PDA

View Full Version : Getting smashed,Peace time


Big Bad Orc
10-04-2007, 05:36 PM
What happens if you get smashed can you get wiped out or you just rebuild try to retake your former glory.Also will you be able to build in peacetime or something to see and upgrade your stuff like have a hour or something a day were you can use that time to be in rts mode but in peace.

SPARROW94
10-04-2007, 05:40 PM
well you see once you get completly destryoyed you start with an farm again and the reviere online thingy will pair you up with some the same as you

Big Bad Orc
10-04-2007, 05:48 PM
Its going to be painfull going from a great city to a farm people are going to cry while ill burn and enslave there people feed there kiddys to my orcs lol.:D . Also what about the peace time i hope we get something like that even 20min a day when u can rebuild and build and stuff would be real nice.Im not saying useing that time to build uber armys or anything just u could build something with your workers gather some wood,gold etc.Not be able to build troops.

ShadowyMoon
10-04-2007, 05:57 PM
I agree with Orc. There should be some compensations for people that lose a lot so the game is fun to all.

Big Bad Orc
10-04-2007, 06:15 PM
Yeah its just i wish to enjoy the game not be rushing and rushing thats all having to build everything in 5 mins or i get stoodover.I just think it would be nice if you could upgrade things like your castle and buildings and stuff with some peace time that maybe depends on achiveing things or something you know.It would be nice to see your castle and towns going about there lifes without it burning all the time lol.

ShadowyMoon
10-04-2007, 08:11 PM
There will be a sandbox mode for skirmish btw.

Ryan Zelazny
10-05-2007, 09:43 AM
We probably will have a easily-forgiven type of gameplay with the PvE side of the MMO gametype.

Although we might have a "Hardcore" option, like in Diablo 2, where when your conquored you have to start over again.

ShadowyMoon
10-05-2007, 10:25 AM
That would be nice and would make everyone happy :)

Kostia Kaploon
10-05-2007, 11:10 AM
maybe in PvP games you'll have like 10 minutes for preperations where players cant attack each other and just build up their armys and stuff. maybe even include an option where when you can click an "i'm ready" botton and when both click it (if before 10 min) the game begins.

Darvin
10-05-2007, 11:19 AM
Ten minutes of preparation? Are you kidding me? I like my games to last between 20-30 minutes, so spending a third to a half of my game time just preparing would be super-annoying. No preparation time. At most, a feature in custom games (which I definitely won't be using). I've always found peace time just makes rushing worse. The longer the time before the first battle, the more of an advantage a good build order has.

As for hardcore mode, I've always believed that to counter-act the penalties that experience gain and loot (or, in the case MMORPG, the rate of growth of your empire) should be vastly increased. As a result, the potential gain is higher to correspond with the stakes.

ShadowyMoon
10-05-2007, 11:39 AM
I agree with Darvin. No rush mode... that's total nonsence. And yes hardcore mode should have some extras.

Kostia Kaploon
10-05-2007, 11:41 AM
20-30 minutes? how? maybe (only maybe) in 1vs1 matches.. but on matches like 3vs3 you'll play for atleast an hour or so.. so this 10 min will be vital. and to optimize even more the host may decide if he wants this time or not.. like a simple server option and if u dont want it find a game without it or host one.
Besides its MMO so u get what you had in the end of ur last game (if i got it correctly) so u'll need a bit time to recover from the damages.

So what do you think?

Kost.

ShadowyMoon
10-05-2007, 12:05 PM
If you won last game your army is healed in MMO mode. And I'm really strongly against non rushing. Early attacks are a vital part of RTS games and should always be. And 20-30 mins... total nonsence. Who prepares THAT long? If it is optional in skirmishes than allright but it reduces strategic depth...

Kostia Kaploon
10-05-2007, 12:21 PM
20-30 minutes was the battle time someone here suggested - i suggested 10 min preparatin time tops.

The thing i dont like in this is that when u win in MMO u're automaticaly healed. We may have this time in the end of the game if its better. the thing is i like it when the player needs to strategicaly think beyoung a single game - for example people may try to excsost each other by having a few battles and making so much damage to the winning side that he would lose the next time. Or like "clan" members smashing a strong player of the other "clan" so they can eventualy take him down. also this requires a "retire" botton so you technicaly is defeated but you dont realy have to start over. The 10 mins can be given to you after each game and you can use them anytime you want untill the next battle, and if you dont use it - its ur problem couse it isnt acamulated.

i know its a little complex if u don't understand what im saying ill try to put it down more neetly just ask me to.

kost.

