Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game mechanic points I dislike, feedback for the devs. Gameplay mechanic spoilers.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ForceUser View Post
    Some of the bonuses are abstracted somewhat since not ever real world advantage of high ground can be accurately simulated. For example the damage bonus is not only there to simulate the advantage of firing into the less armored top of enemy vehicles but also to simulate the information advantage of being able to see and more accurately aim weapons into vulnerable targets. The defense bonus is to simulate the advantage you would have defensively with regards to being able to more clearly see what an enemy formation is doing as a whole whereas your own formation and/or movements are much easier to be obfuscated or concealed. Also, unless you are right on the exact ridge line, you actually present a far smaller silhouette than anything below you.

    Some of the advantages of high ground, or rather the exact topography of the terrain is a lot easier to more directly showcase, like ducking behind a hill to avoid incoming fire, to have indirect fire units hide behind the safety of a dune or cliff, etc. Other less tangible but as demonstrated in real life no less effective advantages need to be simulated in a more abstract way since this isn't a 1:1 real life simulation.

    High ground, while perhaps slightly less important in modern direct warfare, has been recognized as being at the very least advantageous in most circumstances for over 2000 years.

    Pretty much all of this, yup!

    Comment


    • #17
      Why not just show those things happening instead of having a magical plus sign?

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm pretty sure I have been able to destroy production subsystems(such as AAV) on the carrier.

        Comment


        • #19
          I have spent quite a bit of time with WarGame: Red Dragon (and the earlier European Escalation) and yes the simulation is much richer and deeper there. Then again these are different games - HW is a bit more of a mainstream, casual and faster paced thing. I'd rather compare to World in Conflict, another masterpiece. There's no need to add fuel or even ammo to most units in this game (could add ammo to some missile units but only as an option to address future balance issues).

          Some mechanics seen in RD and so on could definitely add to the game. Detection based on line of sight for example... Since we're not in space it would be nice to see more made out of terrain. Perhaps there could be some wadis or rock fields/drops that could be crossed only by LAV and hover units? Maps would need MUCH more variety - as we've seen in other games and the campaign!

          Damage model could use a bit more refinement even in RD. But here we have armor on units at least? (Is there front/rear? We had that for tanks in WiC and it would fit here too!) How about adding shields to cruisers? Would make them feel something more than just oversized tanks (they even look a bit small compared to carriers).

          More damage effects could add some variety and just the right kind of spice to the game. How about units becoming immobilized or catching fire and exploding after a bit? Would fit nicely to the cruisers at least - they'd usually extinguish the fires, of course...

          Don't really miss the subsystems - ok it adds to the game but somehow I was not a fan of that mechanic. And the logistic/sensor arrays etc kind of are your subsystems here. We could have more different kinds of infrastructure but it's kind of unnecessary since we already have the relics to fight over.

          I like the small fleet cap! Actually seems to hang with the compact, intense game design. You're not supposed to just mass up your fleet for 20 minutes - we had sometimes that syndrome in HW2 and that was horrible! Instead, use your units and keep pumping out more to replace losses. Active use and smart composition of fleets are rewarded here over just building and blobbing. WiC had even a much smaller "fleet cap" and was so much better just for that reason - they could model each unit with more abilities and you could have much closer micro to each of them.

          Actually it feels a bit like a contradiction to ask for a larger fleet cap and more detail for units. Could lead to problems on lower end systems, too...
          Last edited by varis; 02-02-2016, 04:10 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think BBI needs to realize that they should be capitalizing on the environment which people appreciate.
            ‚ÄčThe StarCraft genre has pretty much had its day, IMHO.

            They can either extend the depth of the HW series adding complexity and enrichment, or reverse the polarity and focus on PvP as small strike units.


            If they were to create a richer enivironment, I'd expect to see
            multiple races,
            a quite extended research tree,
            modular units,
            infantry,
            more persistent assets and possibly MMO,
            more realism (day/night cycle, sandstorms, etc),
            etc.

            In the case of PvP, I'd focus on
            the single unit or smaller groups,
            team compositions,
            complex purpose-built PvP maps,
            extended match objectives,
            extended metas,
            player team roles,
            carrier as last and final objective,
            etc.

