COH: Europe In Ruins

General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: Smokaz on August 13, 2011, 04:04:16 pm



Title: MMOPRTS
Post by: Smokaz on August 13, 2011, 04:04:16 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5rh2OYQLZA

Fun to have so many good things about EIRR described


Title: Re: MOMORTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 04:12:25 pm
Ive played many MMORTS games, I don't think any of them have been executed properly.

( I havnt watched this video yet)

but for one I see a lack in overall skill required gameplay
 two Some of them are cash shop dominated
three The game is low on PVP


I await the day when a MMO comes out and it isn't room based, has alot of micro capabilities, has lowish PVP restrictions, meaning I dont wake up and my base is gone(had that happen many times), and doesn't take forever to get started


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Mister Schmidt on August 13, 2011, 04:18:59 pm
Should advertise us on that video tbh


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Groundfire on August 13, 2011, 04:51:27 pm
Should advertise us on that video tbh

I was hoping he would reference us, cause our mod is the poster child of what he wants to see.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 04:58:00 pm
I was hoping he would reference us, cause our mod is the poster child of what he wants to see.
Except we dont make units cost more when doctrines buff it.

We pretty much have fixed that though.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Tymathee on August 13, 2011, 07:24:20 pm
^ Not really but anyway...

I came up with an idea for a mmorts a few years ago for c&c and it was pretty much how he described it but i started typing something and came up with another idea and it kinda stems from LoL, HoN and other things like that involving hero units but you'd have disposable units around it you can call it like normal from resources you gain each game to a certain pop cap level. If ur avatar dies, game over, you're out and have to go to another server.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 07:31:51 pm
^ Not really but anyway...

I came up with an idea for a mmorts a few years ago for c&c and it was pretty much how he described it but i started typing something and came up with another idea and it kinda stems from LoL, HoN and other things like that involving hero units but you'd have disposable units around it you can call it like normal from resources you gain each game to a certain pop cap level. If ur avatar dies, game over, you're out and have to go to another server.
Lol.

And yeah we did pretty much fix that. The fix is having short wars and little grind. Warmap isnt even in and we have low grind.

And noone wants to buy a apcr jagdpanther that cost 100 fuel more and +1 popcap when they grinded to get there in the first place.

A buff isnt a buff if it increased cost lowers the cost effectiveness levels to the same as before.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Smokaz on August 13, 2011, 07:42:18 pm
I disagree, and I think your idea of why increased cost for increased performance would be a bad thing stems from poor imagination.

Would you for instance not buy a 50 fuel/50 muni upgrade which ensured that your panzer IV took out a sherman? Like old heat rounds.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: EIRRMod on August 13, 2011, 07:59:03 pm
+ Bacon buff
+ Narwal buff

These are OP afaik.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: EIRRMod on August 13, 2011, 08:04:28 pm
Made a comment, you guys feel welcome sell us up ;) (Please?)

And if you hates us, just send the scathing PM to me - not youTube hahahaha


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 08:08:43 pm
I disagree, and I think your idea of why increased cost for increased performance would be a bad thing stems from poor imagination.

Would you for instance not buy a 50 fuel/50 muni upgrade which ensured that your panzer IV took out a sherman? Like old heat rounds.
After I grinded to get there? No not really, and thats not exactly a fair comparison considering what he (youtube dude) speaks of resources don't work that way. His example does have population/cost, its just cost.

A more fair comparison would also adding increased popcap.

Made a comment, you guys feel welcome sell us up ;) (Please?)

And if you hates us, just send the scathing PM to me - not youTube hahahaha
lolwut

bacon buff plox!

bacon can never be OP enough


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Tymathee on August 13, 2011, 08:14:21 pm
EIR is different because you can't keep building, so the main issue of most MMORTS's is gone and it takes the guys category of "finite resources" even furthur by having finite resources to build your and then finite resources in game. Don't think anywhere else has that. Viva La EIR


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 13, 2011, 09:31:31 pm
I stopped watching after he called Starcraft 2 "great".

Anyone who starts a discussion about great RTS's by calling Starcraft great loses their credibility right out of the gate.

-Wind


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 09:33:16 pm
I stopped watching after he called Starcraft 2 "great".

Anyone who starts a discussion about great RTS's by calling Starcraft great loses their credibility right out of the gate.

-Wind
Starcraft is a great RTS, no doubt about it.

Just that its strats don't appeal to most of us.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 13, 2011, 09:35:23 pm
It's not a great RTS. It's a game that lots of people enjoy and have fun playing, but a great RTS it is not.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 13, 2011, 09:48:04 pm
Starcraft is a 'comfortable' rts, which means it bare bones. It tries nothing, and fails at nothing and follows your very very basic rock paper scissors.


its not bad, its not all that good its just average covered up with pretty skins and a story.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 13, 2011, 09:52:12 pm
Well put Spartan.



Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Tymathee on August 13, 2011, 09:54:13 pm
in today's society, great is defined by popularity, not quality unfortunately.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 13, 2011, 09:57:04 pm
in today's society, great is defined by popularity, not quality unfortunately.

this happened before, it led to games like ET and the collaps of gaming for a few years till nintendo came along.

for those who dont understand why im pissed at WOT and COD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2o3mlg5AxQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2o3mlg5AxQ)


and to simplify it for the retards i know who wont understand, companies spammed the industry with cheap and easy games just like ET. after awhile they became worse and worse until it became a joke and no one wanted to buy


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Tymathee on August 13, 2011, 10:00:55 pm
Lol cod isn't all that bad. It found what people like and kept doing it. If anything, blame the consumer.

ET was diff, it was a horrendous game no one bought because it was rushed.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 13, 2011, 10:02:23 pm
Lol cod isn't all that bad. It found what people like and kept doing it. If anything, blame the consumer.

cod wasnt that bad, but then came the clones and they DO get worse (some are surprising, but most not) you got tons of FPS. Fear was good, Fear 2 was not, Fear 3 i couldn't even touch

ET was diff, it was a horrendous game no one bought because it was rushed.

ET wasnt the beginning of the rushed lazy games, but nearer the end


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Killer344 on August 13, 2011, 10:45:52 pm
I stopped watching after he called Starcraft 2 "great".

Anyone who starts a discussion about great RTS's by calling Starcraft great loses their credibility right out of the gate.

-Wind

l2p


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 13, 2011, 10:58:29 pm
l2p

Fan boi  :P


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 11:03:43 pm
Fan boi  :P
There is alot of speed and cordination into the pro's playing starcraft. Ive watched the pro's play and they adapt just like we do.

On the contrary to what you anti-SC people think they don't just do 1 build over and over. The real pros see what the enemy is bringing and adapt a build to defeat that. And no its not all that. They micro it too. Yes, they actually micro on contrary to what you think. And the macro they have to do makes that even tougher.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Killer344 on August 13, 2011, 11:05:48 pm
Fan boi  :P

An outsider to CoH might think the same when he sees for the first time a lot of shit blobbed; my point is, get at least on the gold/platinum league and then come back and tell me it's a "rock/paper/scissor game".

One of the things I love about SC is you don't have to waste time when you end up playing vs noobs, you can rape them on under 3 minutes lol.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 13, 2011, 11:39:06 pm
SC2 in the pros is all about actions per minute and muscle memory. You arent thinking and arent really playing anything, at that point all it is is who can click in the same pattern but faster.


At those speeds you might as well be playing this

http://gametrick.net/rapid-click.htm


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 11:41:22 pm
SC2 in the pros is all about actions per minute and muscle memory. You arent thinking and arent really playing anything, at that point all it is is who can click in the same pattern but faster.
This just prooves you know nothing. GTFO if all you seen are like 1 video of some bronzes streaming.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 13, 2011, 11:45:19 pm
This just prooves you know nothing. GTFO if all you seen are like 1 video of some bronzes streaming.

really because when people like Fenix tell you to focus on your APM, shut the fuck up and listen


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 11:50:42 pm
really because when people like Fenix tell you to focus on your APM, shut the fuck up and listen
Its not pure muscle memory its not 90% muscle memory its not 70% muscle memory, its nowhere near that.

There is stratigic aspects of starcraft and you fail to see them.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 13, 2011, 11:53:08 pm
There is stratigic aspects of starcraft and you fail to see them.

build more marines, win

what you fail to see, is that there is only a strategy if you let the opponent live long enough to get past tier 1 units


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: DarkSoldierX on August 13, 2011, 11:55:13 pm
build more marines, win

what you fail to see, is that there is only a strategy if you let the opponent live long enough to get past tier 1 units
No point in arguing if I clearly cant convince you otherwise.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 13, 2011, 11:59:55 pm
Guys I think the problem here is that you (Dark and Killer) have heard a lot of guys, mindlessly, bash SC2.

They've used tired and cliche arguments like "omfg SC requires no skill" and "SC sux because it's simplistic". The result is that the argument revolving around SC has become a "SC sux and requires no skill" vs "SC requires lots of skill look at de proz" type situation.


 Which is why when I say SC is not a great RTS, it makes sense that you would be likely to immediately assume I am saying: "SC doesn't require any skill and is bad."

The truth is what I am actually saying is quite a bit more nuanced. So let's put down our cliche hammers and stop hitting eachother on the head and actually engage the complex question of: Why isn't SC a "great" RTS?

What SC 2 is:

SC 2 is a very fun, and solidly produced game. It could even be described as a great game if you take into account the massive fanbase it has, and the sheer playability of it.  It has great balance, solidly developed gameplay, decent graphics and is certainly not lacking in the entertainment department.

It also has a very high level of play in the upper tiers (due to it's massive fanbase providing a larger base pyramid from which experts are more likely to emerge).

What SC 2 is not:

A "great" RTS.

The problem that SC 2 has in trying to win the title of a "great" RTS is that it is, at the end of a day, a game designed for maximum appeal, minimum BASE GAMEPLAY complexity, and general mainstream accessibility. This isn't to say it's a game that doesn't have complexity or potential for high abillity (as anyone who follows it's pro leagues can attest), nor is it to say that it isn't intelligent in it's own ways.

