On victory points

[Troubleshooter]

This is a discussion thread about the Victory Point and the Take/hold victory condition.

There are a few things that have plagued this game mode since DoW, all of them valid concerns.

1. Having the game end suddenly because you forgot to decap the VP, especially when you were winning militarily.

2. Waiting too long to counter attack the VP's and having them run down the clock with token stalling tactics (knock-back attacks, spamming the VP with AOE spells, turrets)

3. Players who were unfamiliar with TnH who simply didn't get it because they played too many annihilate only matches.

However, the TnH victory condition is really the way the game was intended to be played. The idea behind it is that Take and Hold forces players to meet on the field of battle and actually contest specific zones of the map rather than play it safe while massing base-killers. Also, It took some focus away from mindless rushing/harassing because the game was no longer a race to tier 3 only. 50% of the complaints about IMBA build orders could have been addressed by simply ticking the TnH button prior to playing. IMO, this is what made 1v1 Automatch a deeper game than 90% of the team games I played.

In DoW2, bass-killers are not the problem (yet). So players are being forced by default to build armies to fight other armies from the start. But the problem remains that losing (and even winning) by Take/Hold can be, more often than not, anticlimactic. Having the clock run out when you're not paying attention can be a jarring experience.

My suggestion, which I brought up in DoW, is to have the Take and Hold VC not lead to instant victory, but rather cause one team to gain a massive strategic advantage. This keeps the game going, ensures that the teams have a chance to "play it out", and punishes players to game the TnH clock in the same way that Annihilate was gamed for optimum BO's.

For example, upon securing the Take and Hold objective one team could have all their units immediately max out on experience. New units would spawn at the highest level. Or you could give the team a +50 modifier to their resources. You get the point, don't end the game abruptly and send people back to the lobby, let them play it out a bit. Probably the losing team will call it and drop out, but then they may not and decide to fight to the bitter end, or even better, pull off an unlikely victory that they can brag about for months! Either way, it puts the players back in control of how/when the match ends.

Thoughts?

[Zwebbie]

I think issues #1 and #2 are problems primarily because of the 3v3 focus. This exact same Victory Point system worked perfectly in CoH, and I can't remember anyone complaining about it there, unless they were Annihilation players. VPs are great, because they make a close match last much longer than a steamroll match.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because although I've been reading the forum constantly and watching just about every VOD that's out, I haven't actually played the game yet. But I think that in a 3v3, VPs are as much of an issue; there'll always be one player out on the field doing things, there are enough units that you can spare one to go capture a VP if things are going your team's way for a moment and even if you're too focused on the action, one of the players will always remember to cap stuff.

I can't give you a solid answer, but I think the whole game is so balanced for 3v3 that it barely even works in 1v1. I imagine that if you'd have twice as many units in 1v1 as you do now, there wouldn't be much of a problem to them at all.

[D-coy]

How can you forget the VP countdown? Seriously, the game warns you about it per 100 points loss and there's a big indicator at the top. I agree with the other statements.

[the_hunger]

I like the VP idea in general, but it needs to be tweaked. It should be a bit easier to turn the battle if one comes from behind and recaptures most or all of the VPs. Also, there should be an option for setting the amount of victory points that each side starts with. The 500 starting points ticks out a little too fast for my liking.

Ultimately, the main problem with the game is the lack of other game modes. You are either stuck with the VP win condition, which usually means a fairly quick game, or the annihilation win condition, which means a very long game (since HQs and turrets have so many hit points.) If Relic just imported the take-and-hold win condition into DoW2 from DoW1, I could look over the problems with the VP mode.

[Cr4tZ]

I don't see either how you are gonna forget about VP just like that? If you do, you really deserve to lose anyway. Also from my limited dow2 beta experience I think that winning militarily = you control those VP. Though I never tried 1v1 yet, but to be honest I enjoy more the teamplay aspect anyways.

edit: I do like the VP system, but it seems a bit too short in my tastes also. Maybe something like 600-650 points would be better.

[Mekztra]

CoH had various VP settings (from 250 to 1000 and possibly more, I can't remember) so I see no reason why DoW2 wouldn't have this too, on retail. Certainly the VP counter can go up to 1000 - if you load the map before everyone else has you can see the counters at 1000.

[fuggles]

You just need a lot more feedback - more dramatic music as you start, ideally a small pop-up video in the corner, ala red alert with your commander getting more and more stressed. Troops sounding worried when you select them.

