|
On January 30 2009 04:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +No delete function!!! Nor is there an ability to retire your units ie. return them to the HQ for a % cost back. At the moment the only way to get rid of units to free pop cap is to sacrifice them and give the enemy XP. This needs rectifying.
Can someone tell me why these features are desireable  ? Can't you just target your own unit and kill it if you so desperately want it gone?
No you can't target your own units that's his point really, you have to sacrifice them.
Units have an upkeep cost (I know you know that, just for others), I guess with the way experience works it would be best to get rid of your weaker units as they are simply a liability that's costing you money to have on the battle.
|
Im not sure how this game qualifies as an RTS, the first game I played I wondered if this was just one of the modes, surely I wasnt playing the real game? One building??? All of your units level up??? Controlling points for resources....
|
On January 30 2009 02:34 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2009 02:24 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:On January 30 2009 01:57 Eury wrote:Your HQ provides enough resources that capping REQ points is less important and it is hard to defend them with no listening posts in the game anyway. Almost everyone agrees that the resource balance needs to be changed so that holding external requisition points means more. There is some debate about the listening posts though. Some feel it might make the game too defensive - I sort of agree. I personally feel a longer decap time for them would be best (hence allowing one more time to react to stop it). I think I have read somewhere that Relic does plan to fix the resource system in some manner via an early patch. So hopefully this issue will be fixed upon the games final release. I don't think they can do that though. If they change the amount of resources the HQ provides you will fall even further behind if you lose a battle and it will be pretty much impossible to come back in the game then. Warcraft 3 solved that by a) having creeps and b) units didn't get experience, and many Starcraft players still think it is too hard to make a come back in that game. DoW 2 is even worse, and nerfing the HQ will just make it borderline impossible to make a come back. Every game will be pretty much decided in the first few minutes then.
I don't really think that must be true at all. As it is, the hq gives like 200 requisition... and all the remaining points on the 2 player maps give like 80. That's paltry. All they have to do is cut the hq requisition down to like 100, 125, and up all the points to like 40 or 50. Points tend to get exchanged fairly quickly, and if you're behind by a point it won't make a huge difference unless it stands that way for a long while. As it is now, you capture the entire map and get like a 300 requisition advantage over your opponent over the course of the game. That's like one squad.
|
On January 30 2009 04:42 zer0das wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2009 02:34 Eury wrote:On January 30 2009 02:24 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:On January 30 2009 01:57 Eury wrote:Your HQ provides enough resources that capping REQ points is less important and it is hard to defend them with no listening posts in the game anyway. Almost everyone agrees that the resource balance needs to be changed so that holding external requisition points means more. There is some debate about the listening posts though. Some feel it might make the game too defensive - I sort of agree. I personally feel a longer decap time for them would be best (hence allowing one more time to react to stop it). I think I have read somewhere that Relic does plan to fix the resource system in some manner via an early patch. So hopefully this issue will be fixed upon the games final release. I don't think they can do that though. If they change the amount of resources the HQ provides you will fall even further behind if you lose a battle and it will be pretty much impossible to come back in the game then. Warcraft 3 solved that by a) having creeps and b) units didn't get experience, and many Starcraft players still think it is too hard to make a come back in that game. DoW 2 is even worse, and nerfing the HQ will just make it borderline impossible to make a come back. Every game will be pretty much decided in the first few minutes then. I don't really think that must be true at all. As it is, the hq gives like 200 requisition... and all the remaining points on the 2 player maps give like 80. That's paltry. All they have to do is cut the hq requisition down to like 100, 125, and up all the points to like 40 or 50. Points tend to get exchanged fairly quickly, and if you're behind by a point it won't make a huge difference unless it stands that way for a long while. As it is now, you capture the entire map and get like a 300 requisition advantage over your opponent over the course of the game. That's like one squad.
Think about it.
With your scenario if you lose a battle. not only will your opponent's hero and units be a higher level than you, he will also have map control thus having a huge resource advantage, at the same time you have only a HQ that provides very little income.
There is a reason why Relic choose to have your HQ giving a majority of your income. The reason is to make it possible to make a come back in the game. To turn around the tide and win.