The Witch King of Angmar
10-05-2007, 01:09 PM
If you won last game your army is healed in MMO mode. And I'm really strongly against non rushing. Early attacks are a vital part of RTS games and should always be. And 20-30 mins... total nonsence. Who prepares THAT long? If it is optional in skirmishes than allright but it reduces strategic depth...

I say 5 minutes tops. Also, I often get all my games to at least 20 minutes because

A. It is a competitive game or

B. If it's a noob I just build up.

Kostia Kaploon
10-05-2007, 01:17 PM
I say 5 minutes tops. Also, I often get all my games to at least 20 minutes because

A. It is a competitive game or

B. If it's a noob I just build up.

thats ok as well but still my point here is manual recover vs auto healing.. so do u agree there should be menual and not auto?

kost.

Big Bad Orc
10-05-2007, 03:24 PM
Well im all for some recover time but what im saying is is does not have to be ingame just on your online kingdom if you get me.Thats why i said you dont build army or anything just maybe repair or build a few things maybe get some wood or stone etc.Yeah maybe for some of you its fun to swarm in the first minute of the game but just wait to it happens to you 10 times in a row you will get annoyed of it.I know i have alot to learn about rts gaming and so forth but for me thats what has turned me off some rts games.Also i dont care about skirmish mode ill getting this for my online kingdom so thats all i care about lol.

ps ORCS RULE :cool: .

Darvin
10-05-2007, 04:16 PM
An hour minimum? I consider it a major fault if games last longer than an hour on average, since there are WAY too many cases where I can't afford to play because there's no assurances that I can stay on for that long, and a lot of other people are in the same position. I'm fine if the rare game goes very long, or if you choose a disproportionately large map (a big 3v3 map for a 2v2 game, for instance), but your average every-day match should not. Moreover, team games do not necessarily last longer than solo games. If you check out the statistics for the warcraft 3 ladder, the type of map has a LOT bigger impact than the size of the team.

Secondly, I still don't see how these ten minutes are 'vital'. Starting the game off with some early skirmishing is not only part of the fun, but it shakes things up. Without it, those ten minutes will just be spent following a cookie cutter build order, anyways. Why not just give you a starting base/army that corresponds to that build-up time and just skip to the action? Why not just have all this annoying prep-work done for you!?

Kostia Kaploon
10-05-2007, 04:36 PM
An hour minimum?

Secondly, I still don't see how these ten minutes are 'vital'. Starting the game off with some early skirmishing is not only part of the fun, but it shakes things up. Without it, those ten minutes will just be spent following a cookie cutter build order, anyways. Why not just give you a starting base/army that corresponds to that build-up time and just skip to the action? Why not just have all this annoying prep-work done for you!?

What you said is ok for the first game.. but for example in the first game you built up your base a bit then it was seriesly damaged. you don't want to start with a big but broken base.. instead in those 10 mins (outside the match even) you repair a bit, gether a bit resources.. maybe reserch or somthing.. NOW you are ready to your next battle and not all broken down. and if you lost the 1st game that a must couse you have to at least have a bit of resources to start with..

the key here is understanding how the MMO works.. maybe im wrong but from what i understood it works like that - you are matched with someone your power - battle with him.. all the units/building/damage is saved.. then when you are matched again you start exactly where you left off the other time.. now what i say is you have 10 min after every match to recover from it towards the next one.. (maybe restrict or not permit at all building buildings and units.. just reparing, researching, placing your units, gethering resources etc.

just tell me if i understand this wrong..

The Witch King of Angmar
10-05-2007, 05:53 PM
What you said is ok for the first game.. but for example in the first game you built up your base a bit then it was seriesly damaged. you don't want to start with a big but broken base.. instead in those 10 mins (outside the match even) you repair a bit, gether a bit resources.. maybe reserch or somthing.. NOW you are ready to your next battle and not all broken down. and if you lost the 1st game that a must couse you have to at least have a bit of resources to start with..

the key here is understanding how the MMO works.. maybe im wrong but from what i understood it works like that - you are matched with someone your power - battle with him.. all the units/building/damage is saved.. then when you are matched again you start exactly where you left off the other time.. now what i say is you have 10 min after every match to recover from it towards the next one.. (maybe restrict or not permit at all building buildings and units.. just reparing, researching, placing your units, gethering resources etc.

just tell me if i understand this wrong..

I think Darvin meant if you start from scratch. Personally, I like to fight in the beggining because it can determine the game early and it is also fun for the action. I can't stand it just to sit there even for 5 minutes and build up. I like to always be fighting and in a battle or something like that.

Kostia Kaploon
10-05-2007, 06:02 PM
i sayed the 5 min being after the battle or outside (not at the beggning)..

but still agree with me that is necesery..

