considered the best and who win all the tournaments, or make it into the finals. | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 12 2011 23:59 Manit0u wrote: I disagree with random stuff making the game not competetive. CoH was pretty damn competetive and had some really great players. And this random things can be amazing from spectator perspective because they allow for some epic stuff to happen (which most likely makes players rage but spectators are jizzing all over the place), like powerful shots missing a 1hp guy/vehicle which allows him to survive. Overall I find it way more entertaining than your regular RTS. Map control plays the biggest factor here so there's no turtling possible. CoH vehicle model inheritance is great too, when first veh comes out and enemy hasn't got some hard AV readily available the impact it has on the game is huge as it's virutally impregnable to most of the fire coming at it at the point. Altering the map by removing cover that might be vital for enemy etc. At higher level this game requires some amazing micro and multi-tasking skills, not to mention the timings. Macro is different as it's not based on producing stuff en masse but rather getting right things at the right time because even one wrong, tiny purchase (like getting an upgrade for the squad) can set you back so much that it's going to be GG. People can make any game competitive. That doesn't mean it's a good game to do so. The games are certainly fun, but fun is subjective and not the former. There is a bit of randomness in every game, because humans are inherently unpredictable. It's a good thing to have this player-generated randomness, because it unlocks another layer of mind games. Why do you think scouting is so important in RTS-games? It reduces the amount of guessing the scouting player needs to do. Having a system that projects a lot of it's own randomness is NOT a good thing. There is simply no need to make the player worried that his AT might miss it's first shot on an enemy panzer and gets a damaged infantry squad blown to pieces. I'm a bit of a AoE/AoM junkie and I'll tell you that slightly randomized resources on the map made me very worried when I used to play rank. Examples of this would be: - Having your hunts just a little too far away from your initial town center can significantly screw up your age times - Having your 2nd or 3rd gold mine a little too far forward makes your villagers more vulnerable to raids - On water maps, having your fish a little too spread out forces you to build more docks to increase their efficiency (drop-off points) in gathering food and more garrison points to protect from enemy warships. Not to mention the extra docks become a liability, because they are vulnerable to enemy land units and higher tier warships. Little things like that don't influence the outcome of the game too much. However, when there are MANY small system-generated random factors it can definitely make an impact on who wins. The better player will still win the majority of the time, but he/she could be winning more if it wasn't for all those little random factors. You can go ahead and call me an AoE/SC elitist, but the amount of macro in Relic RTS games is as minimal as it gets. Don't get me wrong though, Relic games still put an excellent emphasis on zoning (map control), well-timed pressure, and positioning, but removing a lot of macro also removes depth. You claim that the DoW and CoH systems make turtling obsolete. That is removing depth, because turtling is a legitimate strategy. Fighting turtles can definitely be boring and annoying, but removing them takes out potential options from the game. You can turtle in both SC and AoE and it won't always win you the game, but it's still a viable option that can save you by playing your cards right. | ||
|
Detri
United Kingdom683 Posts
I played DoW2 for 2 years pretty much after I was dont with Company of Heroes it was the only RTS I tried and I stuck with it even tho the game is fun,( WHOOOOOOOOSH assault marines) I couldn't even face playing it after I started to play SC2 beta. You can play 15 games before you actually get a decent opponent, how are you supposed to improve when all you are doing is bashing nubs all night? Relic make fun games, but balance is a secondary concern. Thats why they dont really have an competitive scene. Think of a nydus that builds in 1 second and you can unload your entire army instantly from, that sound even remotely balanced to you?  <Edit> Also they are free </Edit> | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