It is a poor fix to, in my view, broken meta game where whoever gains an advantage will be favored heavily and the gap between the players widen exponential when someone gains the upperhand.
|
On January 30 2009 06:43 Eury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2009 04:42 zer0das wrote:On January 30 2009 02:34 Eury wrote:On January 30 2009 02:24 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:On January 30 2009 01:57 Eury wrote:Your HQ provides enough resources that capping REQ points is less important and it is hard to defend them with no listening posts in the game anyway. Almost everyone agrees that the resource balance needs to be changed so that holding external requisition points means more. There is some debate about the listening posts though. Some feel it might make the game too defensive - I sort of agree. I personally feel a longer decap time for them would be best (hence allowing one more time to react to stop it). I think I have read somewhere that Relic does plan to fix the resource system in some manner via an early patch. So hopefully this issue will be fixed upon the games final release. I don't think they can do that though. If they change the amount of resources the HQ provides you will fall even further behind if you lose a battle and it will be pretty much impossible to come back in the game then. Warcraft 3 solved that by a) having creeps and b) units didn't get experience, and many Starcraft players still think it is too hard to make a come back in that game. DoW 2 is even worse, and nerfing the HQ will just make it borderline impossible to make a come back. Every game will be pretty much decided in the first few minutes then. I don't really think that must be true at all. As it is, the hq gives like 200 requisition... and all the remaining points on the 2 player maps give like 80. That's paltry. All they have to do is cut the hq requisition down to like 100, 125, and up all the points to like 40 or 50. Points tend to get exchanged fairly quickly, and if you're behind by a point it won't make a huge difference unless it stands that way for a long while. As it is now, you capture the entire map and get like a 300 requisition advantage over your opponent over the course of the game. That's like one squad. Think about it. With your scenario if you lose a battle. not only will your opponent's hero and units be a higher level than you, he will also have map control thus having a huge resource advantage, at the same time you have only a HQ that provides very little income. There is a reason why Relic choose to have your HQ giving a majority of your income. The reason is to make it possible to make a come back in the game. To turn around the tide and win. It is a poor fix to, in my view, broken meta game where whoever gains an advantage will be favored heavily and the gap between the players widen exponential when someone gains the upperhand.
yea and that should be the point
do you like the model of starcraft?
it's the same, you gain an advantage, and it gets bigger and bigger
|
On January 30 2009 06:49 freelander wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2009 06:43 Eury wrote:On January 30 2009 04:42 zer0das wrote:On January 30 2009 02:34 Eury wrote:On January 30 2009 02:24 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:On January 30 2009 01:57 Eury wrote:Your HQ provides enough resources that capping REQ points is less important and it is hard to defend them with no listening posts in the game anyway. Almost everyone agrees that the resource balance needs to be changed so that holding external requisition points means more. There is some debate about the listening posts though. Some feel it might make the game too defensive - I sort of agree. I personally feel a longer decap time for them would be best (hence allowing one more time to react to stop it). I think I have read somewhere that Relic does plan to fix the resource system in some manner via an early patch. So hopefully this issue will be fixed upon the games final release. I don't think they can do that though. If they change the amount of resources the HQ provides you will fall even further behind if you lose a battle and it will be pretty much impossible to come back in the game then. Warcraft 3 solved that by a) having creeps and b) units didn't get experience, and many Starcraft players still think it is too hard to make a come back in that game. DoW 2 is even worse, and nerfing the HQ will just make it borderline impossible to make a come back. Every game will be pretty much decided in the first few minutes then. I don't really think that must be true at all. As it is, the hq gives like 200 requisition... and all the remaining points on the 2 player maps give like 80. That's paltry. All they have to do is cut the hq requisition down to like 100, 125, and up all the points to like 40 or 50. Points tend to get exchanged fairly quickly, and if you're behind by a point it won't make a huge difference unless it stands that way for a long while. As it is now, you capture the entire map and get like a 300 requisition advantage over your opponent over the course of the game. That's like one squad. Think about it. With your scenario if you lose a battle. not only will your opponent's hero and units be a higher level than you, he will also have map control thus having a huge resource advantage, at the same time you have only a HQ that provides very little income. There is a reason why Relic choose to have your HQ giving a majority of your income. The reason is to make it possible to make a come back in the game. To turn around the tide and win. It is a poor fix to, in my view, broken meta game where whoever gains an advantage will be favored heavily and the gap between the players widen exponential when someone gains the upperhand. yea and that should be the point do you like the model of starcraft? it's the same, you gain an advantage, and it gets bigger and bigger
Not even close to that degree.
You gain the same advantages as in SC, but add to that better heroes and better units.
|
On January 30 2009 02:58 Klive5ive wrote:
What I don't understand is why with so few units... do you still have to control them in squads?
It doesn't make any sense that you can't spread out a 3 man tactical squad in the places you want.
This also makes scouting annoying, although as Korbah said it's redundant anyway.
