dow 2 is way to simple, some ideas

[them apples]

The tech tree is way to small, it leaves only 2-3 tactics for each race. My suggestions: (I'm using Orks as an example, but this can apply to all races)

- Each leader should have its own playing style more pronounced, a stealth army should be really stealth based, an offense army should be based on offense have have defensive disadvantages. (example: choosing the offensive based Warboss will give you cheaper Sluggaz and Nobz, on top of his abilities, choosing the defensive based Mek will give you cheaper Big Shoota upgrades etc etc)

- Expand on the tech tree - there aren't enough units to give DoW2 enough longevity, I suggest a 4th tier

- Offer units that can be taken as an option, sort of like Tau in DC, you choose Kauyen or Mont'ka. (example: more Orks addon, or tougher Orks addon. One option making Orks cheaper and higher in number, the other giving the player the ability to build Mega armoured nobz + a health bonus to all orks) good for a tier 4 IMO, many games don't even finish because armies aren't powerful enough to destroy an HQ before they run out of VP.

This would offer a unique style of play that can be chosen by the player to meet his tactical demands (example: out numbering the already low in number Marines, as opposed to trying to toughen your Orks up and meet them head on)

right now the game (it's beta i know) is way to bland, It doesn't have nearly as much tactical options as DC did, or even Coh.

[SteinerNein]

This might seem a bit ridiculous for a poster such as yourself (OP) who claims to know the entire game, even going so far as hinting mastery of it but...to ignorant players such as myself I need to ask you the following:

1) Can you prove that there are only 2-3 viable tactical options in the game?
2) Can you prove that each of the leaders currently do not have a pronounced style of play or have a system in which you can measure the amount of diversity per hero?
3) Do your conceptualizations of the game match the game design and what the devs intended, do they match the capacities of top players?
4) Can you prove that the other games you listed have more tactical depth than DoW 2 in its current stage?

[them apples]

1) Can you prove that there are only 2-3 viable tactical options in the game?
2) Can you prove that each of the leaders currently do not have a pronounced style of play or have a system in which you can measure the amount of diversity per hero?
3) Do your conceptualizations of the game match the game design and what the devs intended, do they match the capacities of top players?
4) Can you prove that the other games you listed have more tactical depth than DoW 2 in its current stage?
Today 10:54 PM

1) no, I was rounding it off - my point was there weren't many tactical options

2)yes, judging by the Beta and the websites listing of units

3) I'm an average player, but the game is simple in comparison to the original Dow/DC

4)At its current stage, yes, the other games had more detailed tech trees, many players used the game timer to reach a certain unit at a record time (usually involving base building as well) Dow 2 you can time yourself to get to tier 2 and 3, that's about it.

IMO

claiming to know the whole game? BS you made that up

hinting at mastery of it? you made that up

a simple review of what i have witnessed is all.

[SteinerNein]

If you cannot prove one, then your premise is unsound and your conclusion no longer follows.

If you say you can prove two, we will test the soundness of your premise by applying it to actual game play - do you have any replays suggesting that every single hero is not as diverse as others and common sense suggests that game play will be changed depending on hero selection?

If you say you're an average player, then your opinion does not matter because you have only an average view of things. Hence, this is most likely a knee-jerk post. If you have proof otherwise then please either supply it from previous game experiences or whatever else (such as logic).

Having a more complex tech tree does not necessarily mean a more complex game. For example, the board game of Go has no tech tree at all nor any diverse units yet today remains a highly complex game. Let's go further on, Starcraft has a very simplistic tech tree yet the game is also complex and is played professionally like any other sport.

Again, I think we should refrain from such posts till we have either accrued enough experience as a collective or you're already one of the top 10 in either category.

The tech tree is way to small, it leaves only 2-3 tactics for each race.

A proposition that asserts a truth value that is either 1 or 0 . That also supposes knowledge. It is the equivalent of saying: " I know the tech tree is too small it cannot be otherwise, I know that as a consequence it only leaves 2-3 tactics for each race period. "

If you have knowledge then you have mastery.

[Hybrid Defect]

SteinerNein, how did you even get any of that from them apples post? He was just posting his immediate impressions. This is, after all, a section for balance discussion...

I experienced and agree completely with everything he said. so he is not being ridiculous in the least bit.

play nice Steiner

[them apples]

it doesn't matter how good you are at playing the game, the point is the only teching you have to do is for tiers 2 and 3. Micro managing has gone out the window.

the game was meant to be a Hybrid/ noob friendly game..which I think wasn't the right idea.

with your logic discussing opinions on a beta should be broken down to mathematical equations rather than experience.


lol @ my opinion not mattering if i'm an average player, sorry to say but the majority of people playing the game are average.

[SteinerNein]

Yes, the entire beta should be done mathematically. There is also a philosopher name Pythagoras who asserted the world is made up of numbers -- absurd, yet science is slowly heading towards that direction ironically.

@ Hybrid
His immediate impressions should go to the impressions thread. This is the balance forum. I have experienced opposite of you, so it is ridiculous to me. I have at least 40 games played. So are you going to discount my experience? If we're doing word against word then it comes down to credentials, logic, and other evidence. GG.

@ Them Apples
It does matter how good you are because it explains your ability to master its depth. If everyone had more or less a 50% win ratio against each other or say do X and you automatically win or draw then the game can be questioned (tic tac toe).