The Witch King of Angmar
10-05-2007, 06:11 PM
i sayed the 5 min being after the battle or outside (not at the beggning)..

but still agree with me that is necesery..

That seems completely unnecessary to me.

Darvin
10-05-2007, 06:56 PM
So this is more about inter-battle mechanics than the mechanics of an individual battle, as you were implying earlier. We don't honestly know the full mechanics of the MMORTS component of the game, so trying to extrapolate details on to the system from our perspective is inherently a flawed process. We can only really talk about the span of a single battle - which should roughly adhere to the RTS formula. What happens between battles and how empires and armies are managed is not yet known to us. In any case, a lot of this should be automated. I don't want to spend ten minutes of clean-up after a battle.

SPARROW94
10-05-2007, 08:36 PM
rrrgh SO MUCH POST SO LITTLE TIME.......i think im to busy playing starcraft

Kostia Kaploon
10-06-2007, 03:46 AM
So this is more about inter-battle mechanics than the mechanics of an individual battle, as you were implying earlier. We don't honestly know the full mechanics of the MMORTS component of the game, so trying to extrapolate details on to the system from our perspective is inherently a flawed process. We can only really talk about the span of a single battle - which should roughly adhere to the RTS formula. What happens between battles and how empires and armies are managed is not yet known to us. In any case, a lot of this should be automated. I don't want to spend ten minutes of clean-up after a battle.

well yes, a single battle you are right..
about the mechanics - you can read about how it works basicly on http://dawnoffantasy.com/ 's book in the mmo page...

kost.

SPARROW94
10-06-2007, 08:22 AM
i agree with dravin i HATE that clean up idea

Darvin
10-06-2007, 11:04 AM
The description on the website lacks many specifics as to how things are managed. We know assets travel between battles, but that doesn't tell us how they will do so.

Kostia Kaploon
10-06-2007, 12:00 PM
The description on the website lacks many specifics as to how things are managed. We know assets travel between battles, but that doesn't tell us how they will do so.


they say that basicaly they save all you have at the end of the battle and then load it on the start of the next battle.. or am i totaly wrong here?

kost.

The Witch King of Angmar
10-06-2007, 01:36 PM
they say that basicaly they save all you have at the end of the battle and then load it on the start of the next battle.. or am i totaly wrong here?

kost.

That means after you win the game, not just one battle.

Kostia Kaploon
10-06-2007, 02:41 PM
That means after you win the game, not just one battle.

ok maybe we use the same terms for different things..
what do u mean by "game"?
and what by "battle"?

kost.

The Witch King of Angmar
10-06-2007, 03:31 PM
ok maybe we use the same terms for different things..
what do u mean by "game"?
and what by "battle"?

kost.

Ok a battle is a single fight or skirmish between players. A game is a full match between another player and you can either win or lose it by destroying their stronghold or castle or whatever it may be.

Kostia Kaploon
10-07-2007, 05:30 AM
Ok a battle is a single fight or skirmish between players. A game is a full match between another player and you can either win or lose it by destroying their stronghold or castle or whatever it may be.

ok so by ur terms i was talking about a game (full match)

kost.

The Witch King of Angmar
10-07-2007, 10:37 AM
ok so by ur terms i was talking about a game (full match)

kost.

That is correct.

Gareth121
10-13-2007, 10:05 AM
What being able to repair a percentage of your kingdom based on how many resources you had at the end of your match?

The Witch King of Angmar
10-13-2007, 05:54 PM
What being able to repair a percentage of your kingdom based on how many resources you had at the end of your match?

I'd say yes to that and maybe how well you played.

Puppeteer
10-15-2007, 11:38 AM
or how many points you win? you can gain more points then the victor, if you play well, and maybe call it something like "Honour Points"

The Witch King of Angmar
10-15-2007, 02:21 PM
or how many points you win? you can gain more points then the victor, if you play well, and maybe call it something like "Honour Points"

Yeah that's what I was thinking.