And the fallback command.. why do the units have to run all the way back to base? It's just silly and annoying. Couldn't they fall back to the nearest cover?
Oh there's a suppression gun there... back to base I go?!
As for the squad thingie:
- that's how WH40K works, tabletop and first DoW, you don't buy single units there (unless it's some elite/heavy support/vehicle stuff) - you get them in squads
- in real army single person is nothing, you operate in squads/units - makes more sense
- thanks they didn't expand original DoW in the way tabletop got the Apocalypse expansion, there even vehicles come in squads
As for the fallback command:
- it is a tradeoff - you lose units presence in a battle for extended time mostly but in return you get
a) free of suppression and bonus movement speed so the unit has greater chance of survival
b) your unit gets right to the point where it can heal and reinforce
You basically have to ask yourself a question when using it (I assume that you're using it when your unit stands in the face of complete wipeout and you having no way of saving it): Will I need this unit in the future? If yes then go ahead and retreat, if you find the unit expendable then just leave it to soak the damage for a couple seconds longer.
For me the biggest problems with DoW II right now are (apart from terrible matchmaking):
- suppression units should be moved to T2 or their costs increased significantly, early game suppresion spam is so annoying
- why the hell when your ally drops from the game but you still win it 2v3 you don't get victory? I'm like 6-15 right now, of those 15 losses there's 10 bugs/hangups/discs and I did win a lot more games but someone dropped in them... WTF?!
Is it so hard to give leaver/discer a loss, his teammates 0 points in case of a loss and victory if they manage to win? Of course it should be balanced so if there's one player discing from each team then they get a loss and the remaining players have to fight it out in normal win/loss conditions.
|
they should remove that gay fallback shit and lessen the cost of units / up the cap of units
Apart from that Im really loving this game, so many fun stuff to do, favorite race so far is SM.
|
On January 30 2009 08:21 Frits wrote:
they should remove that gay fallback shit and lessen the cost of units / up the cap of units
Apart from that Im really loving this game, so many fun stuff to do, favorite race so far is SM.
Then you should definitely watch this crappy replay of mine to see how to one-shot carnifexes with drop pods T_T (it's 1v1 so no one should have problems following what's going on).
http://www.easy-share.com/1903441252/TvSM.rec
And fallback is awesome, if you wouldn't have it then suppression would be even more OP.
It worked for CoH and I don't see why it wouldn't work for DoW2 too.
|
On January 30 2009 07:53 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2009 02:58 Klive5ive wrote:
What I don't understand is why with so few units... do you still have to control them in squads?
It doesn't make any sense that you can't spread out a 3 man tactical squad in the places you want.
This also makes scouting annoying, although as Korbah said it's redundant anyway.
And the fallback command.. why do the units have to run all the way back to base? It's just silly and annoying. Couldn't they fall back to the nearest cover?
Oh there's a suppression gun there... back to base I go?!
As for the squad thingie: - that's how WH40K works, tabletop and first DoW, you don't buy single units there (unless it's some elite/heavy support/vehicle stuff) - you get them in squads - in real army single person is nothing, you operate in squads/units - makes more sense - thanks they didn't expand original DoW in the way tabletop got the Apocalypse expansion, there even vehicles come in squads As for the fallback command: - it is a tradeoff - you lose units presence in a battle for extended time mostly but in return you get a) free of suppression and bonus movement speed so the unit has greater chance of survival b) your unit gets right to the point where it can heal and reinforce You basically have to ask yourself a question when using it (I assume that you're using it when your unit stands in the face of complete wipeout and you having no way of saving it): Will I need this unit in the future? If yes then go ahead and retreat, if you find the unit expendable then just leave it to soak the damage for a couple seconds longer. For me the biggest problems with DoW II right now are (apart from terrible matchmaking): - suppression units should be moved to T2 or their costs increased significantly, early game suppresion spam is so annoying - why the hell when your ally drops from the game but you still win it 2v3 you don't get victory? I'm like 6-15 right now, of those 15 losses there's 10 bugs/hangups/discs and I did win a lot more games but someone dropped in them... WTF?! Is it so hard to give leaver/discer a loss, his teammates 0 points in case of a loss and victory if they manage to win? Of course it should be balanced so if there's one player discing from each team then they get a loss and the remaining players have to fight it out in normal win/loss conditions.
That is easily the most useless reply I have ever received.
Ofc I know how to use fallback, that's WHY I don't like it.
Saying "WH40k and real life has squads" is the dumbest reason ever to put it in your game.
