|
On January 22 2009 15:28 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2009 12:38 naventus wrote:On January 22 2009 08:13 L wrote:
Obviously a 'good' player brings more to the table than most other players when they start out building their skillset, but to level off or plateau still requires a substantial game specific investment. This isnt' just RTS games either; I can't fucking play source, but i rape balls at 1.6. I'm going to group what you and Mora said together. It's just wrong. Have you heard of Pillars? He was fucking good at a lot of RTS, ranging from the AoX series to SC. The best players that really understand RTS are going to be good at any RTS because they know how to solve and play RTS, not just that game. In a sense, I'm just begging the question by doing this - since if I define someone good at RTS to explicitly include the ability to solve and think about RTS in general, then clearly they would be able to be good at RTS. Did you bother to read my last post? to summarize in point form: * i agreed to the idea that it is not uncommon for players who build up their 'skill' in one game, to go to another thinking they're going to be great at it, fail, and blame the game instead of themselves. * i claimed that the skillset to be good at one is very similar to the skillset of another, but* players will often not get past their scapegoating, and will never have a chance to explore their skillset in the new game * i explained this further: APM, Micro and Macro are not RTS skillsets. transferring these assets, while helpful, is often confused with transferring RTS skillsets. When these skillsets don't transition into skill at the new game, they resort to scapegoating the game. Pillars is a great example to use, as he is the exception to the rule. Pillars does not go from game to game blaming the game for his lack of skill; on the contrary, Pillars is fascinated by game design, and so welcomes these new systems with an open mind. He is good at RTS - not to be confused with micro or macro - which is why his skill is transferrable.
I never said that APM, micro, or macro are skillsets. I don't think they are important skillsets to transfer. Knowing how to think and analyze RTS is a skillset and that's what someone like Pillars is good at. It may happen, though, that in order to be able to think about RTS properly, you have to be able to execute at a certain level too.
I would also wager that anyone at A rank in SC is also good at that sort of fundamental analysis and could easily pick up another game.
Nothing I said has to do with technical ability, or scapegoating based on it.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Just me or does the 1v1 search take FOREVER? 3v3 really fast, 1v1 just keeps going and going, "Found 10 games, 5 matches" then just keeps counting down.
Problem connecting to people?
|
On January 23 2009 05:17 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Just me or does the 1v1 search take FOREVER? 3v3 really fast, 1v1 just keeps going and going, "Found 10 games, 5 matches" then just keeps counting down.
Problem connecting to people?
I'm getting the same problem and it's infuriating. Well at least it isn't my router I guess.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Want to play some custom games (or I guess play some team games)?
I'm qqqoooqqq on Live.
|
sure just let me finish my ice cream.
|
Just got on this, not entirely sure what's going on with it 'cuz it's different =p I'd be down to play a bit with people here, I'm terrible though.
|
anyone have some initial feedback?
i'd love to pass it on.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Guys, this game is really, really, really good for 3v3. Like *sooooooo* good.
Just had a really amazing 25 min 3v3 where our team was down to 14 pts (!!!) vs their.. 250-270 (watching the rep now so I'll check exact numbers). 15 minutes later we 14, they 0.
So. so. very. cool.
It's not in any way competition for SC2, but not because it's a bad game, but because it's a DIFFERENT game, it's like hockey / soccer or something.
There are some minor issues with the hotkeys but not that big..
For replays I would like:
1) Neutral view (ie view all map)
2) faster playback than 2x
3) Being able to watch them with others (don't think you can?)
Ah yes, one more thing before I forget - tunnels are verrrrry hard to select in the thick of things, which is quite annoying when you want to get your units out of them
I'll post this in the official forums as well (http://community.dawnofwar2.com).
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
lol i think this is most excited for a game ive been in a while. Played the demo for a while today at a friends house and it's really fun - like FA said, not really competition for SC because its different but still really fun even in beta.
|
So I just played another game today, this time with Victory Points, and it was far more entertaining. What Mora said about the game being designed with VPs in mind was definitely on the money. The game was much closer and more tense. As always though, with some more game time I come with some more critiques:
1) I was looking around for some kind of damage numbers on my units and then realized that there really aren't many numbers anywhere. The only thing I remember seeing was the HP of units. I personally would very very much like to be able to see how much damage a unit does. This would be extremely helpful on all the various upgrades.