Big Bad Orc
10-16-2007, 05:21 PM
:) That sounds great

Axal01
10-20-2007, 06:00 PM
I am strongly against "rushing" It is a strategy or tactic used by people who are afraid they can't handle a long game thus causing them to try and end the game in 5-10 minutes, not to mention no idea how the connections will be in this game it could take 10 minutes to get a game going and then the game ends in less than 10 mins so basically your wasting your time. I just left Supreme commander because they are coming out with a new one called Forged alliance which gives advantages to rushers so people who can't think fast or do good micro will have the disadvantage and end up leaving the game and becoming a ghost town like every other rts that supports rushing and heavy micromanagment. The whole idea about having a peace time is to build economy,defenses,army. Then attacking. At least let your opponent have the opportunity to give yourself a good fight. I would hate to just attack within 5-10 minutes and find myself back in the lobby to do it all over again. The main thing why people rush, is because of ranked games, if its ranked they will rush so they can get a nice score and get up in the top.. I despise games with ranking so and so on. Im new here so give me a break, ive had enough of games with ranking. Now to contradict myself, I wont have a problem with rushing in this game, as long as there is no ranking system. Peace

Axal01
10-20-2007, 07:11 PM
I am strongly against "rushing" It is a strategy or tactic used by people who are afraid they can't handle a long game thus causing them to try and end the game in 5-10 minutes, not to mention no idea how the connections will be in this game it could take 10 minutes to get a game going and then the game ends in less than 10 mins so basically your wasting your time. I just left Supreme commander because they are coming out with a new one called Forged alliance which gives advantages to rushers so people who can't think fast or do good micro will have the disadvantage and end up leaving the game and becoming a ghost town like every other rts that supports rushing and heavy micromanagment. The whole idea about having a peace time is to build economy,defenses,army. Then attacking. At least let your opponent have the opportunity to give yourself a good fight. I would hate to just attack within 5-10 minutes and find myself back in the lobby to do it all over again. The main thing why people rush, is because of ranked games, if its ranked they will rush so they can get a nice score and get up in the top.. I despise games with ranking so and so on. Im new here so give me a break, ive had enough of games with ranking. Now to contradict myself, I wont have a problem with rushing in this game, as long as there is no ranking system. Peace

Hehe, don't mind me, some of it is based on oppinion :) anyhoo futuristic games are not for me.. i rather stick to magic and swords cause i believe i was born in the wrong year :P:)

Gallivan
10-20-2007, 07:28 PM
In my opinion, rushing is all in terms of game length.

We have played games with average game lengths of 30 minutes, so a normal rush is 5-10 minutes, ending the game quickly.

However, think if normal games last 24 hours. There would still be rushes, but they would come at hour six or seven.

My point is, you can't get rid of the rush. If you create a turtling game, rushes will simply be defined as the thing that ends the game quickest.

They are a vital strategy, because they seem to form a rock-paper-scissors effect when playing. Turtle, rush, or expand is what I have most commonly seen.

If you take out rushing in some obscene way, it completely throws the idea of expanding or turtling.

I think Dawn of Fantasy's multiplayer approach will differ though, since your kingdoms can be built up/rebuilt.

Axal01
10-20-2007, 09:31 PM
In my opinion, rushing is all in terms of game length.

We have played games with average game lengths of 30 minutes, so a normal rush is 5-10 minutes, ending the game quickly.

However, think if normal games last 24 hours. There would still be rushes, but they would come at hour six or seven.

My point is, you can't get rid of the rush. If you create a turtling game, rushes will simply be defined as the thing that ends the game quickest.

They are a vital strategy, because they seem to form a rock-paper-scissors effect when playing. Turtle, rush, or expand is what I have most commonly seen.

If you take out rushing in some obscene way, it completely throws the idea of expanding or turtling.

I think Dawn of Fantasy's multiplayer approach will differ though, since your kingdoms can be built up/rebuilt.


Ahh, I understand. Thanks =)

iceblast
10-21-2007, 03:17 AM
i am for rushing (i do it) i hate long games that drift on for 20 over minutes i get rapidly bored and its not fun plus it keeps the opposition company^^

Puppeteer
10-21-2007, 05:27 AM
I was born in the wrong year too... fighting with weapons like swords and bows crafted individually is more honourable then picking someone off with a sniper or shell.
Anyway, when someone mention rushing I tend to think of it as within 5-10 minutes, sending a weak/cheap but OP force to smash an opponent. I don't like that, but neither do I like the idea of "No rushing whatsoever" that some online matches say. You gotta harass them every now and then :P

Axal01
10-21-2007, 12:10 PM
i am for rushing (i do it) i hate long games that drift on for 20 over minutes i get rapidly bored and its not fun plus it keeps the opposition company^^


I always asked people i played with why they quit and they responded they didnt like long games which i understand though, but one guy asked me why I quit and i responded with "im not having any fun dieing and starting over every 10 minutes, and that makes me rapidly bored :)

