Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
This game isn't really an RTS is it?
McDaniels92
Member Posts: 22
I don't know much about this, I'll be honest, but from what I've seen this game doesn't really seem like an RTS, at least not in a traditional sense. I'm not saying thats a bad thing as RTS isn't the most popular genre out there, but as a veteran RTS player this game doesn't look very appealing to me and I'm interested to find out if you guys who are more knowledgeable about the game can confirm or deny my suspicions.
This game seems like a hybrid of a moba and a RTS to some extent. My perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you're typically controlling 5-20 units and trying to control various objectives ont he map... I'm a bit confused about the resource system, how do you earn resources to get new and stronger units on the field?
As an RTS player I feel like this formula is really lacking. It seems like its a bit like C&C 4 and a modern day war game that I can't remember the name of... came out like 3 years ago and involved 10 or so players per team commanding small forces. Decent game but got stale quickly.
For me RTS is a lot about the choice between economy and power, teching/defensive play and agression. It's about figuring out what your opponent is doing and abusing his weaknesses, and to some extent that seems like its missing in this game. There is no economy as far as I can tell, its just about rocks paper scissor and positioning, which is fun to some extent but for me that isn't the core of the RTS genre, and I feel like its going to be lacking.
Additionally as a competitive player I really enjoy 1v1 play. I don't want to have to carry 19 other players every time I play this game and have to worry about other people's stupidity. This is a problem a lot of people experience in league of legends where they feel that their individual skill is often not enough to earn wins because they have to carry idiots. I really feel like personal skill is going to get lost in this game because with 20 people on each team theres really only so much you can do to fix the mistakes and shortcomings of your massive team, one player just can't win even a 2 or 3 v 1 in most RTS let alone a 1v5 or something. What happens when johnny and bob lose their whole army and billy has to fight off 4 people alone to have a chance to win the game?
Comments
decent post until your last paragraph. you came off like an elitist prick. if there are 19 other people on your team you might have to actually set some of your egotistical goals aside and help your team out. it is supposed to an mmo after all. stop being so selfish and learn to play with others.
gee and people wonder why i don't play league of legends. heres a clue buddy, you're playing a video game you're not special because you are good at it and you're not impressing anyone because you are good at it. go cure cancer if you want to be as special as you think you are.
This. Well said.
I don't see how I'm being selfish... It's not like I'm trying to rack up kills in an FPS or something... This is an RTS the only stat that matters is the W or the L... It's not about my attitude, I play to win and I understand this is a team game but the fact is that there are going to be a lot of people who are just really bad at the game/not paying attention/not trying to work with the team, and people who are good or who do communicate are going to have to carry their weight in every single match. It's not about me not playing to win its about the fact that with 20 people on each team, one team is going to have more really bad players than the other every time, and feeling like I have to overcome that all the time isn't going to be fun for me.
I'm a competitive RTS player, been playing competitively for a long time. I'm not trying to say that this game will be bad, but for people like me the lack of small team play or 1v1 as well as the lack of traditional RST depth is kind of discouraging.
I can see this game being great for the casual RTS player, it isnt mechanically demanding because you're commanding only a few units, don't really need to multi task, it isn't nerve racking because you're playing on a massive team, it has progression elements, you can kind of relax while playing it due to the team size and the fact that it doesn't require as much thought as a traditional MMO, and so on.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that for me it isn't just about playing, relaxing, and enjoying the gameplay. I love the thought, the competition, the complexity, and the personal skill that games like starcraft 2, company of heroes, and other traditional RTS' take, and I feel like those things will be missing almost entirely in this game.
did it ever occur to you that its not about impressing people? Theres no such thing as being "special" if you want to get deep with me... The whole notion of merit is probably completely baseless... But thats really irrelevant. I don't play these games to get recognition for other people. I enjoy competition... It has nothing to do with external factors, I simply enjoy it its the way my brain is wired... Gotta love when people make random assumptions about other people's motivations though, its always fun to see where that goes.
You keep calling it an RTS instead of an MMORTS. This game doesn't look lobby or session based either like world of tanks or league of legends.
From the sound of your rant, you seem to want an MMORTS in the form of Sins of the Solar Empire. A game of which can be rather slow to build up on.
I have a problem with your last paragraph as it fails to bring up the fact that players can jump in an out of a fight. So if two of your teammates run off then someone else can join in the middle of fight. This was something you could only do in MMOFPS's.
Thank God McDaniels92 is here to carry us guyz! Otherwise we'd have no chance!! Yay McDaniels92! You are our hero!!
I disagree entirely.