They obviously did it because they just updated their old engine, but it's annoying and makes the micro appear unresponsive.
|
I think that in the beta micro appears inresponsive because of huge pings/lags (especially if one person has set his settings too high it's gonna lag for everyone instead of slideshowing only this one person).
When playing DoW or CoH I didn't feel like it was very inresponsive, maybe a bit slower than in BW but they're not 10 years old and it wasn't a nuisance really.
And personally, I prefer squads instead of single units for basic infantry, for me it just looks and feels better.
|
Anyone played the "nids" extensively ?
Am I doing something wrong or does it seem like they're really weak.
The problem I have is that in order to keep them effective in a fight you gotta stack them close to your synapse creatures but that gives map control to your oponent...
I always end up winning fight over fight in the first tier of the game but I get decapped from all over and the game eventually ends up in T3 where tanks and shit completely destroy my T1/T2 army.
It just feels like, cost to cost, "nids" are highly on the losing side. Wich makes you group up more units to win fights, wich in return leaves less units to cap/decap, its really a vicious circle.
|
Yeah... I think Tyranids are quite weak overall. I've gotten run over by Tyranids... when I'm Tyranid. And I think I lost one game as Space Marines (but they feel weak too). I think one guy might have beaten me when I was Eldar, when I was trying out a new strategy.
They seem to go defensive and then go for one big all in attack if they go Hive Tyrant (that seems to fail miserably). The way synapse works, that's probably the only viable way to do it since there's like 5 or 6 different synapse types (which is crazy, I thought it was like one universal aura). The Ravener can build burrows, and supposedly one viable strat is to build those everywhere and use the mines to blow up anything that comes your way.
But I've only won one game as Tyranid... and that guy was pretty newb, and he still almost beat me. ~_~
|
On January 30 2009 09:31 Famehunter wrote:
Anyone played the "nids" extensively ?
Am I doing something wrong or does it seem like they're really weak.
The problem I have is that in order to keep them effective in a fight you gotta stack them close to your synapse creatures but that gives map control to your oponent...
I always end up winning fight over fight in the first tier of the game but I get decapped from all over and the game eventually ends up in T3 where tanks and shit completely destroy my T1/T2 army.
It just feels like, cost to cost, "nids" are highly on the losing side. Wich makes you group up more units to win fights, wich in return leaves less units to cap/decap, its really a vicious circle.
I am just doing so. I also thought at start that they're seriously underpowered but with a bit of effort they can be pretty rewarding.
Early game:
- just mass (I usually start off by building second hormagaunt brood and ripper swarm, then depending on the situation I add hormagaunts, termagaunts or warrior brood)
- screw synapse, spread your hormies all over the map (rippers can cap/decap too!) and use their superior speed to grab what you can (especially VP's but anything will be useful, your best stuff isn't cheap)
- if you're using ht - get bio-plasma for him, will help with all this pesky suppresion and infantry blobs
- do NOT get barbed stranglers, they're way too slow and ineffective in the long run (can basically only suppress stationary targets or if you take them by surprise and if you manage that then you'll manage to get into melee where your superior numbers should shine)
T2:
- get 1-2 zoanthropes and venom cannons on everything you can (warriors and ht if you're using him), you will need some AV and anti heavy infantry right now, stall for t3
- you won't be using anything from T1 apart from warriors and mines now, maybe one gaunt squad or ripper swarm to run around the map and cap/decap something
T3:
- simple, spend all you can on carnifexes, spam tyrranoformation all over the place (if you're ravener then minedrops are better I think) and run enemy over (watch out for those damned drop pods landing on your carnifexes)
Basically you should have initiative early on with superior numbers and speed, then you'll have to give it away a bit (unless your enemy is noob), power up and annoy him with stray gaunt squads running all over the map. When you have some counters to walkers/vehicles (venom cannons and zoanthrope or two) you should start putting some pressure on your enemy.
What happens next is up to you. Either pump out more warriors or wait for your first carnifex to try and win this. If you get more than 1 carnifex then get venom cannon (priority) and hornback on them. Third one (if you'll get this far) should also get venom.
|
Okay the best strategy that won me ALL games:
First 3 minutes: Split 3 squads, 2 squads to capture victory points, 1 money points and use your hero to support any of the squads that may need help, maps are pretty small, so its easy to get from point to point.
4-7 minute: mass early tier army and always have 1 squad capturing enemys victory points, while your other squads battle out with your opponent.
8-12 minute: Use your by now gained advantage, defend your points with 1 squad each and use the hero and 1 higher tier unit to support of of your squads that defend the points whereever needed.