The game might be hybrid and noob friendly but that doesn't necessarily mean it lacks depth or is shallow. It might APPEAR but appear does not equate to fact.

Again, you say micro managing has gone out the window yet most games hinge on who has better micro and other factors.

The majority of people have nothing to do with balance. This is the balance forum.

[them apples]

It does mean it lacks depth and is shallow, looking back - most of relics videos describing the game were claiming it was meant to be a quick up and go game, with most matches lasting 15-30 minutes.

having played it, i don't think the public will enjoy it, since i'm an average player..and most players are average.


You didn't have to bring science into this, i could tell before you even mentioned it. Doesn't seem like you play games for fun much do you?

[SteinerNein]

You're an average player with your own tastes, it does not reflect the majority. I am pretty sure the majority don't waste time on forums such as these. Only the critically bored (myself) and those who want to complain. Fact finding missions are redirected to Game Replays.

I have a lot of fun playing, and I will admit it has something to do with my positive win ratio or that it's refreshing after coming back from Starcraft.

A quick game does not mean a shallow or lacking depth game, again it really depends on what the top level looks like.

Really, why are we talking about this? Put it in the general forum. This is not about balance at all.

[Hybrid Defect]

I have played near to as many games as you have at this point Steiner, so I can speak for them apples when i say the game IS definitely much too simple to be a polished successor to one of the greatest strategy games. I have been looking forward to this game for a long time and I hate to admit that I will get bored very fast and turn back to dow 1 after release. I can't see how anyone could think this is as complicated a game as the first dawn of war, its incomparable

[PacketOverflow]

i only half agree that the game is too simple. as it is now balance issues affect a lot of what you can do. but to say "micro has gone out the window" when the game is 100% micro 0% macro is pretty ridiculous.

making each hero play the entire race differently would force Relic to essentially have to balance 12 races. not gonna happen. keep dreaming though.

things have moved around. teching is different and shouldn't be compared with older games, so is combat and resources and prices and abilities and so on and on.

the OP's ideas were great, but way too idealistic and some of his comments seem out of touch and questionable.

[them apples]

i only half agree that the game is too simple. as it is now balance issues affect a lot of what you can do. but to say "micro has gone out the window" when the game is 100% micro 0% macro is pretty ridiculous.

making each hero play the entire race differently would force Relic to essentially have to balance 12 races. not gonna happen. keep dreaming though.

it would require a lot of balancing, but it could be done. I don't think it would be as hard as balancing 12 races, it would only be a few units.

[PacketOverflow]

yeah but considering Relic's past record, I'll be happy if they can reliably patch and balance 4 races with nothing to make it more complicated.

[EPIK WIN]

I still don't know where you people are getting this "game is too simple." It seems to me that all these first impressions come from people who have barely gotten their feet wet with the game when they have only played other people who haven't gotten their feet wet.

Yes they have streamlined it and taken a lot of the minutiae of base building and resource gathering out, but that is only so that you are able to play with your individual units more.

[PacketOverflow]

a lot of people say "gee this will be just like DoW1 or CoH!" and proceed to review by the standards of those games after about 30 minutes of playing. on other message boards people keep trying to compare this game to Starcraft. what the hell.

[EPIK WIN]

If anything its more like the Total War series or the old school Turn Based Tactical Strats.

Its this "DOW2 = SC2" logic that continues to confound me.

[SteinerNein]

@ Hybrid
Ah, I see. I must therefore be a nerd because I tend to enjoy logic. =( Sad times.

@ PacketOverflow

You get those posts because people don't understand what they play, nor history in general. And logic rarely applies.

[Bowkers]

old school Turn Based Tactical Strats

Sorry what? If anything, it's the complete opposite. I cannot believe that you guys not only find it slow paced. But then again, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Also, do you not think that the tech tree might expand with expansions etc? That would be the obvious thing to do. I think they've been very shrewd about it.

[Holyhell]

This game is far from simplistic, each commander has his own set of gear you have at least 3 weapons 3 armor and 3 misc items. Your commander can be decked out for tank hunting, infantry destruction or support. Even a Force commander which is melee can be tooled towards and melee support with gear designed to run with a pack of ASM. I can think of more than one occasion an opponent has confidently walked his dreadnought at my farseer only to see it chopped to bits.

90% of all infantry units have some sort of special ability that when used properly can tip the tide of a fight. Guardian nades in conjunction with fleet of foot to rapidly flank and enemy has been the undoing of more than one opponents infantry. Some have more than one, guardians for example have 5, FoF, Nade, Shield, Conceal and Repair once fully upgraded.

[them apples]

i guess i'm alone in feeling the game is sort of empty. Each race doesn't seem like a full race.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I don't buy it. In any given match I never get out more than half of a race's unit roster. And people want to add more?

Many games only get to tech 3 because it's very difficult to break a base. Tech 4 would be ridiculous.

If you think the game is too simple, you need to start manipulating the map to your advantage, luring opponents into traps, and so on.

[Ap0k]

This isn't balance related, and should have been put into either the reactions thread, or the thread discussing the strategic depth of the game, which is what this has essentially boiled down to.

We don't need multiple threads discussing the same things all over the place, since it'll only make it harder for people to find relevant new information.