            Comment


            • #21
              Also was trying to find out how to set unit behaviours like you could in homeworld. Sometimes I want my sand skimmers to respond to threats instead of sitting there and getting picked off.
              Again I find myself hoping homeworld3 will not be made at this rate, nothing moved forwards, everything was a slight step backwards to the early 90s (this is command and conquer). The story though is top notch as is the art work. I just feel like I am blobbing units here.
              Last edited by Destraex; 10-02-2016, 05:17 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Um what game are you playing? There's plenty of tactical maneuvers that you need to pull off yourself, (micro) There's no blobs that are being commanded with little to no micro in this game, if there is than you're gonna get smashed by someone who knows what they are doing. To say you don't wish for homeworld 3 over something so trivial is ridiculous hyperbole.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Not ridiculous at all Avetorian. I have once again picked up DOK and once again came to the conculsion that I had to post here to make the devs aware of things I thought needed fixing in an expansion. I had forgotten I posted here but got my thread here as a result for the topics I wanted to post in. I was discussing DOK on facebook again with a few people that do like DOK multiplayer responding.
                  Just reading the above again, I don't think Red Dragon is more niche than DOK. It's probably vastly more popular actually and I am still of the opinion that DOK needs almost to be a mod in the red dragon engine. See below for my comments today on facebook:

                  "As for the mobile mothership aspect. This makes it only slightly less c&c. The unit speeds and blob like movement with not way of controlling formation more so. The static supply modules also more so. Like I said I play homeworld games because I don't want starcraft spam like combat that is what comes with small maps, fast units and production. A return of fuel mechanics or even the introduction of some kind of infantry marine vehicle, mine layers, not necessarily shield vehicles with energy shields but something similar would have been good. A lot of the variety of the other homeworld games, the unit types and thus the options from a homeworld game are gone. DOK is really very starcraft like with its small unit count and simply mechanics making it very easy to tune and balance. But the cost was a less believable battlefield and atmosphere. When units fire through others instead of getting los it to me reflects laziness and lack of care rather than genius. The same goes for having an advantage on a hill, that's medieval. Modern armies avoid sillouetting on hills. Hull down is much better and would have been a welcome mechanic. DOK seems to me to be made for rock paper scissors instead of combat variety. I liked homeworld because originally it was breaking the RTS mould and heading at least a little towards simulator territory rather than the other way around. My Command and Conquer reference was mainly towards the fast units and small maps than anything else. The spammy nature of battles. Homeworld space games never seemed like that. They seemed like real carrier groups and took time and strategy to master rather than spam and micro. The fact that to begin with you are contacted by the AI almost immediately is the first tell of that. It would have been great to see NEW mechanics not seen in other RTS games just like homeworld had. Groups of small units hiding in sand, infantry that could fortify a position or board another group by some sort of parachute or pod fired method. DOK seems a simplified space homeworld with less rather than more to do. The only unit that is a little different to other RTS games is probably that the carrier can move. The others are fairly cookie cutter and could be from any other RTS. Then we have the skill buttons... another way RTS devs skimp on real mechanics to get some variety and player interaction."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by BBI-ekhudson View Post
                    Hi Destraex! Thanks for such detailed and thought-out feedback! The community is pretty spread out at the moment, but this is the best spot to deliver feedback that you want us at BBI to read.
                    We debated many, many different gameplay systems during development. As is always the case, it can be difficult to nail down the level of detail in the simulation, how much you choose to represent vs. abstract, etc. In many ways you're correct about incorporating elements of abstracted gameplay as seen in games like CoH, DoW and Starcraft. At the same time, we have many systems in place which fall in line with more realistic games like Wargame (such as our accuracy model where units lose accuracy over distance, and vehicle movement, for example). We intentionally wanted to land somewhere in the middle, and it was often difficult to chose which systems would and would-not be part of the final product.

                    For reference, here is an image we used internally to guide gameplay design, relative to comparable titles.



                    Ultimately, a variety of factors drove these decisions, ranging from design intent to production realities (such as budget / time). That all said, the future of DoK is bright! Reception has been strong, and we now have the chance to revisit all the things we simply couldn't do previously, or re-evaluate some of the decisions we did make, based on the feedback from our Players.
                    Love this. Please move DOK back down to homeworld in this chart and introduce some interesting mechanics and vehicles.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I have been loving DoK so far. It really is new HW I've been waiting for years. Great work, Devs!
                      Since I am a artillery lover, the one thing I would (again) suggest is adding visual range advantage to high ground.

                      BTW, since DoK's announce I have been missing hardware. I know there would be a lot of playability issues to solve, like repetitive gameplay and low market interest v investiment, but I loved the idea of open-world strategy game with fleet management, large-scale maneuvering and resource hunting.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X