13+ minute: you've probablt won by this time, if not, it means you haven't been agressive enough in taking points on the map. Still though, if that is the case then with your whole army lineary progress to regain victory points from the closest ones to the farthest.
|
Nids seem ok, didn't know what the hell i was doing with them at the start, but usually i whip out another Homo squad then the shooty ones and that's all good. From there ii can either go mines or tech for some Lictor
Hive Tyrant kinda sucks
|
Man, I played one Tyranid who kept bombarding me with crap that nearly made my Orks melt all at once (venom cannons?). I had to WAAAAGH up constantly (this ability reminds me a lot of bloodlust, only the more squads you have the more obnoxiously strong it becomes) and then fortunately my tank busters came along so I could bombard the wankers to death (coincidentally, I love rocket barrage...) and all his units were nice and clustered up, so that messed them up pretty badly. I guess my Warboss was really out of position and couldn't call all da boys in time. But he still lost really badly.
I kind of felt like he was a better player than me based on how much trouble he caused me in early game though. Ork is strong. :>
Coincidentally, this notched me up to #1337 in wins hahahaha.
Edit: On the other hand, mines are freaking over powered against Ork. Eldar rip that crap apart. -.-
|
On January 30 2009 09:12 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2009 07:53 Manit0u wrote:On January 30 2009 02:58 Klive5ive wrote:
What I don't understand is why with so few units... do you still have to control them in squads?
It doesn't make any sense that you can't spread out a 3 man tactical squad in the places you want.
This also makes scouting annoying, although as Korbah said it's redundant anyway.
And the fallback command.. why do the units have to run all the way back to base? It's just silly and annoying. Couldn't they fall back to the nearest cover?
Oh there's a suppression gun there... back to base I go?!
As for the squad thingie: - that's how WH40K works, tabletop and first DoW, you don't buy single units there (unless it's some elite/heavy support/vehicle stuff) - you get them in squads - in real army single person is nothing, you operate in squads/units - makes more sense - thanks they didn't expand original DoW in the way tabletop got the Apocalypse expansion, there even vehicles come in squads As for the fallback command: - it is a tradeoff - you lose units presence in a battle for extended time mostly but in return you get a) free of suppression and bonus movement speed so the unit has greater chance of survival b) your unit gets right to the point where it can heal and reinforce You basically have to ask yourself a question when using it (I assume that you're using it when your unit stands in the face of complete wipeout and you having no way of saving it): Will I need this unit in the future? If yes then go ahead and retreat, if you find the unit expendable then just leave it to soak the damage for a couple seconds longer. For me the biggest problems with DoW II right now are (apart from terrible matchmaking): - suppression units should be moved to T2 or their costs increased significantly, early game suppresion spam is so annoying - why the hell when your ally drops from the game but you still win it 2v3 you don't get victory? I'm like 6-15 right now, of those 15 losses there's 10 bugs/hangups/discs and I did win a lot more games but someone dropped in them... WTF?! Is it so hard to give leaver/discer a loss, his teammates 0 points in case of a loss and victory if they manage to win? Of course it should be balanced so if there's one player discing from each team then they get a loss and the remaining players have to fight it out in normal win/loss conditions. That is easily the most useless reply I have ever received. Ofc I know how to use fallback, that's WHY I don't like it. Saying "WH40k and real life has squads" is the dumbest reason ever to put it in your game. They obviously did it because they just updated their old engine, but it's annoying and makes the micro appear unresponsive.
no. squads are not a legacy, they're intentional. They force players to use more 'tactical' micro and less 'click-fest' micro. To alot of Starcraft players this may seem like a bad decision, but many many players like it.
I am very experienced in both starcraft and company of heroes (squad based), and i must say that the control in each game is completely different but both are alot of fun and satisfying.
Honestly, Company of Heroes would be so shitty if it wasn't squad based.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I don't mind squads so much anymore, it's still just a unit, it's just visually represented differently.. I mean, if you use Eldar you still have a ton of BW style micro (since fleet of foot makes them able to outrun melee so easily).
|
On January 31 2009 07:24 FrozenArbiter wrote:
I don't mind squads so much anymore, it's still just a unit, it's just visually represented differently.. I mean, if you use Eldar you still have a ton of BW style micro (since fleet of foot makes them able to outrun melee so easily).
Eldar used to be micro race in DoW1 too. Unfortunately catapult squad costs the same as guardian squad so most people on the beta are just using eldar to play capture+camp instead of hit&run 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