On September 13 2011 02:28 hotbreakfest wrote: [...] when there are MANY small system-generated random factors it can definitely make an impact on who wins. The better player will still win the majority of the time, but he/she could be winning more if it wasn't for all those little random factors. You can go ahead and call me an AoE/SC elitist, but the amount of macro in Relic RTS games is as minimal as it gets. Don't get me wrong though, Relic games still put an excellent emphasis on zoning (map control), well-timed pressure, and positioning, but removing a lot of macro also removes depth. You claim that the DoW and CoH systems make turtling obsolete. That is removing depth, because turtling is a legitimate strategy. Fighting turtles can definitely be boring and annoying, but removing them takes out potential options from the game. You can turtle in both SC and AoE and it won't always win you the game, but it's still a viable option that can save you by playing your cards right. When going against the randomness factor you shouldn't really make the point of "people could be winning more if it weren't a factor" because they could just as well win less. Randomness goes both ways and its influence on your skill and performance diminishes with the number of games played. This random factors also provide a very interesting process when it comes down to critical thinking when in game. Often you will see 2 great players playing with odds and taking risks they wouldn't if not for this random factors (2 low units battling it out and players not retreating them in hopes of getting the special attack, possible outcomes when not retreating: wipe or glory), this makes the game more entertaining both to play and watch. I don't really get the argument about macro either. Who said you need macro to make a successful and competetive game anyway? There are many mechanics in DoW2 that provide sufficient action sink, if you'd add macro in the most common meaning of the word the game would suck because the physical demands it would put upon you would be unconquerable by people with below 400-500APM (and even then I'm not sure it would be sufficient). As it is, in a well-developed game between good players you really need Boxer-like multiple drop micro and multi-tasking. While it may look so, this game is pretty challenging. Especially if you're matched against a good opponent, there's just so many things you need to be mindful about at all times all over the map... And another nice thing about this game is that it scales well into games involving more than 2 players. WC3 was probably the only game so far I've seen do it well before CoH and DoW. I might even go as far as saying that it's more entertaining in 2v2 than 1v1 (just like WC3 was in my opinion), without it being broken like BW or SC2 where 2v2 is pure bullshit. | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=808609 This thread is making me reinstall. Gotta get some DOW2 in. I think the main thing holding the game back is the lack of major funding. If a good sponsor came in and promoted the tournmanets and such. The scene would be huge. | ||
|
Laids
United Kingdom596 Posts
I think the main thing holding the game back is the lack of major funding. If a good sponsor came in and promoted the tournmanets and such. The scene would be huge. Hmm I don't know about that, CoH still has money tourneys and a thriving Game Replays community, I doubt Relic would want the more successful CoH to have competition from DoW2. I could never get into DoW2 after the original, it's so boring to watch in comparison. | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
On September 13 2011 05:52 Laids wrote: Hmm I don't know about that, CoH still has money tourneys and a thriving Game Replays community, I doubt Relic would want the more successful CoH to have competition from DoW2. I could never get into DoW2 after the original, it's so boring to watch in comparison. They still support DOW2 heavly relic does. I think if a company (not relic) came in a ran tournaments (think like ESL or Zotac, or even craftcup (they hold cnc4 and fifa stuff too)) There scene would go by a lot. ESL has held some DOW2 tournaments but not many, what they have done has been succesful and really popular iirc. GR has a big community that supports COH. But they also support HoN, LoL, and DOW2 as well. DOW2 has almost the same amount of stuff going on in the GR community as COH just its not all as high profile. The need for more tournament runners to make DOW2 stuff is the key to its success. about 2000 people are online most of the time afaik. And it had more people a few months ago but has declined due to lack ot intrest. If the scene were to grow and people were to plans tuff. We could see some really amazing games and a great scene that can sustaine itself. | ||
|
Tabularasa
Germany116 Posts
The "randomness" is not really the problem though. Judging a situation correctly (depending on cover, distance, weaponry, hp, with vehicles even penetration and angle) becomes a essential skill. You can always estimate whether you'll win or lose a fight from the current situation, except if its rather close and micro gets involved. And while there is a margin of error, this allows "greedy" play in those mechanics. You can choose to let a squad stay longer than "safe" in a battle to finish of an enemy squad and sometimes its like a game of retreat-chicken where the winner keeps the territory. Think of poker: Sure, its all about random chances, but good players know to judge their chances very accurately, especially taking into account the game-situation. They can't predict a single flop of a card, but they know when to be greedy and when to play safe. Also, there are often many engagements at once, and jumping between these, judging and adjusting the situations to your favor and not missing any key moment (like a nade being trown, cover being blown, positional changes etc.) is essentially the "macro" of CoH. The problem about CoH lie more in some of the design-choices (imagining fast-flying bunkers in