Axal01
10-21-2007, 02:36 PM
Some games are based on building an empire and conquring the world but they end up being 5-10 minute of a skirmish and that doesnt give the feel of warefare. More like a game of Who am i and What do I do. The feel of a warefare game is getting rich and attacking and defending and to feel as if you are really in control of a base or a kingdom or a country. Some games people play what they call "Diplo" and everyone builds their base or kingdom and then an army and decide who to conqur and who to ally with to win the War. I do admit, my strategy is defensive but when I go on the offensive its going to be an intense interesting fight on the battlefield cause im not going to send weak/cheap units to the battlefield just so someone can say wow i killed his whole army so he can feel good about him self :) but to constantly send weak/cheap units every second is not intense and is not interesting and does not make me feel good, that is if its me doing it. When im with a friend or friends, we will build up and build a massive army and meet somwhere on the field and duke it out and see who wins and then attack the base of the person who lost the battle and then decide who wins the "WAR" =)

The Witch King of Angmar
10-21-2007, 07:37 PM
In my opinion, rushing is all in terms of game length.

We have played games with average game lengths of 30 minutes, so a normal rush is 5-10 minutes, ending the game quickly.

However, think if normal games last 24 hours. There would still be rushes, but they would come at hour six or seven.

My point is, you can't get rid of the rush. If you create a turtling game, rushes will simply be defined as the thing that ends the game quickest.

They are a vital strategy, because they seem to form a rock-paper-scissors effect when playing. Turtle, rush, or expand is what I have most commonly seen.

If you take out rushing in some obscene way, it completely throws the idea of expanding or turtling.

I think Dawn of Fantasy's multiplayer approach will differ though, since your kingdoms can be built up/rebuilt.

I agree but I like when the player is good and can beat off a rush and can turn the tides turning it into a real war. Personally, I love long games, but I also like the concept of having to rebuild as well as making comebacks.

ShadowyMoon
10-22-2007, 12:17 AM
WKOA is right. On any game I've played you can never take out a good player with a rush or hurt them with it. If you rush a good player you're putting yourself at an economic disadvantage and you will lose eventually if the enemy doesn't screw up somehow. So even though non rushing does have it's point I'm not a fan of long games and I simply hate turtlers. I doubt any RTS should reward turtling. It's not a viable strategy and it never was neither in games nor in real war... Back on topic about the rushes: Generally anyone who complains of them in any game is just not good enough to defend accordingly IMO. About 3-4 years ago when I was a newbie at StarCraft I was preaching how rushes are the most horrible thing in an RTS. Now I can't live without them.

frankein_fish
10-22-2007, 12:27 AM
WKOA is right. On any game I've played you can never take out a good player with a rush or hurt them with it. If you rush a good player you're putting yourself at an economic disadvantage and you will lose eventually if the enemy doesn't screw up somehow. So even though non rushing does have it's point I'm not a fan of long games and I simply hate turtlers. I doubt any RTS should reward turtling. It's not a viable strategy and it never was neither in games nor in real war... Back on topic about the rushes: Generally anyone who complains of them in any game is just not good enough to defend accordingly IMO. About 3-4 years ago when I was a newbie at StarCraft I was preaching how rushes are the most horrible thing in an RTS. Now I can't live without them.


rushes are an importent strategy however if the enemy cant survive then the game will end in like 10-15 minutes wich i hate.

Puppeteer
10-22-2007, 09:41 AM
harrassing: yes, rushing to destroy: no fun

Darvin
10-22-2007, 10:59 AM
I'll be blunt about this: if the best course of action is to just turtle and develop in the early game rather than fight, this game will be rather boring. Not to mention that the underlying problem of "rushing" (that is, the first battle is the decisive one that decides the match) isn't alleviated.

The problem with "rushing" that most people have isn't that it comes too early, but rather that the game ends too soon afterwards. It doesn't matter how much you delay rushing, it's not going to fix the underlying problem that the first battle is overly decisive. If anything, it exacerbates the issue because the game is easier to reduce down to a formula. If there is less human interaction (ie, no battles), the game is more predictable, and plays more easily into the hands of someone who has a well timed build order.

I am not so much a detractor of "rush > boom > turtle > rush" so much as I believe it is misrepresented in a naive fashion. First and foremost, all strategies are rather a mix of the above. Some lean more heavily on one aspect rather than others, but all take aspects from each. If you had to devote yourself to only one, after all, the game would just be a rather overcomplicated version of rocks-paper-scissors (unfortunately, too many RTS games are that way). To abandon any one of these aspects should be suicide. To break things down:

Rush: this aspect of the game is about interfering with your opponent's development. The goal of such attacks is to disrupt their economy and growth so your own can outpace them. Naturally, this aspect has difficulty breaching dedicated defenses.

