PDA

View Full Version : Concern List


Silent_Lamb
05-09-2007, 08:15 PM
First off I'd like to say, loving the new theme :D. It really goes well with the music from the main site.

Anyways I came up with a list of general concerns that I would have for the game, and this is before playing it. I also have one quick question.

From the rumor mill I hear that you have the game completed but there was some serious bug issues that needed to be fixed before you could move on. Is that true?

Anyways, off to the concerns.

1. From what I've read a player will have a castle/town and be able to stage attacks from there. My number one worry about this is that, what is the motivation for keeping your troops behind and not just draining all of your troops to attack. I know the obvious answer would be "You don't want to leave it un-defended" but if you send your troops out first then naturally if you win you'll be able to destroy the enemy before he can attack your un-guarded castle.

2. Stealth units. I haven't read anywhere that you plan to include these types of units but it's still a major concern. Stealth units seem to be more pesky than they can be fun. Of course that doesn't mean throw away stealth units, some games have managed to do a good job at balancing stealth units and tweaking certain things to make it work right. For example, Starcraft's ghost. Although invisible the only major concern it had was that it could lock down your technical units. And even then you could easily counter it with a science vessel.

3. Rushes in general. It might be considered the plague to some RTS gamers, and to other it might be considered a fair tactic. Whatever your stance is on it, I'm wondering what your approach is to thwarting, encouraging, or balancing rushes.

4. Cheaters. This is a pretty obvious concern. What I worry about though is that on Xbox Live people who use cheats or even use the games very own glitches never get enough attention to the point where action is taken. This is most likely due to the fact that so many people are sending messages. Does Reverie have a plan or an approach for this?

Thanks.

Doug Bonds
05-09-2007, 09:31 PM
From the rumor mill I hear that you have the game completed but there was some serious bug issues that needed to be fixed before you could move on. Is that true?

COOL!!! We have rumors. That means there is a buzz.:D However, I can assure you that this rumor has no basis in fact. ;)

I know the obvious answer would be "You don't want to leave it un-defended" but if you send your troops out first then naturally if you win you'll be able to destroy the enemy before he can attack your un-guarded castle.
But is the enemy you are attacking your only enemy? *uses famous tactic of answering a question with a question*

Silent_Lamb
05-09-2007, 10:19 PM
Haha yes over at the pure pwnage forums there was a decent amount of discussion over this game.

Hmm. Yes? :D, let's just say for the plausibility of this question that it's a 1v1.

Konstantin Fomenko
05-09-2007, 10:35 PM
"You don't want to leave it un-defended"
But is the enemy you are attacking your only enemy?

Looks like I can`t get away without giving away some further details about our MMORTS model:

As I mentioned before we are sacrificing world geometry for the sake of gameplay - which mostly shows in time it takes to travel in our gameworld from point A to point B. Couple of arguments in defense of our approach:
-Time is really relative in RTS: it takes longer for units to walk across town as it does to construct a town wall.
-These days instant teleporting around the gameworld becomes key feature - Oblivion for example.

Now to get back to gameplay and your question,

If,

-there is a way to easily switch game view between location - like your town, or enemy town in real-time, without even 1 second delay. Think about the way you use mini-map to jump from one location to another in typical RTS. It`s completely intuitive.
-there is a way to move units in real-time (with a 30-60 second delay) from your town to enemy town

Then,

The ‘victim’ whose castle you plan to besiege, can attack you right back. And to lead on to what Doug hinted on, don’t forget your allies, and your enemies allies.

Darvin
05-10-2007, 12:23 AM
I think the first issue you point out with regards to the "all out attack" isn't so much a problem. Historically, castles could be left with very small garrisons while the main army was out controlling the battlefield. Their defences were strong enough that in the event of attack, the main army could return before they fell. In this way, holding a castle allowed you to control the surrounding area because you could launch any attack decisively.

I feel this should be the benefit of having strong defences; you can use your army with impunity in full scale assaults. Conversely, someone who invests in little defences will see his settlements razed or at least heavily damaged before he gets back. I think this is a rather fair setup if it's done right.


As far as rushes go, I think the real solution to them is simply to incorperate it into the game. Early battles should happen, but they should only decide the game if someone is seriously outmatched. I don't think it's fun for either player when there is a severe skill difference, and the "rush game" should be designed to end such a lopsided match quickly. If the skill levels are more in line with each other, I think rushes should still happen, but their focus should be less on winning than gaining a strategic advantage that carries into the midgame.

I personally believe that a game that ended on the rush and a game that had no rush are both disappointing. If it ended on the rush, it never went anywhere to begin with (mind you, if it saved two players some headache with regards to a lopsided matchup, it's the lesser of two evils). If it never had a rush at all, then a very interesting portion of the game that can lay the groundwork for the coming conflicts has been lost.