sc2). Relics seems like they want "awesome" things, reward people who spend more money, but got no experience in whats needed for a game to be balanced and fun for all sides in the long term. The new factions of the expansion weren't balanced well, the whole buy-another-tiny-expansion-for-more-imbalanced-units-thing was ridiculous and even with the newest balance patch, it doesn't feel as if evenly skilled players got even chances with all races. Players who play extremly abusive can pretty much ruin any good match, although its less of a problem when the expansion factions are not involved. On the other hand, its just ridiculously fun to play CoH, often more than SC2 to me. Good planing and micro pays off, battles are intense (and you *have* to watch them :D) and there are lots of different strategic possibilities. I played Dawn of War 2 in the beta, hoping for a good alternative to CoH, but the mechanics felt much more "mushy", you had even less base building and fewer number of units. Everything felt watered down. It just didn't appeal to me any more, although I still love CoH. If you want to see some CoH in action, watch some Tales of Heroes episodes. They originally got me playing CoH online: Tales of Heroes | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
On September 13 2011 09:11 Endymion wrote: Ok... compared to Starcraft, it doesn't have a pro-scene and because of the 6 or 5 depending races, balance is really iffy. It's the same with company of heroes, i loved the game, but the multiplayer was absolutely retarded compared to BW or even WC3. (gee i hope this mortar round doesn't miss 5 times in a row or else i lose the game). So in context of what the OP asked, I guess I can't really comment on how "active" the communities are, but last I heard they were nearly dead. The rest is my opinion, but it doesn't hold up to Blizzard's RTS franchises. Thats stating the obv though. Of course its not going to be as good as bw or wc3 (maybe sc2) But as a RTS in its own right (or RTT if you pefer) its pretty darn good. I would say DOW2 needs more game sense and map awareness than sc2. Seeing that you have to keep control of points and also keep map control (map control=victory) The miss and hit mechanic is auctally a lot of fun. There is a lot of pre judging before getting into a fight. the random aspect makes the game mopre skillful, as you can't just run a unit of space marines into another unit of covered choas space marines and expect them to hit every shot and win. So micro and taking care of your units is much more important. Cause a one sided fight can turn around and you lose all your stuff if you are not looking. think of it like banelings chasing after a group of clumped marines. Its rather random how many the baneling hits because of the aoe. It might hit 10, it might hit 5, and the difference between 5 and 10 is big. or even like a fungal or storm. There is a lot of randomness to how many units the storm or fungal hits, you can't say "my storm will hit 30 marines all the time," cause there is unit movement and such. So it doesn't take the same skill as sc2 to play DOW2 but it takes a different skill set. It does have a high skill cap because of all these things and it never comes down to (gee i hope this mortar round doesn't miss 5 times in a row or else i lose the game). If a game ever comes down to that, you lost way before that moment. Because 1, You're unlikely to miss 5 mortars in a row. 2, If you only have 1 mortar unit, you have lost the game already cause you should have more than 1 squad on the field Like I metioned eariler, There is somewhere around 2000 people on most of the time. With it chaging due to time and such ( would expect to see 5k people on during peak hours) so it isn't dead. But not the 750k that sc2 has (average) also keep in mind that dow2 has no ums or anything like that except for last stand. So those 2k people are either idling in the game, playing campaign, or on mulitplayer. Where as the sc2 numbers are people on Bnet (not sure if just global or NA, would assume global) and doesn't account for people playing ums or idling. Auctally there are a number of sc2 devs who worked in DOW2. I think 2-3 once DOW2 released started to work in sc2 (so around 08 ish) and one is afaik the senior designer for sc2. | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 13 2011 04:41 Manit0u wrote: When going against the randomness factor you shouldn't really make the point of "people could be winning more if it weren't a factor" because they could just as well win less. Randomness goes both ways and its influence on your skill and performance diminishes with the number of games played. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 04:41 Manit0u wrote: This random factors also provide a very interesting process when it comes down to critical thinking when in game. Often you will see 2 great players playing with odds and taking risks they wouldn't if not for this random factors (2 low units battling it out and players not retreating them in hopes of getting the special attack, possible outcomes when not retreating: wipe or glory), this makes the game more entertaining both to play and watch. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 04:41 Manit0u wrote: I don't really get the argument about macro either. Who said you need macro to make a successful and competetive game anyway? There are many mechanics in DoW2 that provide sufficient action sink, if you'd add macro in the most common meaning of the word the game would suck because the physical demands it would put upon you would be unconquerable by people with below 400-500APM (and even then I'm not sure it would be sufficient). As it is, in a well-developed game between good players you really need Boxer-like multiple drop micro and multi-tasking. While it may look so, this game is pretty challenging. Especially if you're matched against a good opponent, there's just so many things you need to be mindful about at all times all over the map... + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 04:41 Manit0u wrote: And another nice thing about this game is that it scales well into games involving more than 2 players. WC3 was probably the only game so far I've seen do it well before CoH and DoW. I might even go as far as saying that it's more entertaining in 2v2 than 1v1 (just like WC3 was in my opinion), without it being broken like BW or SC2 where 2v2 is pure bullshit. However, the lack of macro and heavy focus on heroes in WC3 made me quite disappointed with it. That's another can of worms that I don't really want to debate. | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
On September 13 2011 10:03 hotbreakfest wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 04:41 Manit0u wrote: When going against the randomness factor you shouldn't really make the point of "people could be winning more if it weren't a factor" because they could just as well win less. Randomness goes both ways and its influence on your skill and performance diminishes with the number of games played. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 04:41 Manit0u wrote: This random factors also provide a very interesting process when it comes down to critical thinking when in game. Often you will see 2 great players playing with odds and taking risks they wouldn't if not for this random factors (2 low units battling it out and players not retreating them in hopes of getting the special attack, possible outcomes when not retreating: wipe or glory), this makes the game more entertaining both to play and watch. If a top player is relying on luck to win a game. They won't win. The top players know when to go in and when to not. Its not an aspect of, if these guys hit I lose/win. If it comes down to a single unit, you're playing the game wrong. 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. SC2 doesn't have control points, doesn't have cover, doesn't have hero units. Does that make it a dumbed down RTS from the point of view of a DOW2 player. No, not really. Just makes it a different RTS with different ways to play the game and a different skill set to play it and play it well. A top sc2 player isn't going to be good at DOW2 just because he has superior macro. and vice versa for DOW2 player in sc2. Both games require a lot of skill to play at the top level. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 13 2011 09:48 masterbreti wrote: I would say DOW2 needs more game sense and map awareness than sc2. Seeing that you have to keep control of points and also keep map control (map control=victory) The miss and hit mechanic is auctally a lot of fun. There is a lot of pre judging before getting into a fight. the random aspect makes the game mopre skillful, as you can't just run a unit of space marines into another unit of covered choas space marines and expect them to hit every shot and win. So micro and taking care of your units is much more important. Cause a one sided fight can turn around and you lose all your stuff if you are not looking. The random aspect only makes players more worried about being randomed out than getting out-played. This system-generated randomness doesn't trump over skill, but it's still important enough to shape the outcome of the game. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 09:48 masterbreti wrote: think of it like banelings chasing after a group of clumped marines. Its rather random how many the baneling hits because of the aoe. It might hit 10, it might hit 5, and the difference between 5 and 10 is big. or even like a fungal or storm. There is a lot of randomness to how many units the storm or fungal hits, you can't say "my storm will hit 30 marines all the time," cause there is unit movement and such. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 09:48 masterbreti wrote: So it doesn't take the same skill as sc2 to play DOW2 but it takes a different skill set. It does have a high skill cap because of all these things and it never comes down to (gee i hope this mortar round doesn't miss 5 times in a row or else i lose the game). If a game ever comes down to that, you lost way before that moment. Because 1, You're unlikely to miss 5 mortars in a row. 2, If you only have 1 mortar unit, you have lost the game already cause you should have more than 1 squad on the field You're definitely likely to miss 1-2 mortars in a row. If you and your opponent are on match point in grand finals, then this could definitely fuck things up. I don't think it's fair that you had enough of an advantage to lockdown your opponent and grab the $2000 prize, but your mortar squad could not hit your opponents stationary AT or machine gunners in time. Why do you deserve to lose your advantage, because the game already decided that for you? You didn't lose it because of your incompetence, you just got unlucky. | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