Generally more in the way of entertainment. Or, as you say, the losing player gets 0 income and is just driven off.

[Scooter]

I completely disagree with the OP. When VPs run out, the game ends. We don't want to have to play on to the bitter end of annihilation - if you want that, play annihilate. Stalling tactics are completely valid - if you can't get around stalling tactics, you lose. They're part of the game.

As for "forgetting" to capture VPs.... they're a part of the game. The time your enemy spent capturing VPs was time they could have spent capturing other points or fighting.
There is a strategic tradeoff between the two. If you want the VPs, you have to give up some of the other stuff - which effects your field performance.

As for the last - it should only take a couple of games for people to figure out the VP mechanic. Its really not that complex.

[Troubleshooter]

@Scooter : Don't get me wrong, I am a huge proponent of Take and Hold. My concern is that it's not exactly fun to with by it. There is something satisfying about playing out a game to the bitter end, thats undeniable. My suggestion is that you combine the two game modes and give players that catharsis they desire after a long pitched battle of seeing their troops in glorious victory rather than have the "VICTORY!" banner pop up, pulling you abruptly out of the match regardless of what drama might be unfolding.

I don't want to take anything away from TnH victory, I want to add to the experience.

[D-coy]

@ Troubleshooter

If someone wins by VPs, they will have forces that can easily annihilate the other bases, so staying in the game would be just more tedious for the winners (considering HQs take minutes to destroy) and more sore for the losers, since they wouldn't be able to turn the tables anyway.

[Scooter]

Really? I can deny it. I want to play to win. Once its clear that I've won (I've controlled most of the map for most of the game), I'm done, I don't want to have to keep playing. VP victory is plenty of fun - and can lead for really tense moments as the countdown approaches zero, as players desperately launch frantic assaults to try to decap VPs, and give themselves just a little bit more.

Prolonging a game beyond the VP countdown doesn't add to the experience, it just makes me have to do extra mopping up work, which is just a chore.

[Hugdealer]

vp points count down atleast twice as fast as they did in coh. that is the problem i have with it. and why i started a thread on it.

[Mekztra]

They don't, Hugdealer. A one-sided game of CoH can be over in 15 minutes. Just like DoW2.

Incidentally, the best games of CoH I've played have been heroic back-and-forths over the VPs, going down to the wire with a couple of points left for each team and both sides making Herculean efforts to take that hill for just a little while longer, getting down scratch defences and trying to hold out. Annihilate just didn't compare at all, once I started playing VP games (which was after about a year of only playing annihilate!).

[Lionel-Richie]

As someone mentioned in another thread, I think the VP games should end in a "sudden death" (I use that term loosely) where when the points, the losers and winners are determined, but the loser can't make anymore units and when all of his units are destroyed he loses. To prevent him from griefing by hiding units in corners there is a timer for "sudden death" mode that, when it runs out, ends the game and kills his units.

I just think it would solve the anti-climatic issue I have with winning a VP game. I've had games where both sides have had plenty of units on the field, but my team has managed the VPs better...and I'd love to wipe out his units (not his base...THAT is tedious).

[D-coy]

@ Lionel-Richie

And what would happen if the VP losing team would manage to wipe out the VP holders? They'd win the game unfairly? Or if they couldn't win after the VP semi-victory, wouldn't that make the whole fighting pointless?

[Troubleshooter]

(not his base...THAT is tedious).Easy to fix with a spell effect that is a base-killer, granted to the winning team.

I get that playing mopping up actions can be tedious, especially when the losing team has the resources and tools to drag it out longer than is reasonable.

I'm not saying bring back the hide-the-webway game, I'm saying lets not have a game where one team has clearly turned the tide after a pitched battle only to lose the game because an infiltrated scout re-capped a VP and picked off the last few "tickets" for a win. That sort of thing.

[Lionel-Richie]

Well you could also artificially lower the HP of losing side's units so it's more of a "rout." Basically make it where the true winners of the game are just mopping up the units. Perhaps even remove the fog of war.

The fighting i'm suggesting is pointless. It's just a fluffy detail to keep the ending from being anti-climactic. Instead of it feeling like the end of a paintball match ("paint check!!!"), it'd be like winning a real battle.

[D-coy]

@ TS and Lionel

I think both of you are overcomplicating this. It'd be a chore to the losers to try fighting if there's no hope of winning at all. Adding spells and such would make it even more wonky. Currently, it ends quickly and you can have a rematch fast, if you want.