First of all, RTS stands for Real Time Strategy. This is exactly that. You are strategically commanding units in real time. Beyond that, just about any game can vary. Resource management and base building are not required. I wouldn't necessarily connect it to a MOBA in any sense though, as those are single unit games.
I do know that you have unit loadouts that are preset before the game starts, that can be modified and customized to suit your needs. You can get more units as your persistant character advances in the game. There is no base building or unit traininig on the map. You can build defensive structures to protect your base.
Resources can be used to bring units that have died back into play, as well as use special abilities, and bring in defensive structures and possibly other options.
This game supports anywhere from 8 to 56 players on a single map. Its pushing goal is to allow massive, large scale warfare that influences territory control on a worldwide basis.
As for my personal opinion, it's easy to see why you would be skeptical about this game, as its not anything like a game you seem you would like. It is specifically being advertised as a MMORTS that is catering to people that would have fun in a huge battle, with a customizable set army that you prebuild and plan before the game starts.
Additionally, while I can understand your preferance for 1v1 combat, many people prefer game with multiple teammates and enemies. Trying to get a team working together as a cohesive unit and executing strategy can be just as thrilling, if not more so, than playing solo. And with the clan options and group play that is being offered with this game, teamwork and strategic cooperation may be the biggest influence on winning a game.
At any rate, it seems less like the game is lacking, and moreso that it just is not your type of game. Perhaps you'll enjoy the new starcraft 2 expansion.
Edit: I found most of the information you might find useful in your decision to play this game from the website itself, and this youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx4_dZsisQU
I don't really see a problem calling this game an MMORTS or an RTS, planetside is an FPS, its also an MMO, World of Warcraft is an RPG and also an MMO. I'm not really used to the term MMORTS thats probably why I didn't use it but you get my point either way, I'm talking about the RTS elements of the game not really talking about the MMO elements thats also probably why I called it an RTS.
I guess what I would prefer is something more along the lines of an RTS with MMO elements, something still more along the lines of RTS like age of empires online. That is to say, an RTS with persistence and progression. I'm still interested in this game though and will try it, I just don't know how much I'll like it without any 1v1 modes and with what seems like more simplistic gameplay.
I like the drop in drop out feature, but that doesn't really change the fact that you personally don't have a very significant impact on the outcome of a game (or so it would seem)
I don't see how you come to the conclusion that you wouldn't have a very significant impact on the outcome of a game, or that the game is somehow more simplistic. You are still overlooking the driving idea of this game which is teamwork and strategic cooperation. That is the amazingly hard idea to grasp that keeps most league of legends players in mid or low elo, and keeps many RTS's only competitive at a 1v1 level. Many players can play proficiently solo, but commanding a force of real people is another skill entirely.
This is what this game is about. Not just a starcraft 2 clone with a league of legends leveling system.
I personally dont see whats wrong with wanting to play with players of an equal skill as oneself. I dont see this attitude as elitist at all. In fact I think the term Elitist is way overused with no clear understanding of what it really means. If an individual is good at a game it can be quite frustrating to be hamstrung by players who are either bad, just plain idiots or like to go afk and eat lunch during the middle of an intense match.
Also wanting to win a competitve game is not being egotistical. Its basic human nature. If your not the type of person who enjoy's winning against other human opponents I dont think this game is the game for you. There are plenty of player vrs envrionment games in which there is no competition to worry about.
In fact I could say you are egotistical and elitist for thinking that your way of viewing a game is superior to another individuals way of viewing a game(although I do not actually think you are).
Instead of bandying about names and useless meaningless labels - attempt to refute what he is thinking or saying with actual game play mechanics or a gameplay viewpoint.
Thanks that was very informative, again, as I said in my OP, I'm not bashing this game at all. I don't mean to imply that its lacking perse. I feel that its lacking features that I'm accustomed to and enjoy, but that by no means that that is what mainstream players enjoy. I acknowledge that competitive RTS players are a minority and from a business standpoint I think this game looks quite promising as I think a lot of people will enjoy what it brings to the table. The purpose of this thread was just to get your opinions on whether you think my fears which I brought up in the OP are reasonable or not. Again I will be trying this game regardless, but I'm bored so I figured I might as well talk about it.
Thank you.... someone who understands what I was getting at. I'm not an egotistical person at all, but I don't enjoy playing with people who aren't as good at the game as me, and I don't enjoy feeling like I have to carry people. Admitedly that statement sounds like I have an elitist attitude, but in reality it doesn't mean that at all, it could and often probably does mean that, but not in this case. And as I said above, I simply enjoy competitive gaming... It's not a choice I made, I'm simply wired to enjoy this kind of thing.... Not really sure what basis you could come up with for judging someone based on their biological tendencies but if thats your perogative I invite you to try.