Boom: this aspect of the game encompasses increasing your income and making your units better. In essence, it increases your potential, allowing you to field a better army than your opponent (if you've invested in such an army). Naturally, this aspect is vulnerable to enemy attacks.

Turtle: this aspect of the game is about protecting your existing assets and preventing the enemy from destroying them. Turtling needs to fill a very special role, in that it not only allows you to protect your assets, but use your army for offensive purposes knowing you have something to fall back on.

Many games have improperly balanced the three. BFME2's problem isn't so much that rushing is strong, but rather that turtling is weak and boom is vulnerable. In that game, buildings had very low HP, so rushers had an easy time destroying enemy assets. Defenses were expensive and remarkably ineffective at what they did. Because of this, the only valid strategy was to launch reckless offensives. The only defense against enemy offensives was counter-offensives. It caused a nightmarish scenario that could end very quickly. No one could "grow" because investing in booming was suicide. No one could defend because the resources required to build adequate defenses in the first place necessitated an economy you couldn't have. As a result, all that was left was attacking.

If you remove rushing, you will create a similar problem. If rushing is not valid, either because defenses are too cheap, too strong, or booming isn't vulnerable enough, then people will ignore the feature entirely. Perhaps a light defense just in case, but all out teching. The result will simply be that the person with the best build order - the one that reaches the high end unit that can make the kill first - will be the victor, and it will be a very uneventful game.

I also dislike the term harassing, as it implies that the moment enemy defenders show up that you run away. That's no fun, either. We want to see battles, and encourage early fights. I find the best way to do that is to encourage people to build many settlements early game. The main settlement may be considered impervious and designed as such, but the outlying settlements should be the goal of the battles. Losing any one isn't the end of the world, but if someone can take them all he's set himself up for a quick win, and probably deserves it.

The Witch King of Angmar
10-22-2007, 01:30 PM
I agree with Darvin on this, balance is key. I personally, am looking forward to the turtle and economic features of the game. Sure I think rushing would be good for early resources as well as holding a player down but I would like this game to be more focused on building up and launching an assualt on your enemy to make it more realistic as well as fun. Still, rushing is an important feauture of the game, and without it, the game would be very dull. One thing I don't want to happen is this however: I downloaded a demo for the game The Settlers: Rise of An Empire and all it was was building and no war. Now I know that DoF will be based on fighting more than building but I think the player should get a joy out of building as well as being able to battle as well. To me, that is what makes a great game.

Ryan Zelazny
10-23-2007, 04:28 PM
I am strongly against "rushing" It is a strategy or tactic used by people who are afraid they can't handle a long game thus causing them to try and end the game in 5-10 minutes, not to mention no idea how the connections will be in this game it could take 10 minutes to get a game going and then the game ends in less than 10 mins so basically your wasting your time. I just left Supreme commander because they are coming out with a new one called Forged alliance which gives advantages to rushers so people who can't think fast or do good micro will have the disadvantage and end up leaving the game and becoming a ghost town like every other rts that supports rushing and heavy micromanagment. The whole idea about having a peace time is to build economy,defenses,army. Then attacking. At least let your opponent have the opportunity to give yourself a good fight. I would hate to just attack within 5-10 minutes and find myself back in the lobby to do it all over again. The main thing why people rush, is because of ranked games, if its ranked they will rush so they can get a nice score and get up in the top.. I despise games with ranking so and so on. Im new here so give me a break, ive had enough of games with ranking. Now to contradict myself, I wont have a problem with rushing in this game, as long as there is no ranking system. Peace

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but DoF will give you a ranking. BUT don't run off just yet, there are things that will help your "non-rushing" mentality. We aren't going to stop rushing all together, because it is a viable strategy, and to limit a player from playing they way they like is just bad thinking as far as game design goes.

However, in DoF's MMO aspect, you will find that rushing isn't going to nessicarily decide the outcome of a battle in 5-10 minutes, your going to have a fortress that is already well defended, and when people come at you, you will be ready for them. Rushers will have to think with different tactics then throwing their entire army at an opponent in the first 5 minutes of a game, because it's a good chance their not going to succeed.

To win a match in DoF, your going to have to employ multiple tactics and use everything that is at your disposal. We are trying to create DoF to be more realisitc, so that it's not a game based on set numbers, but on a players experience and skill, and in some cases, luck. This doesn't mean long drawn out games of an hour or so, we are expecting players will actually get to more intense play with having their fortresses ready to battle. In my experience, rushing usally succeeds because a person rushes against someone who hasn't built a big enough army, or enough defenses to fend off said rush and the rusher is victorious.