In general the miss feature hardly even make a dent in a close game. Cause guess what? He has the same thing. He can miss some machine gun shots etc.. The randomness isn't really a problem. If anything it makes the game more exciting to watch. The top players don't go by luck. If it comes down to luck. Then you have lost already. Don't rely on luck to win you game, and don't rely on getting lucky to not lose a game. You never see top players get unlucky and lose due to randomness. Its a factor in their decisions and they play accordingly. If they have a smart prediction that they will miss a shot. They won't engage a machine gun because the risk would outweigh the possible outcome. In that sense I think the game has great potentital to be a esport. Just needs the right support. | ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
On September 13 2011 10:51 masterbreti wrote: I have never seen a game where a single mortar shot or a single unit would gain that big of an advantage just purely based on luck. I never see a caster go "well he got unlucky with those shots and it cost him the game," In general the miss feature hardly even make a dent in a close game. Cause guess what? He has the same thing. He can miss some machine gun shots etc.. The randomness isn't really a problem. If anything it makes the game more exciting to watch. The top players don't go by luck. If it comes down to luck. Then you have lost already. Don't rely on luck to win you game, and don't rely on getting lucky to not lose a game. You never see top players get unlucky and lose due to randomness. Its a factor in their decisions and they play accordingly. If they have a smart prediction that they will miss a shot. They won't engage a machine gun because the risk would outweigh the possible outcome. In that sense I think the game has great potentital to be a esport. Just needs the right support. I have however seen multiple instances where the retreating squad glitches out and gets killed for it, or a sync kill goes off and hugely lowers the amount of damage that could have been done. There are a lot of small things that could be adjusted with a mod and some polish in order to make it competitive (Hell if they did it with L4D they can do it for anything). | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 13 2011 10:24 Boblion wrote: There are some luck involved in bw and even more in Sc2 too. Imperfect information ( FoW ) sup ? + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 10:21 masterbreti wrote: If a top player is relying on luck to win a game. They won't win. The top players know when to go in and when to not. Its not an aspect of, if these guys hit I lose/win. If it comes down to a single unit, you're playing the game wrong. + Show Spoiler + 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. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 10:21 masterbreti wrote: SC2 doesn't have control points, doesn't have cover, doesn't have hero units. Does that make it a dumbed down RTS from the point of view of a DOW2 player. No, not really. Just makes it a different RTS with different ways to play the game and a different skill set to play it and play it well. DoW doesn't have different skill sets and I've already explained why. If I missed something, then explain to me what these hidden skill sets are exactly. Cover mode isn't too much different than making photon cannons or bunkers with a bit of army support, because all of these are good, semi-static tools for controlling space. SC2 does have control points and they're called expansions. + Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 10:21 masterbreti wrote: A top sc2 player isn't going to be good at DOW2 just because he has superior macro. and vice versa for DOW2 player in sc2. Both games require a lot of skill to play at the top level. | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 13 2011 10:51 masterbreti wrote: I have never seen a game where a single mortar shot or a single unit would gain that big of an advantage just purely based on luck. I never see a caster go "well he got unlucky with those shots and it cost him the game," In general the miss feature hardly even make a dent in a close game. Cause guess what? He has the same thing. He can miss some machine gun shots etc.. The randomness isn't really a problem. If anything it makes the game more exciting to watch. The top players don't go by luck. If it comes down to luck. Then you have lost already. Don't rely on luck to win you game, and don't rely on getting lucky to not lose a game. You never see top players get unlucky and lose due to randomness. Its a factor in their decisions and they play accordingly. If they have a smart prediction that they will miss a shot. They won't engage a machine gun because the risk would outweigh the possible outcome. In that sense I think the game has great potentital to be a esport. Just needs the right support. | ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
