Darth Windu Posted April 11, 2004 Author Share Posted April 11, 2004 FroZ - tech levels hurt gameplay and are unrealistic - they are relics of the past. In terms of Resources, you obviously havent played the C&C series, i've actually had long, intense games which are more fun than SWGB because your miners only collect one resource, and do that automatically, so the player can concentrate of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 I'm well aware of C&C gameplay I own quite a few titles myself. You want to know why there online community lasts a month cause of the gameplay you praise so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad In early games, economical micro means everything. Reducing it will turn it into...well a simple, like a good old forummer who hasn't been here in a long time, clickfest. Just pumping out units and attacking the enemy without caring about anything else...yes...so strategic... Oh please, WC3 puts emphasis on unit micro, not on economical. IF you know how to play, it's much more strategy than AoE and SWGB. ...or lets say it's a different type of strategy, to stay politically correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Exactly, more resources doesn't mean more strategy. It means more economy, but not more strategy. In fact I'm revamping my template and reducing it down to one collectable resource, because I think having only Credits suits Star Wars better. Let's not forget there are other "kinds" of resources. My new idea has Credits (collectable from deposits on the map and through other means) as well as Power (which operates like the C&C Games) and Population (which operates like the Age titles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 Thats quite true. I have, in addition to collectable resources, population which must be researched (Civic) and then increased by the building of Barracks, Airbases etc and also Power which you have to have or your base simply wont function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Having more ressources pushes you to concentrate on looking for them and controlling the ressources. When you have 3-4 ressources, each one of them has a certain importance and each one of them has a degree of rareness on the map. You're going to have to actually think about securing some Metal deposits while keeping the flow of credits constant and keep your food storehouses full. When you have only one(this excluding power cores and population which are not ressources). It narrows down to leaving a few units around some location where the particular ressource is, leaving it there, not really caring about it since there's another one just around the corner. Windu- If I recall, your vaunted RoN has a lot of ressources...interesting... And claiming that tech levels hurt realism while keeping Nova is like...well saying black is better then white and then buy white stuff... Darth54- I see you are correct. It is a different type of strategy. But then I've been playing a lot of CivIII... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 darth-WC3 is not an RTS its a RPS so stop comparing it with SWGB. SWGB is ten times the game WC3 ever will be and I know WC3 and TFT I played the campaigns and I want my money back. IMO it isnt a click fest its a hero fest you hero rush your enemy send a few troops along for the ride very boring. Vostok- Just killed your template. Windu- Your template is a mixture of games so obvious, I find it very hard to find any direction of gameplay Three or more resources slow down gameplay this is good because it keeps you interested in the game longer than just a credit grind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 luke - no, having 3-4 resources forces players to concentrate on building cities, not armies. As for RoN, it does indeed have many resources, but i prefer the system Vostok and I have come up with to the RoN system. With Nova, as i said it still exists, but it is basically just a physical manifestation of Credits - the name can be changed. Getting back to the point, with resources, we have to ask one simple question. WHY AM I PLAYING THIS GAME? Are we playing to build up big bases, concentrating on finding x-amount of different resources and have to constantly check what tech level we are at while producing small forces for skirmishes OR Are we playing to produce huge armies, and to fight our enemies in epic battles, while the base more-or-less takes care of itself, although the initial setting-up of the base requires a lot of attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saberhagen Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Windu Are we playing to build up big bases, concentrating on finding x-amount of different resources and have to constantly check what tech level we are at while producing small forces for skirmishes OR Are we playing to produce huge armies, and to fight our enemies in epic battles, while the base more-or-less takes care of itself, although the initial setting-up of the base requires a lot of attention? Both. In SWGB (at least in team games, 1v1 is different) we build big bases and find and control the different resources but only so we can build big armies and fight epic battles. Having a good economy is not the whole point of the game, it's just a means to an end. If you can build a big army without the resource management it just gets too easy and boring. If you don't have significant resource management in the game you can just build as many of whatever type of unit you want, and where's the strategy in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 No one could have said it better saber. EDIT: OOps I have mistaken saber for Froz. Sorry man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 saber - you missed the point i was trying to make. What im asking what do we want the focus of SWGB2 to be on? Do we want to micro-manage our base/economy etc or do we want a bit more automation of those features so the player can concentrate more on battles and how those battles are played out? Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 12, 2004 Author Share Posted April 12, 2004 saber - you missed the point i was trying to make. What im asking what do we want the focus of SWGB2 to be on? Do we want to micro-manage our base/economy etc or do we want a bit more automation of those features so the player can concentrate more on battles and how those battles are played out? Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity. As for strategy, i made up for the reduction of economic-micro by adding the different research features, the concept of borders, and also the different pop-slot system (ie 8 Stormtroopers or 1 AT-AT). This allows players to concentrate more on HOW they will fight the battle. As example is using the AT-AT. It is very powerful and well-armoured, but completely defenceless from the rear. Therefore, Imperial players will need to make sure their AT-AT's have escorts to protect them from flanking attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by FroZticles darth-WC3 is not an RTS its a RPS so stop comparing it with SWGB. About time someone realizes that! I've been saying this for ages... Originally posted by FroZticles SWGB is ten times the game WC3 ever will be and I know WC3 and TFT I played the campaigns and I want my money back. IMO it isnt a click fest its a hero fest you hero rush your enemy send a few troops along for the ride very boring. You played through the campaigns? Congrats man! You've officially played 5 % of WC3! And heroes *have* to be important. You said yourself it was an RPS (and just to keep the subject on-topic) I'd say go for 2 resources. Keep the credits as the main one, but add another one used to make more specific stuff, such as advanced mechs and the like. Originally posted by Darth Windu Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity. I agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 darth- I played it online for 3 months while having a break from SWGB and got bored of the constant heroes and spells. Windu- upping your pop slots and an extra research or 2 is no replacement for 3 missing resources you haven't reduced economic micro managment you killed it altogether Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Originally posted by FroZticles darth- I played it online for 3 months while having a break from SWGB and got bored of the constant heroes and spells. Well, what's the point of playing WC3 if you don't like heroes? Windu : I just noticed what you said about borders. I don't like it. Borders are fine for games such as RoN (in which you actually build cities), but in a future SW RTS, I doubt it would work correctly. I agree for the pop. stuff though (8 storms = 1 atat, ect.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Windu Personally, i would gladly reduce economic micro-management for more battle-time, because really that is the whole reason people buy RTS' - to fight. Otherwise, people can go out and buy SimCity. No, you missed it. You can have both. Now you're comparing a strategy game with an RTS. Although they both have the word strategy in, they are two different genre. By the way, where in SimCity do we see wars and huge battles? Nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 luke - what i'm saying is that the focus of the game should be on battle - because that's why people buy the freakin' game! There will have to be economic micro-management when you first set up your base. You will have to ask 'where do i want this structure, how many credits do i want in this research, how many workers do i want collecting resources' etc. That is unavaoidable, and a good thing. But once you have that done, you shouldn't need to constantly be checking to see if your workers are idle, if you've run out of resources etc causing you to take your mind of battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 You do realize that's how war is right? War ain't only about the Military, from the beginning to the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Windu with one resource its impossible to run out of resources so you will be in battle 99% of the time games will last 20 mins tops I assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 luke - no, it isn't. In Ep5, we don't see General Reikan saying 'we have to get those workers over the ridge to collect metal' or 'gee, where should i put these barracks'? War is about fighting, not building an economy. As i said, we shouldnt delete it, but it shouldnt require micro-management in the end game. Also, with war being only about the miliatry, it depends on who we are playing as here. Are we playing as a Political leader or a Military commander? If it's political, the economy is very important, if it is Military, then battle is more important. FroZ - how on earth did you come to the conclusion that having one resource means there will be a lot of that resource floating around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Windu you never think of gameplay you just want as much fighting and action as you can get if that means destroying the playability of games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted April 13, 2004 Author Share Posted April 13, 2004 FroZ - yes, i do want a lot of action and fighting, but how exactly am i "destroying playability of games" and "never think of "? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMuffin Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Originally posted by Darth Windu War is about fighting, not building an economy. There's no war if you don't have a good economy. You gotta pay and feed those soldiers, after all. And I think one resource like in Generals is bad. I'd say two, plus housing/food (wheter you want to make it like AoE or SC/WC) Perhaps we should create a new topic... the title doesn't represent what we're talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Vostok Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Yeah, but we already have another naval combat topic. This is now the official resources topic. Now, much has been said since my last post. Once upon a time I would certainly be in the three-to-four-resources camp, but I think I'm now in the one-or-two-resources camp. It has been said that having more resources keeps the game more interesting, whereas only one resource leads to boredom. I disagree completely. Age of Mythology has three resources, four if you count Favor (which you should), but I now find that game boring as Hell (if indeed Hell is boring). C&C Generals on the other hand I love, and it only has one resource. I don't find it boring at all. Three or more resources slow down gameplay this is good because it keeps you interested in the game longer than just a credit grind....Slowing down gameplay does not keep you interested, it makes you bored. C&C Generals is filled with action which makes it interesting, while the gameplay of Age of Mythology is slowed down so that it becomes boring. On the other hand SWGB has four resources and I don't get bored with that either. My point is more resources does not equal more fun. When it gets down to it, three or four resources don't require any more strategy to use than one resource. You really just mine all the resources you can get your hands on, and late in the game you've got enough to exchange for what you need. The difference is that with one resource you don't need to do the exchanging part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FroZticles Posted April 13, 2004 Share Posted April 13, 2004 Vostok maybe if you played games longer than a week you would have a different thought. AoM is about gods not SW. C&C generals is very boring they couldn't even get multiplayer balanced thats how great it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.