Axal01
10-24-2007, 01:24 AM
Nah, I won't run off :) Afterall it is a magic and sword type of game and not a nuke and laser fight.lol I prefer fantasy and well it is Dawn of Fantasy :)

frankein_fish
10-24-2007, 02:19 AM
To win a match in DoF, your going to have to employ multiple tactics and use everything that is at your disposal. We are trying to create DoF to be more realisitc, so that it's not a game based on set numbers, but on a players experience and skill, and in some cases, luck. This doesn't mean long drawn out games of an hour or so, we are expecting players will actually get to more intense play with having their fortresses ready to battle. In my experience, rushing usally succeeds because a person rushes against someone who hasn't built a big enough army, or enough defenses to fend off said rush and the rusher is victorious.

Sounds good too me, if thats what gonna happend in a game

Puppeteer
10-25-2007, 12:39 PM
wooah long post Darvin
I also dislike the term harassing, as it implies that the moment enemy defenders show up that you run away. That's no fun, either. We want to see battles, and encourage early fights. I find the best way to do that is to encourage people to build many settlements early game. The main settlement may be considered impervious and designed as such, but the outlying settlements should be the goal of the battles. Losing any one isn't the end of the world, but if someone can take them all he's set himself up for a quick win, and probably deserves it.

By my definition of harrassing it is more of an annoyance but advantageous, not a cowardice fight then flight. Early on destroying what you can with small units to "keep them occupied", preventing them from building up armies/defences as fast as they'd hope to. And gain an insight into what they're doing. Call it a "Human Palintir".

Axal01
10-27-2007, 11:12 AM
Hey,I just thought about something... What if you attacked some guy like 3-5 minutes and u failed and u just kept attacking non stop and u couldnt kill the guy early? Would you quit so it doesn't go into a long game?

Darvin
10-27-2007, 11:56 AM
That actually happens in some games, where if the game looks like it's drawing on for longer than 5 or 6 minutes, competitive players just quit and start a new game. The idea is very simple; why fight twenty or thirty minutes for a match you may or may not win when you can just quite and fight half a dozen matches which will probably be much easier.

This is alleviated through a good matchup system that ensures that the next opponent will be of similar difficulty, so it's a bad gamble to quit and hope for an easier opponent. Good matchup systems should have everyone gravitating to a 50/50 win/loss ratio. If you're any lower than you're being matched with people who are too good for your skill level, and any higher and you're being matched with people who are not good enough to be considered at your skill level.

frankein_fish
10-27-2007, 12:47 PM
God i hate those who quit after some minutes :mad:

Roth
10-27-2007, 01:27 PM
Hello, :)

I've been reading up on these forums for awhile, I'm very interested in the game, and It will provide very unique features compared to other RTS games, and that's what I like. So I decided to sign up and reply to this.

I agree that rushing is a valuable strategy in gameplay, early attacking plays an important role in keeping the enemy occupied, and keeping the fight away from you. I like that Dawn of Fantasy will make it so not all rushes are effective like you may see in other games, like Battle for Middle Earth 2. Players will have a chance to defend, and retaliate in this game. So keeping the base of rushing on the scale with Dawn of Fantasy is the way to go, and adds some variety in strategy, and tactics you can employ on your enemies.

But still yet, some people won't like the rushing aspect. Under many circumstances, rushing can strain people, and I do know people that are like that, because they can't keep up with rushing. They end up quiting a game, or get too stressed to do well enough, and it costs them the game. Which is why I think there should be atleast an option for peace time for some of these players that really need it, that way there is alittle diversity to keep the community happy.

Besides that, the people that want the normal gameplay, and can handle it, and like the challenge of getting beat into early game, they don't have to enable the option. So putting an option, to enable at will before a game starts would be very simple to do, and would not affect the orginal gameplay for other players. It's just nice to have the option there.

But I agree with Darvin, it keeps a constant collision on forces on the battlefield. And because of DoF's unique aspects, and gameplay, and the realism it presents, the battle may generally be long anyways, and rushing might not be that effective like Ryan was saying, and they won't nessesarly succeed, so then again it may be fairly easy on anyones part to play the game and not worry over the threat of rushing, because you are sitting behide a defensive wall afterall.