On September 13 2011 10:24 Boblion wrote: There are some luck involved in bw and even more in Sc2 too. Imperfect information ( FoW ) sup ? How is imperfect information luck, exactly? It's your own fault for not scouting. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
Units having vastly different ranges, supression and stealth mechanics, heroes with spells and wargear upgrades, nades etc. Its all fun and the different races makes for a great atmosphere. Id suggest getting everything. The first two campains (vanilla and Chaos rising) are better than the last but Retribution is still kinda cool if you fancy Orks. I prefer it like this rather than the old games where you actually had a base building aspect / macro. The limited amount of units and the fighting reminds me somewhat of the table top game (that i have never played ;P ). The game modes are nifty tastic (last stand and 2v2,3v3,4v4). | ||
|
brichals
Germany50 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On September 13 2011 11:07 Percutio wrote: I have however seen multiple instances where the retreating squad glitches out and gets killed for it, or a sync kill goes off and hugely lowers the amount of damage that could have been done. There are a lot of small things that could be adjusted with a mod and some polish in order to make it competitive (Hell if they did it with L4D they can do it for anything). This is fair. There were quite a few glitches in Retri and also the style of game and a bit of imbalance turned people off. However the glitches and imbalance have been sorted out a lot and the community is growing and feeling positive. Space Marine has took some (about 1/4) players away last week but they will be back, and maybe more. hopefully it still gows. people want to play this game but some bugs just break immersion and it's easy to say "screw that I'm going to SC2". By the way I think the lack of bugs in SC2 for a major release is one of the main factors of its popularity, Blizzard nailed that. There was a glitch where a SM casting unit could keep firing like a mini psi storm (Librarian Smite bug) without losing energy or without cooldown if they cancelled the action during animation. This and others sent the GR community crazy which ended up with Relic coming out being honest saying what difficulties they have and now they all worked together to fix most things. The main balance designer is now very active in the community and after Space Marine release they are pushing Retribution again. If they do things well there could still be a long life left yet. OK it will never be as big as Starcraft2 but you don't really need that if you enjoy the game. You can still compete and get involved at any level. BTW you can download demos on Steam for all 4 DOW1 games vanilla, Winter Assault, Dark Crusade and SoulStorm. Each has tutorial and like 1-2 hours of campaign content and you can skirmish vs AI on 1-2 maps. They are well worth looking at. DOW2 vanilla has a demo on Steam with the first 3 campaign missions but i wasn't impressed by that. the early missions are a bit dull to be honest but get great later. Multiplayer in Retri is quite different to that campaign mode. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
On September 13 2011 11:09 hotbreakfest wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. I don't like to repeat myself so here's a link for you: Clickity click! 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. | ||
|
brichals
Germany50 Posts
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. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
http://www.own3d.tv/dow2live#/watch/176225 | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
On September 13 2011 18:43 Manit0u wrote: + Show Spoiler + I don't like to repeat myself so here's a link for you: Clickity click! 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. On September 13 2011 19:05 brichals wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
On September 13 2011 22:41 hotbreakfest wrote: 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. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
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. | ||
|
perser84
Germany399 Posts
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 | ||
|
brichals
Germany50 Posts
On September 13 2011 23:05 gillon wrote: 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. | ||
|
hotbreakfest
United States145 Posts
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. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17920 Posts
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. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17237 Posts
I give this thread the "Quality Thread" award  | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
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 | ||
|
brichals
Germany50 Posts
http://www.dowreplays.net/ | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
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. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
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. Oh, and of course, moments like this: | ||
|
spacemonkey4eve
United States267 Posts
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. Oh, and of course, moments like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe5g2MvbH1I 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. | ||
| ||