I have no problem with inexperienced, unskilled, or casual players. I don't feel like I'm a better person because I'm better at a video game... In fact I don't really believe that there is any reasonable basis for merit as I stated above, don't want to get philosophical here but I don't really believe in the notion of anyone being better than anyone else. Long story short I don't care how you play this game, whether you're good at it or bad, I just don't want to feel forced into carrying people every time I play this game. In a video that another poster linked it talked about smaller 4v4 maps which sounds great to me as I could try to find a team to play with or something of that nature, but I just don't want to feel forced into public 20v20 games. Due to the nature of the conquest-like map, it would seem that private matches are impossible which kind of sucks but I guess I could try to find ways around that.
"MMORTS" is not quite the right label. This isn't a massively multiplayer strategy game so much as it is a massively multiplayer tactical game - i.e., like a real-time, massively multiplayer game of Fallout: Tactics.
The problem is, however, that there aren't that many accepted labels for genres right now - for PC games, it's pretty much RPG, FPS, or RTS (even MOBAs - which are frequently very different in style from any of those - get labeled as RTSs, which they really aren't). I see the "MMORTS" label as basically saying - yes, this is an MMO, but no, it is not an RPG, nor is it an FPS. Nobody would know what an "MMORTT" is, but most players can guess what an "MMORTS" might be like.
It sounds like what you like is conventional 1v1 RTSs. If so, I would stay stick with them and don't worry about it if End of Nations isn't to your liking. You like having total control over what your side is doing, and you like the base-building and strategic elements. The bad news is, End of Nations may not be quite to your liking; the good news is, Starcraft 2 was designed with people exactly like you in mind.
You mentioned in another post that you also like the concept of progression. The bad news there is that progression just doesn't fit into the traditional 1v1 competitive RTS model. If progression makes a difference, then matches are going to be more about who has more progression under their belt than who is the better player. Age of Empires Online offers both a with-progression 1v1 experience, and a no-progression 1v1 experience; and not surprisingly, it's the no-progression model that is both the most competitve and the most popular. (Age of Empires Online may also be a better fit for your tastes than End of Nations.)
I need to say, however, that I think you may be in the minority. A lot of players want team-based multiplayer, no matter how much they may complain about their teammates. League of Legends has been hugely popular for just that reason - and arguably more popular than even Starcraft 2. League of Legends has shown that there is a huge audience for players who want fast-paced gameplay with a lot of action, a lot of tactics, and a little bit of strategy, in a team-based format. As such, I think there is a huge potential audience for End of Nations out there - even if traditional RTS players may not be as tempted, in spite of the "MMORTS" label.
I couldnt agree more with the OP.
Dealing with other player stupidity is more or less a diffrent way of saying lack of communication and differing expectations, but stupidity is a factor.
I wasnt able to play WOT any more due to the fact that i couldnt make my own team with guild mates and be organized and cooperate..it was full of people who hid all match or rushed in with snipers and it was a free for all...a game with cooperative play needs cooperative play, specifically if you have a unique role on the team. Having 20+ players on your team, and if random, is going to be a very fustrating nightmare.
Also, with the C&C 4 reference...that was just about the nails in the coffin..that games mechanics were fun for a week, but i missed the complexity of decision making that was lost...for instance no hiding a secondary construction yard, or resource managment, or defenses...nothing i loved more than having a astetically pleasant and well defended base to operate from.
To top if all off im not sure how well the F2P is going to work in a game like this...which is another turnoff.
This really is starting to look like a form of C&C4 meets DOTA...more on the C&C4 side however.
Initially i was very pumped about this game, making a base and defending it sounds fantastic in a persistant world, as do resource managment and having nearby allies and enemies to worry about...im learning the game has none of that.
Its a common trend with games im noticing, take away the mechanics that require thought and replace with just cheap action...
And i disagree that the OP is in the minority and that most people just want team based play no matter the team...lots of people want 1vs1, and there never was a shortage of team based play in RTS, its like your saying hes in the minority for wanting a 1vs1 option among the multiplayer, which seems like blindly defending the game without considering that options benefit all.
I do agree with the potential for a large audience, its going to appeal to LoL playters who want to escape the saturday morning cartoon characters.
Ive actually lost any interest in this game, when origionally i was pumped for this one, still got a beta or alpha invite rotting in my mailbox somewhere.
Then find a group of players with similar skill and opinion to you and go with them as a premade group..............
Alternatively, there are 1v1 maps (only 1 that I know of so far, but I'm sure there will be more)