Axal01
10-27-2007, 01:51 PM
its okay though, ill only be playing with my friends. We like to build massive armies and eco and usually have a peace treaty until one of us decides we want to dominate the world and then Invade. To get a fun amazing feeling of an insane war as if it was a real war.. Like Troy,trojans defended their castle while the greeks attacked with many numbers, or just pick a place to do a huge battle and then the loser has to retreat to defend the castle. The meaning of battle in my book is, a small fight on the castle walls,the gates,in the field,forest and the meaning of WAR is the whole game/map. If i defeat his armies and castle and hes dead, then ive won the war, not the battle because the battle was won out in the fields and then a new battle was at his castle and thus ive won the War. I hope this made sense, if it didn't oh well lol but im definitly gettin the game

Puppeteer
10-27-2007, 01:59 PM
What I would like to see is a better way of scoring online stats. One possibily would be it doesn't matter your actual score of wins or games played, but ratio between wins to losses, however the obvious flaw is someone who wins on their first go is ranked higher, who say has 70 wins to 5 losses.
What I would like is based on points. In a game it counts upon things like units built, units lost, units destroyed and their ratios; buildings built, lost and razed and their respective ratios; and finally things like research and resources spent. Then it would be worked out into points, which would then be benchmarked into levels. :D
This is the system of ratios in bfme2:
Tactical Skill: units built/units lost
Strategic Skill: (units destroyed + buildings destroyed)/money spent
Of course the errors in the first is that it is not about skill, but conservation of troops, and if the units have high health or not. The errors in the second is that of finding the best possible and cheapest way to win, though skill only be in repetition for having what I call a "Ground-Hog" strategy, my own personal.

Darvin
10-27-2007, 02:19 PM
The problem with those methods is that they don't differentiate between player skill. If I'm constantly fighting the best players in the game, I may have a win/loss ratio of 30%. That's not a great %, but frankly if I can pull off a win 30% of the time against the very best, I must be pretty good. Conversely, if I'm constantly fighting newbies and have a win/loss ratio of 90%, that means practically nothing. Of course I can beat newbies, but that's meaningless. I'll probably get creamed by anyone who is half decent.

Win/loss ratios and total wins and losses are worthless measures, because by playing the "right" opponents you can abuse the system for a high score that you don't deserve. Conversely, playing "legitimately" and tackling the toughest opponents available often hurts your score more than it helps. This is the wrong way to go about it.

I think the WC3 ladder was managing things right. You have to base the ladder position of each player not just on how much they win, but who they win against. Winning a single match over the top player on the ladder would be worth thousands of times the score of what a match against the worst player would yield.


Using in-game scoring methods is no good. There are always strategies that can be used to inflate your score artificially, even if your performance left much to be desired. In WC3, using necromancers to summon a horde of skeletons was a massive score boon, even though that could end up being counter-productive if the enemy had destroyers or some other strong anti-magic tool.

Puppeteer
10-28-2007, 05:59 AM
So you propose sticking to the scoring which is "the bigger the score the more you play it" -_-

Axal01
10-28-2007, 06:56 AM
I was once told to not let my enemy build up. I was also told that rushing was challenging and risky. I find letting the enemy build up challenging and risky and pretty much horrified so i get my thrills out of that knowing if i let this guy build up i may very much lose. but its all good :) its better than a drug lol

The Witch King of Angmar
10-28-2007, 11:51 AM
The thing I hate is when you are ranked wrong. Ok say 1 day you win 5 games straight and then the next you are playing like rank 100 in the world. Maybe the ladder or some computer or something could look at how you play and rank you on that as well as if you won or lost.

Darvin
10-28-2007, 11:58 AM
So you propose sticking to the scoring which is "the bigger the score the more you play it" -_-

Quite the contrary; I propose a scoring system where the better your opponents the more score you get. In other words, the only way to climb the ladder is by fighting better opponents. Combined with an extrapolation formula to "guess" at your final ladder rank and match appropriately, this would in fact allow someone to climb through the ladders extremely rapidly with very little playtime.

axal011
03-15-2008, 07:34 PM
I was once told to not let my enemy build up. I was also told that rushing was challenging and risky. I find letting the enemy build up challenging and risky and pretty much horrified so i get my thrills out of that knowing if i let this guy build up i may very much lose. but its all good :) its better than a drug lol


Why was this ignored? AWHILE BACK.. It Made perfect sense and wasn't favoring just one side. Favoring actually both sides :mad:

Tbeaz161
04-14-2008, 12:39 PM
I think there should be games called rush or long etc.

Diggz
05-15-2008, 10:54 PM
People, people, people..

If what i seem to have read is correct, your assets carry on with you from fight to fight. Meaning that rushing may work really well in the first fight when you have no walls yet, but two hardcore players who, per se, both won their last game and have 100% hp stuff. Rushing is suicide in that case.

DoF is going to be whoever plays their card in the right circumstance. I camp in base, you rushed at start, you failed, my army is nearly intact, I build up for a minute or so and then come at your base. You're choice of cards just lost you the game.

**Cards is a metaphor, dont get all thinking this is a card game**