Right now I can't really tell which upgrade is better than another since they use vague descriptions like "This wargear grants more hp" and "This wargear grants more hp and more damage." Not the exact wording but you get the idea. So video game logic dictates that the +hp wargear should give more hp than the one that gives both +hp and +damage right? Well, if that's the case I'd really like the numbers to compare. +100 hp vs +90 hp and +50 damage for a comparable cost would make the choice pretty clear cut. Or it could be +1000 hp vs +500 hp and some damage. Without the numbers you just don't know. Descriptions in general could really be more descriptive and specific. I can tell you right now that a few weeks after DoW2 is released officially there will be damage tables posted all over the internet and any decent player will have perused them. This shouldn't be necessary, I really think I should be able to find this out in game.
- One big thing that set DoW apart from SC and other RTS's was that practically all infantry and walkers have a melee and ranged attack. DoW1 handled this pretty easily with the use of Stances. If a unit is far more useful in melee it was easy to set it to a Melee Stance and let it do it's thing. In DoW2 there are no Stances, there is just a Melee command similar to the Attack or Stop commands. So if I tell a Dread to go melee a squad it will melee it then resume ranged combat afterwards. That's kind of annoying but I suppose it will just take some getting used to. I still liked the stances though, it seemed like a more elegant and useful solution.
- The really low pop cap is still bothering me. When I've got the whole map capped including the Victory Points my job is basically to camp the VPs until I win, which is fine. However, due to the really low pop cap my enemy is able to crank out an army similar in size to my own without too much difficulty and then come out to pose a serious threat despite the fact that I have the entire map and won a number of battles. I really dislike comparing this too much to SC since they are different games going for very different feels but I can't shake the fact that I feel like I'm not being adequately rewarded for my superior battle performance and map control. In SC if you've won a few major battles and controlled 90% of the map you generally feel pretty confident your opponent can't pose a major threat to you in a straight up confrontation and I feel like this makes the most sense to me. Granted I still won these matches but I feel perhaps it was a bit closer than it should have been come late game. Perhaps this is intended or I just don't know how to solidify my advantage correctly though. I sure make that mistake enough in SC as well.
Just my collection of thoughts after game 2 day 2. Complaints aside it's still pretty fun.
|
Companies struggle to even balance 2 different races properly, blizzard managed to "balance" 3 different races, how do they think game will be played with 9 races? This is a game for fun, nothing else..
|
On January 23 2009 18:56 Samurai- wrote:
Companies struggle to even balance 2 different races properly, blizzard managed to "balance" 3 different races, how do they think game will be played with 9 races? This is a game for fun, nothing else..
DoW2 has like 4 races? That's as much as WC3 and Blizzard managed to balance it out quite ok (there are some annoyances but not many major flaws).
@ Phyre:
I didn't get to play the game yet but isn't it that if you win several battles and capture whole map, then reach maximum pop that enemy is screwed? I mean, it doesn't matter if he can get up to max pop too really since you can just win any battle with superior control/decisionmaking and stuff like that? (+ you should be able to reinforce/buyback faster due to better economy)
|
I usually prefer playing 1v1, but 3v3 in DOW is a ton of fun. I like it much more than CoH. Mostly because tanks can't run over my infantry. I hated that.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
|
On January 23 2009 18:56 Samurai- wrote:
Companies struggle to even balance 2 different races properly, blizzard managed to "balance" 3 different races, how do they think game will be played with 9 races? This is a game for fun, nothing else..
dow2 has 4 races.
|
On January 24 2009 03:44 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2009 18:56 Samurai- wrote:
Companies struggle to even balance 2 different races properly, blizzard managed to "balance" 3 different races, how do they think game will be played with 9 races? This is a game for fun, nothing else.. dow2 has 4 races.
Honestly, by the next expansion they'd have 5. :o
|
On January 24 2009 05:00 JudgeMathis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2009 03:44 Mora wrote:On January 23 2009 18:56 Samurai- wrote:
Companies struggle to even balance 2 different races properly, blizzard managed to "balance" 3 different races, how do they think game will be played with 9 races? This is a game for fun, nothing else.. dow2 has 4 races. Honestly, by the next expansion they'd have 5. :o
afaik his comment was directed at dow2, not dow2exp.
|
On January 24 2009 05:00 JudgeMathis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2009 03:44 Mora wrote:On January 23 2009 18:56 Samurai- wrote:
Companies struggle to even balance 2 different races properly, blizzard managed to "balance" 3 different races, how do they think game will be played with 9 races? This is a game for fun, nothing else.. dow2 has 4 races. Honestly, by the next expansion they'd have 5. :o
I really hope they don't do that.
4 is just about alright, anymore is not gonna work. With the expansions they should just add more units. The game does lack a lot of stuff.
|
Nah I hope they add a new race with the expansion. The forces of Chaos are really missing from this game. With the new hero system they would be awesome.
|
Is anyone else finding some REALLY laggy 3v3 games? To the point where you can barely play? =S
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