As for cheaters, they'll always exist. The idea that Reverie (or anyone) could come up with a foolproof way to deal with them is laughable; there will always be people coming up with a new way to break the rules and get away with it. I think the best they can do is approach the issue with good faith and do their best to close exploits promptly, and punish cheaters.

I do personally like the idea of a permeanent "cheater" blackmark attached to your CD-key. Any time you log on you'll have the "cheater" mark next to your name, regardless of your account. The key to this setup is then to offer an appeal process for "good behavior" (not cheating for a long time). I find traditional banning just encourages cheaters to go to even less savoury depths (stealing CD-keys, for example), but such a method as described above encourages reformation.

Silent_Lamb
05-10-2007, 12:24 AM
Thank your for the quick reply, and yes that answered my question :).

A semi suggestion is that of quick wall movement. From someone who played Rome Total War I always found it annoying when someone attacked you that you had to go through each unit individually to place them on a different wall. Maybe there could be some sort of feature that would allow you to select a wall and all of your units would move to defend that side. Just a thought.

I'm a little worried about giving suggestions due to how far along the game seems.

Edit for Darvin:

I agree with you on the cheaters part and never really looked at rushes in that light.

What about torrents though. I mean, torrent sites aren't illegal and nor is sharing files but putting up a full game like that must be illegal? Games are very clearly labeled and available for download. It seems like game companies don't even try, and obviously there would be a way around the actions taken but still it seems game torrents go unopposed.

Darvin
05-10-2007, 12:30 AM
I'm a little worried about giving suggestions due to how far along the game seems.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try. You never know when something small you mentioned at one point may be put to good use by the devs. For my part, I love brainstorming ideas; the process is its own reward.

Silent_Lamb
05-10-2007, 12:34 AM
Doesn't mean you shouldn't try. You never know when something small you mentioned at one point may be put to good use by the devs. For my part, I love brainstorming ideas; the process is its own reward.

I agree with you, I've been running through very rough scenarios in my head every now and then to see if I can't come up with something.

Doug Bonds
05-10-2007, 01:13 AM
I'm a little worried about giving suggestions due to how far along the game seems.
By all means, keep the suggestions coming. We wouldn't have a "Suggestion" forum if we didn't want to hear what the potential fans would like to see in DoF.

After all, you guys are what will hopefully make the game a success!!

Konstantin Fomenko
05-10-2007, 08:53 AM
*Seconds Doug*

As far as rushes go, I think the real solution to them is simply to incorperate it into the game.

That`s the problem - we are talking about MMORTS here. So in most cases player would attack a fully-blown base. So conventional rushing with lethal result just won`t work. However, we did decide to include some 'original' ways player can rush another instead - after all what is rushing? Just an attack very early in the game, using very limited resources, fighting against time, and a lot of micromanagement.

Darvin
05-10-2007, 10:55 AM
Well, you will have a skirmish mode, right? Or will there only be the MMO mode? If that's the case, then that certainly goes on my list of concerns.

Konstantin Fomenko
05-10-2007, 11:13 AM
Darwin,

This is a really big concern to us too. If we have two multiplayer modes - MMORTS and Skirmish, there is a good chance player body would be spread too thin, and finding partners to play will be difficult for both modes, so there is a chance we`ll go for MMORTS mode only.

Darvin
05-10-2007, 02:24 PM
Then that definitely stands as one of my greatest concerns. While I can understand the potential for a shortage of players, I don't feel that it justifies removing what is essentially the defining game mode of the genre.

There are five critical reasons I'd give to do this:

1) casual matches between friends; I don't want to destroy my friend's army which he's spent time building up, but that doesn't mean we don't want to have a game against each other from time to time.
2) casual matches in general; whether they be practice games with strangers or just 'for fun' battles, sometimes you want to have a fight with nothing at stake.
3) "tournament" style matches; seriously, it's impossible to have a real test of who is really better unless we can have a mirrored setup with even starts.
4) it puts your map editor to waste if you don't have a "custom" game mode (I'm hoping to see Warcraft3 / Starcraft style maps which put scripting to good use), and if you do have a custom game mode, then there will definitely be skirmish-style matches held using that feature.
5) even if you don't have skirmish mode, I guarentee there will be a skirmish mod within a week of the game's release, and you'll have the community split you want to avoid anyways.

I'm not going to cry if there isn't a skirmish ladder, but there definitely should be a skirmish mode.

Konstantin Fomenko
05-10-2007, 09:56 PM
...and if you do have a custom game mode, then there will definitely be skirmish-style matches held using that feature.