What this means is that, ultimately, SC 2 is a game designed for the largest possible segment of the population as possible. This wasn't accidental or careless on Blizzard's part -- it's simply their (very succesful business model).

The strengths of this kind of design philosophy are that you can create a game that is easy to learn and enjoy, for hardcore gamers and casual gamers alike. It doesn't require much in the way of complexity beyond a simplistic structure of buildings, units and their various abillities. In other words, the gameplay complexity is essentially the sum of a few very simple principles. Add on a few mitigating factors such as unit abilities etc. and you essentially can keep the gameplay basic, while also allowing significant room for practice, experience and dexterity/quick thinking to determine overall player abillity.

The weaknesses of this kind of design are that the game is, ultimately, not traditionally strategic. The fundamentally basic foundation of the gameplay inevitably dictates that, at the highest levels of play when knowledge of unit types and experience are expected to be roughly commensurate, victory will essentially be determined by factors such as dexterity and speed. There simply isn't enough available room for complexity, chance or chaos variables to truly simulate a sense of a traditional definition of the term "strategy".

Starcraft's most skilled players have taken the base gameplay to incredible heights, but if the same time and effort were put into a game of more base complexity the commensurate amount of complexity would be commensurately greater.


Starcraft and Starcraft 2 are fine games, but that's when you appreciate them for what they are: more akin to arcade style base-building than strategy as would more accurately be the case for a Total War type game or, a strategy game in its purest form like Hearts of Iron 2.

These games are infinitely less accessible because of their complex, unforgiving and ultimately strategy driven BASE gameplay. It makes them "great" RTS's, although as a rule it also makes them infinitely less popular or widely accessible.

SC is what it is, and it is exactly what it wants to be.
 


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 14, 2011, 12:07:02 am
To put what I wrote above in a much shorter format:

SC 2's most vocal critics say SC 2 is a bad game because of it's base gameplay.

SC 2's most vocal supporters say SC 2 is a great game because of the high level of skill required to compete in its top levels.


I say that the argument itself is flawed. SC 2 is a great game, but it is not a great RTS. That isn't a knock on SC 2 though, as it doesn't claim to be a "great" RTS.  It's a wildly succesful game with a huge and loyal fanbase and a thriving competitive community. Great RTS's, on the other hand, are almost definitely never financially succesful nor are they widely played -- you simply can't be complex enough to make incredible strategic gameplay possible while also selling tons of games. A truly great RTS is a game like HOI2, that is virtually unplayable unless you spend a huge amount of time painstakingly teaching yourself how to play. Once you do play, the absolutely infinite number of possible strategies and potential paths to victory are beyond count. There is also never a "right" way to do anything.

That is ambiguity, strategy and chaos variables at work: the hallmarks of what make a "great" RTS.

Also, some important definitions from my earlier post:

BASE Gameplay: The basic mechanics required to play the game out of the box. Essentially the sum of challenge algorithims required to complete a match against the most casual of opponents (Ie. build base, build units, destroy enemy)

Top tier gameplay: The mitigating factors that enhance and make BASE gameplay more difficult or complex: Ie. experience, unit knowledge, speed/dexterity

-Wind


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Killer344 on August 14, 2011, 12:10:57 am
yo... those are Turn Based RTS, they are not RTS; it's like comparing CoH to WoT.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Spartan_Marine88 on August 14, 2011, 12:15:34 am
CoH to WoT.

tbh its not, there still rts' while WOT is not


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 14, 2011, 12:16:50 am
yo... those are Turn Based RTS, they are not RTS; it's like comparing CoH to WoT.

Killer man, this post is a fail.

1. Hearts of Iron 2 is not a turn based game. Get those facts straightened ;)

2. When referring to the Total War Series, I of course was referring to the real time battle system which is perfect for comparison to a game with far more BASE complexity like SC. Although far less successful in other areas like playabillity and accessibility, the Total War games certainly are leagues ahead in the "strategy" department. That isn't to say they are better "games" in general, only that they are "Greater" strategy games. I can promise you that if Blizzard woke up tomorrow with the total revenue from the Total War games instead of the total revenue of SC2, they would shoot themselves. So there is definitely no arguing that SC 2 isn't the more succesful game.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: Killer344 on August 14, 2011, 12:21:25 am
Lets say you have an "odd" definition of RTS, I'm going to drop it, I don't feel like arguing semantics for the rest of my life.


Title: Re: MMOPRTS
Post by: TheWindCriesMary on August 14, 2011, 12:31:16 am
My definition of an RTS is normal.

Starcraft isn't a great RTS, but it is a great game. It is a soft RTS -- that isn't an insult to SC, it's simply an objective look at the design philisophy behind it.

Blizzard designs widely accessible games that are traditionally both successful, enjoyable and engaging. Great RTS (like HOI2), however, are very in accessible due to the mindblowing level of strategic complexity behind them.

Which is why it's unfair to try and expect SC 2 to live up to the title of a "great RTS" when it never tried to be one in the first place.

People on both sides of the "SC 2 sux, it has 0 skill rofl" /"OMFG SC 2 is the most strategic game evarrr!!111" need to get their heads out of their asses and stop trying to make the game something it isn't. It knows what it is and doesn't try to hide anything.


-Wind