[Tseng_Fox]

But it isn't fast. You could hold the map and the VPs and be camping in the enemys base, but you'll still have to wait for it to tick down as it takes so long to kill the base.

[D-coy]

Well, fast compared to having mopping-up fighting at the end. ;)

[mlai]

I think it's a good idea if the reward for successfully holding VP to completion, is that the enemy can no longer produce/reinforce his army. This way, if he has a pitiful army by the time the VP is lost, he can elect to quit/drop.

However, if you ninja'd the VP with 1 scout, and have no army left, while he has a maxed-out army marching towards your base, he can laugh at your cowardly attempt at a cheap win and proceed to smash your base.

I think that's what ppl want: VP wins should not be cheap.

[D-coy]

If you have a full army marching against his base, instead of getting/guarding VPs and allow a scout to ninja a VP, then you're getting outplayed and should lose.

[Tseng_Fox]

VP wins aren't cheap.

The problem is how dragged out they become when a game is decided. The problem is the HQ. far far far too strong.

Not only that, but theres little reason to take the req points. In CoH you could fight back by cutting off the points and such. But theres no reason to do that now, so that makes VP battles all the more boring.

[marshall666666]

I totally agree with troubleshooter. Although there are few complains about this VP thingy in CoH it doesn't mean Dawn of War players DO WANT TO PLAY DOW II in the same way as Company of heroes? There had to be BIG changes! We want similar elements those in Dawn of War I.

[Hugdealer]

They don't, Hugdealer. A one-sided game of CoH can be over in 15 minutes. Just like DoW2.

Incidentally, the best games of CoH I've played have been heroic back-and-forths over the VPs, going down to the wire with a couple of points left for each team and both sides making Herculean efforts to take that hill for just a little while longer, getting down scratch defences and trying to hold out. Annihilate just didn't compare at all, once I started playing VP games (which was after about a year of only playing annihilate!).

they do count down faster. i shouldnt have to say any more than that, it takes 5 minutes to find out for yourself.

[Troubleshooter]

If you have a full army marching against his base, instead of getting/guarding VPs and allow a scout to ninja a VP, then you're getting outplayed and should lose.If the map has 3 Vp's and one is uncontested, a single unit with a teleport or similar spell can bypass your uber skillz and ninja a victory when by all rights the tide has turned against him.

It might be the more rare of scenarios, but its a possibility that should be considered. The main complaint is simply that even for the winning team under normal circumstances, having spent 15 minutes bleeding over your keyboard to gain the upper hand they tend to want a sense of satisfaction from the victory. If you are satisfied with having the timer tick down and the stats screen pop up, thats great, but the question is what do the majority of the players want.

Me personally, I'd rather not be booted out of a great game just when I am about to lay the smack down that I have been carefully plotting for several minutes just because I happen to win on VP's 10 seconds too soon.

[D-coy]

TS, if a team is winning they usually have all the points. It's not hard to get a basic squad to the last point if the opponents are crippled. The scenario you're describing would never really happen. That'd mean both teams have less than 10 points and each holding one VP, but there's usually a team who gets pushed back losing most of the map while the others get the advantage establishing a defensive line, and securing VPs. Then the losing team eaither masses and risks losing by VP condition or tries smaller attacks.

[Hugdealer]

i have had alot of games that have ended prematurely because of vp points. And alot of other people are saying the same. so obviously there is a problem.

[Troubleshooter]

That'd mean both teams have less than 10 points and each holding one VP, but there's usually a team who gets pushed back losing most of the map while the others get the advantage establishing a defensive line, and securing VPs.It could be that one team has most of their tickets and the other was fighting on their heels for most of the game, leaving the option to try to hold the VP's less desirable strategically than trying to push an advantage and seal a win.

Again, its not a terribly common sequence of events, I'm sure. But it is something that needs to be considered.

How about a solution where by capping a VP gains you 30 vp tickets. That would resolve the issue nicely as the reversal would come with enough slack to prevent a ninja finish.

[Hugdealer]

thats a pretty good idea trouble.

[D-coy]

The idea is decent, but I'm afraid it would drag out games too much.

Getting a VP victory is always preferable over annihilating the opponents (unless it's an annihilation game ofc). HQs have tons of HPs (15k) heal nearby units, making enemy heroes almost untouchable, units can reinforce nearby them and they have two turrets which can deal with basic stuff pretty well, even with some heroes.

But if you do want to snag a win by destroying bases, you have the option to do so without having to give up the defense of VPs, considering every race and commander has units and abilities that make this a somewhat effective if tedious strategy. So the occurance rate of ninja capping is still pretty low or even, dare I say, nonexistent.

[Zwebbie]

Right now, the game works in such a way that even if you're doing really badly in the end, you're rewarded with the opportunity to still win. If you've had the upper hand all game, and then when you're doing badly, you manage to wrestle control over two VPs from a superior army with a clock counting against you, I think that's not just fair, but exciting. The game isn't yet over even when one player is numerically stronger. Mlai would call it cheap, but I think a focus on territory control and use of troops rather than their number is a good thing. If you're in such a kickass position, how can you not defend a measly two points on the map?

Tales of Heroes 46 (http://www.gamefire.com/shows-community/tales-of-heroes/video-releases/season-4/134-toh-video-46.html) is an excellent example of a match that's made incredibly tense and exciting in the end through the use of VPs - without them, the match wouldn't have a crescendo.

We're not talking about some n00b snatching away your VPs at the last moment; to get into that position, the opponent would have to play as well as you for the whole game and then play better in the end.

[daemonn789]

1. Having the game end suddenly because you forgot to decap the VP, especially when you were winning militarily.


Then you fail, it's called paying attention. Not swarm your massive omg wtf pwnzor force around while making nachos.


2. Waiting too long to counter attack the VP's and having them run down the clock with token stalling tactics (knock-back attacks, spamming the VP with AOE spells, turrets)

That's called strategy. Denial of VP is a game winner. Either do it to them or they'll do it to you. I wouldn't want this game to be any easier for people who can't seem to stay on top of their shit.


3. Players who were unfamiliar with TnH who simply didn't get it because they played too many annihilate only matches.

That's odd, I thought this was DoW TWO. You mean we actually have to adjust to a new game? Crazy!


VPs are fun. They make the game more dynamic, more heart pounding. When you're ticking down to under 20, but in the process of capping all 3 back because you just stomped their force, it's an epic feeling.

I was tired of swarming around with an army going from base to base killing everything. This is new, it's dynamic, and its a great direction to take the DoW series and possibly RTS's in general.

[Kurisu]

I agree with Scooter -- the VPs are designed to make you fight early and fight always.

- If you're sitting at your base, building a force to clear the map, you're doing it wrong.

- If you feel the game ended too early because you were about to rain the smack down, you're doing it wrong.

- If you're not fighting every second for every VP scrap, meeting the other players out on the field, you're doing it wrong.

From playing the game one night I realize that Relic is trying to change the RTS. Too long it's been "sit and build and then clean the map." Remember Warcraft2? Remember Age of Empires 2 and the hoard of knights? Remember Starcraft and the hoard of carriers? CoH was a step towards the right direction, DoW2 is near the finish line.

[Tseng_Fox]

CoH > DoW2.

Why? more strategy in CoH than in DoW2. Fact.

Can we use the map to so much advantage in a VP match?

Can we cut players off to reduce resource income?

Nope.

I seriously don't know why they took territories out... That added so much depth and strategies.

[Kurisu]

Oh, forgot to add -- having the game end after a VP loss is absolutely perfect. It cuts out the worst part of RTSs, the part that everyone complains about. Remember people saying "I hate it near the end because it feels like there's nothing you can do, the other player just kills me, I can't do anything it's so unbalanced in the endgame WAAHH."

Relic just removed that annoying part of the game. Now we can play two 20 minute STRATEGY games, instead of one 40 minute game, which was half strategy, and half annoying cleanup. Or someone drop hacks and nobody's happy.


CoH > DoW2. Why? more strategy in CoH than in DoW2. Fact.

Well, glad that's cleared up.

[FooF]

I think Troubleshooter isn't advocating changing VP matches, he's advocating a different game-type.

It reminds me of the Survival maps (Argonaut, I think) that if you held a Critical point for like 5 minutes, you got a powerful reinforcement unit.

So, you could have VP as it is, and then an Annihilate/Take and Hold that simply grants the holder of of a VP point (maybe only one and in the center) a great boon for destroying the enemy. Imagine, if you will, the Avatar being not at T3 but as a "Relic" unit that can only be summoned by holding a VP point for 5 minutes. The Avatar is by no means indestructible but it would surely help swing the tide.

I think that's what TS is trying to achieve. It's an annihilate game with a twist.

I'd probably still prefer plain ol VP because, as many have described, the winner of VP usually does so because they're the better player and would have won anyway. Zwebbie's ToH reference is an example of VP done right where the VP are the game. Most of the time it doesn't come down to the wire like that but when it does, it's epic.

[Mekztra]

Troubleshooter, you haven't played the beta yet so are working on hearsay here, so can I ask if you played the almost identical Victory Points mode in Company of Heroes? It's quite removed from the Take and Hold of DoW1 really.

[Kurisu]

In CoH you could cut off supply, that's true. That adds a type of strategy. But the game was still won on VPs, which weren't cut by supply.

Here, there's no time to worry about cutting supply -- you're too busy fighting over the VPs. The VPs _ARE_ the game.

You can still cut supply by simply taking your opponent's nodes, but the focus has shifted to the VPs by making the countdown so quick. The battleground is around the VPs, and if you're not there, you're doing something wrong.

[Tseng_Fox]

Thats the problem. There isn't much tactical depth that way = /

All the strategy is in unit choices now.

[D-coy]

And unit synergy, and unit micro. What wargear to get, what abilities to use, when or with which ones. There's the depth.

[NoneSuch]

Thats the problem. There isn't much tactical depth that way = /

All the strategy is in unit choices now.

To be fair Tseng in every post before beta you were practically saying this game is going to suck or something similiar to that so it's not a huge surprise you've decided you don't like it.

If you only think there's strategy in unit choices then I don't know what game you're playing. I use cover effectivly, I flank my enemies and games boil down to who places their units more effectivly and who knows what's best to use where.

I mean let's face it CoH was very much about using the right units and what/where you use.

CoH is a different game. It's better in some regards but that's mainly because CoH is almost the perfect RTS with awsome visuals, sounds and tactics. DoW2 was never Supposed to be CoH 1.5 or DoW 1.5. It's a new game in itself and we should look at what it's trying to do rather than what it's not doing.

In the end of it the game might just not be for you. It's not that much of a loss is it? CoH still looks and plays as good as it ever did and DoW is still great fun.

[Troubleshooter]

so can I ask if you played the almost identical Victory Points mode in Company of Heroes?Never played CoH :(

EsrFooF gets what I am shooting at.

[D-coy]

TS, then you should've started by saying you want a new game mode. I'd have no problem with that, just don't touch the current VP conditioned game, pls. :p :)

[daemonn789]

Thats the problem. There isn't much tactical depth that way = /

All the strategy is in unit choices now.

Strategy can be defined differently. Sure, pressing buttons so you build the right units can be strategy. Moving units and setting them up in a strategically emphasized position can be, well, strategy. Deciding resources over VP or vice versa can interpreted as strategy.

I also define strategy as the way we move troops in combat. If I move my Lictor onto a heavy weapons team while infiltrated and open on them as I move my swarm, I'd consider that strategy.

Or playing Eldar and seeing a group of ASM mid flight and tossing a nade on the ground before they can land, causing them to become suppressed and allowing me to get distance on them; that's also strategy to me.

Some people see strategy like the game Risk - you move your pieces and let the numbers do the work. Much like classic RTS's, the emphasis isn't necessarily on micro as much as it is base building and massing a rather large force.

DoW 2 is more micro. I don't feel its void of strategy in any way. I personally believe it adds some depth, where you cant just attack-click to an area and go back to building more units or moving another squad around.

You need to move each squad decisively and precisely! If you don't, you will find your self flanked, naded, supressed, and generally out played.

Removing VPs or making the VPs non-essential would take away some dimension from how important the micro is, as you can just turtle resource points and never really fight.

Just my 2 cents. :moefixed:

[Mekztra]

Never played CoH :(

EsrFooF gets what I am shooting at.
That'd explain it a bit, then. There isn't a 'clock' anymore, with the VPs, but an actual meter that can be halted and resumed depending on who holds the VPs. They generally are the game, and it works very well, as a game mode - far better than your standard Annihilate, once you get your head around it.

[Troubleshooter]

There isn't a 'clock' anymore, with the VPs, but an actual meter that can be halted and resumed depending on who holds the VPs.I understand the mechanism, I've been watching VOD's (especially the Developer fight).

My issue is still that the clock running down can be anticlimactic. Again, I personally don't mind it all that much... even when it was just a countdown clock like in DoW, I still prefer TnH to simple Annihilate, but the majority of DoW players seem to absolutely hate it. I'm trying to suggest a hybrid of sorts to keep TnH in the game without alienating the "kill em all" crowd.

[SeniorBiscuit]

as with alot of the probs in this game (victory conditions/ cap speed/ resource rates/ pop caps)

We dont need permanent change, we need options.

Set Victory points to 1500 for a long game, set pop cap to 300 per player and 2x or 4x resources for an apocalyptic battle!!

1x resource and 500 or 1000 points will probably be the competetive standard, but right now we have so so SO few game options.

Probably just a beta issue though.

[Lionel-Richie]

More options would be good, but a 300 per player pop cap battle would be a micromanagement and FPS nightmare.

[mlai]

More options would be good, but a 300 per player pop cap battle would be a micromanagement and FPS nightmare.
So?
Ever play QS Kasyr?
Ever play those DOW 1 mods where you get huge pop caps?
Some ppl don't want to care if they lose 3-4 squads in 2 seconds. They have monster rigs with dual graphics cards, and they want to watch explosions.

[iko]

Personally I find the whole Victory Point situation to be fine at the moment - you'll either dominate your opponent and easily control all three, you'll have a close game and fight for all of them, or you'll get dominated yourself. At the moment people are possibly still new to the whole Take and Hold concept, and I can see it as possible to overlook the loss of a Victory Point, but once you put aside a few games you'll get used to just how important they are.

However, one idea for an alternative I suggest is simply that when your opponents tickets go down to 0, the turrets protecting their base explode and it no longer gives out a healing aura, making it much easier to squash your opponent. You can go in and wreck his army and then finish off his base. Instead of giving you an upper hand (max level squads) it rather punishes your opponent for not holding the victory points. This also serves to benefit you if you were winning militarily and simply forgot to decap: Losing the turrets and health regen should be no big deal, if you're already controlling the entire map and beating your opponent into the ground.

Either way, I'd still say leave it alone.

[Lionel-Richie]

So?
Ever play QS Kasyr?
Ever play those DOW 1 mods where you get huge pop caps?
Some ppl don't want to care if they lose 3-4 squads in 2 seconds. They have monster rigs with dual graphics cards, and they want to watch explosions.

Each squad requires far more micro in this than in DoW1.

[mlai]

LOL.... auto-FoF... 1-click retreat.... no reinforce-on-field... melee on-the-move (this is a good thing, but I'm just saying)...

DOW2 does not require more micro than DOW1. More tactics because of all the new things like cover etc, yes... but more micro?

[Lionel-Richie]

I would say that reinforce-on-field means less micro, since you have to worry about each individual squad mate less. Heck, you can replace them with the click of a button (or you could overwatch them...something missing from this game [though it might not fit in this resource model]). Meanwhile without it you would have to remove a squad from "play" and bring them back to base and reinforce them when they arrive and become tangible to your clicks again. Couple this with gunfire seeming to be more lethal (and suppression, providing for more incentive to micro)...

Also, did it really require many clicks to retreat in DoW1? *right clicks base on minimap*

[KnightPT]

i had a 3 vs 3 where after the enemy got us down to 8-500, we managed to turn it around and win with a 1-0 score :P
(thank god for warp spider exarch's mass teleport)

[mlai]

If you just right click on minimap, your retreating squads will die due to being slowed by pathing, or voluntarily walking thru negative cover. And you can't give an orderly retreat thru cover fire or sacrifice-tie-up. With DOW2, 1 click on Retreat, and you have the best chances of making it out alive. No orderly fallback tactics/micro necessary.

Reinforce on-field = more micro, because you never Overwatch in a real 1v1. In DOW2 you don't have to deal with it cuz it's not an option.

[Lionel-Richie]

If you just right click on minimap, your retreating squads will die due to being slowed by pathing, or voluntarily walking thru negative cover. And you can't give an orderly retreat thru cover fire or sacrifice-tie-up. With DOW2, 1 click on Retreat, and you have the best chances of making it out alive. No orderly fallback tactics/micro necessary.

With how Retreat goofs up from time to time in this game and CoH, sometimes manually retreating is a better option though.


Reinforce on-field = more micro, because you never Overwatch in a real 1v1. In DOW2 you don't have to deal with it cuz it's not an option.

It's deeper than that, though. Because it's not an option you have to be more careful with your individual units, because any of them dying means you're down in strength until you RTB, unlike having to do a few clicks in DoW1 and being back to full. Would you really claim that just because you have the ability to click reinforce on the field means you're better at micro than someone who has to avoid letting units die in the first place, because they can't reinforce them? It'd be like if some guy was complaining that his cheeseburger was kinda messy while he ate it in front of a hobo.

[K-Pooh]

Going back to the OP, I have to say that I'm not convinced that a VP win is unsatisfying. There comes a point in every RTS match where it's GG no matter what you do. At that point I'll just give my opponent the win. Drawing things out any further may be unnecessary since it basically amounts to you sitting there passively while your opponent dances around your base gleefully blowing everything up.

At least with the way this game is designed, HQ giving you decent req despite you not holding any points, matches can be fought through right to the very end. Yes, VP win is arbitrary and comes on fast sometimes, but i'm not seeing anything wrong with it as it stands, especially if in the retail version players will be able to tweak things a little more.

This game is designed to be more noob friendly from the get go, that is what i think is throwing a lot of people off. I do believe, however, that there is strategy there and i'm hoping that with time/experience we'll discover that there's a lot of depth to this game.

[Supernaut]

auto-FoF... 1-click retreat.... no reinforce-on-field... Fleet of Foot, requires you to press F to use it. It also uses energy and doesn't last forever.

Retreat makes you lose control of the squad as they pelt away - it's a decision between losing control of a squad, or having a squad die (but die fighting). Either that or you just retreat manually.

SM can reinforce in the field with their global ability for drop pod. And the teleport relay for Techmarine iirc. And the Razorback.
Eldar can use webway gates to retreat, reinforce, then get back into the fight. And the Falcon.
Orks can use the Wartrukk to reinforce from. Can use the "Call the Boyz" - or something Waaagh! ability to reinforce ALL SQUADS on the field.
Nids have "Without number" ability I believe to bring more nids into play. Haven't played Nids much though to comment on its usefullness.

I'm sorry to say this. But your wrong on all the points you brought up.

*finally on topic*

The only change I'd want for the VP counter is for them to drop slower )*edit* can't believe I put quicker!), but then again I had a helluva lot of fun in 1v1 VP games in CoH and as it stands atm I'm still having fun with VP in DoW2.

I was a TnH fan as well Trouble. :)

[Mekztra]

Without Number spawns new Tyranid squads back at base, instantly, and has nothing to do with reinforcing. They have the Hive Tyrant's Brood Nest for on-the-field reinforcement, however.

I agree with what you say, though.

[bjbrains]

And The Lictor/Hive Tyrant also have Mycetic spores which act like drop pods (spawn squad+reinforcements).

[Supernaut]

Sorry about the 'Nid mistake, I don't play as them so was unsure of their abilities.

[Matmoz]

You just need a lot more feedback - more dramatic music as you start, ideally a small pop-up video in the corner, ala red alert with your commander getting more and more stressed. Troops sounding worried when you select them.

I second this suggestion. End game stress and a big fanfare at the end would to the trick.

[Slow_Runner]

I had a game where I had two Killa Kans smashing down the opponent's HQ and had the military advantage when the VPs rant out against me. If I hadn't been just messing about with a Kan speedtech BO, I would've been even more annoyed than I was now.

DoW2 is nothing like DoW1 because instead of three different victory conditions (Control Area, Take and Hold, Annihilate) you only have one: Victory Points. Annihilate is technically an option, but HQ heal, no reinforcing on the field, the suppression turrets and the retreat mechanic all ensure that it's not a viable one. I share Troubleshooter's dissatisfaction with winning on Victory Points. One sided games are infuriating because you've won the game at the 5 minute mark but you have to sit there waiting for the VP counter to run out and nail-biting thrillers get cut short because the timer runs out and the game ends right before the big battle. It also promotes static gameplay where you camp the VPs, setting up defenses with turrets or deployed heavy weapon teams.

To a lot of DoW players who enjoyed the bigger battles and finally stomping the opponent's base winning with Victory Points just isn't satisfying gameplay. Some players (CoH players in particular) will have no trouble with the system and prefer it over Annihilation, but others (myself included) will find the VP setting dull, uninteresting and anticlimactic.

[fuggles]

I swear it's the way it fizzles out - in annihilate there is a big bang and a building explodes - a very definite end. In VP then it just...well, stops dead, the end, thanks for playing.

The game mode itself is alright, maybe a tug of war system would work better, but even the enemy just totally routing would be more rewarding than it just stopping.