And we though we had original thinking here...:)

Darvin,

I have to apologies, I have a bad habit of trying not to give out too much. When I said we`ll most likely have to avoid having skirmish as a second primary online mode - to save players for MMORTS, I didn`t mention anything about custom scenario play.:)

We have big plans for this feature, including fully supported online scenario developing community, with fan made scenarios available for download and play right in the main Online lobby.

These fan scenario will surely future quite a few skirmish play scenarios - as it`s easier to make a plain map, than some online RPG scenario, and we on our end will supply a good number of skirmish maps once we ship the game.

This way all these who really want/need to have a skirmish match will have this option available to them. Without the expense of diverting casual players away from MMORTS.

Of-course, if in the future the game does manage to sell well, and we get a large player base, we`d be able to release a patch with a flashing sign - "To play skirmish mode - go here."

Darvin
05-10-2007, 10:40 PM
So, there will be skirmish mode, it just won't have an official ladder or ranking system. I'm fine with that, as I've never played ranked matches seriously (not that I don't play seriously, I just don't take my ranking seriously).

With that cleared up, I would say that skirmish balance should be fine-tuned before release, even if it is a secondary mode. Certainly the gameplay mechanics of a rush are one of the most important things that need to be balanced in skirmish.

Ndition
05-16-2007, 05:50 PM
Is it possible to memory hack the resources or anything else?

Joseph Visscher
05-16-2007, 10:33 PM
Is it possible to memory hack the resources or anything else?

By all means the RWS dev team will test everything to perfection.:D

Ndition
05-17-2007, 03:47 AM
By all means the RWS dev team will test everything to perfection.:D

Lets hope so :P

Super Nova
07-18-2007, 07:54 AM
OK here is a few Question and concerns...
Questions
A.Can u and a Friend face a AI eneny on the mmorts side of the the game?
B.Will there be a tutorial in the campaign?
Concerns
A.When u play the mmorts side of DOF will u only beable to chose one race or what because i find it kinda hard for the game to remenber a person wilth 1 account and have all for races with weeelll different Everything!??!

The Witch King of Angmar
07-18-2007, 03:27 PM
OK here is a few Question and concerns...
Questions
A.Can u and a Friend face a AI eneny on the mmorts side of the the game?
B.Will there be a tutorial in the campaign?
Concerns
A.When u play the mmorts side of DOF will u only beable to chose one race or what because i find it kinda hard for the game to remenber a person wilth 1 account and have all for races with weeelll different Everything!??!

I'd say yes to all seeing how prepared and all Reverie is.

Darvin
07-19-2007, 01:00 AM
Seeing as we don't have details on the MMORTS component yet, I'd say it's premature to assume there will be AI enemies available. While it goes without saying there will be a skirmish AI, whether they will exist in the MMORTS component depends wholly upon the design of that game mode.

There will be a campaign; we've got confirmation of that. As for tutorials, I can't imagine any RTS game lacking one. At very least I'd imagine they'll "hold your hand" in the first few missions until you've learned the game.

LordSlayer
04-19-2008, 03:10 PM
As for tutorials, I can't imagine any RTS game lacking one. At very least I'd imagine they'll "hold your hand" in the first few missions until you've learned the game.

I hope they'll have a kind of DoW tutorial, where you get a tutorial for every race, not just a generic tutorial for everyone.

The Witch King of Angmar
04-19-2008, 07:21 PM
Same here. That way you can begin planning out strategies as well as build orders.

LordSlayer
04-21-2008, 02:16 PM
Same here. That way you can begin planning out strategies as well as build orders.

... and you can learn the weaknesses of all the races to make your life easier when playing online :D

The Witch King of Angmar
04-22-2008, 05:14 PM
... and you can learn the weaknesses of all the races to make your life easier when playing online :D

That's true also.

Neotyguy40
04-22-2008, 09:21 PM
... and you can learn the weaknesses of all the races to make your life easier when playing online :D

That seems really weird... Like your a human, but the elves know all your weaknesess when you start, and you can't patch them up easily...

frankein_fish
04-23-2008, 12:14 AM
That's where the diferences of the commander show's.
Since a good commander can turn a weakness to a strength.
While a bad commender just make's the weakness worse.

LordSlayer
04-23-2008, 04:51 PM
While a bad commender just make's the weakness worse.

And probably doesn't live long enought to notice :D

Neotyguy40
04-23-2008, 06:55 PM
And probably doesn't live long enought to notice :D

EDIT: I take it back...

SPARROW94
05-15-2008, 10:10 PM
sheesh, just rush i say JUST RUSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH