This is Not for Single player Playing

[Jules]

Unfortunately this Demo has convinced me that it is based around Online Competitive Play. Despite all the Tech, Doctrines and Lore stuff etc. It comes down to a Major Click Fest, even in Skirmish against Bots. The AI (Normal/ Hard) is impossible for new and typical players to compete against. The Skirmish Bots expect you to be aggressive, build Lost of Refineries, Factories, and Spam as fast as you can. You End up in a tedious Spam fest, but will typically lose.

If you like Multiplayer, and one of those "Get Gud" guys you will love it. For the new and casual RTS Single player, this is not going to work out.

[Lotor13]

Ursprungligen skrivet av PrexMP3:

The first demo had thirty years out of date missions with explosive barrels everywhere. If you're fine with that, don't let me stop you, but the opposite is also true...I am allowed to think 3DR should try harder making missions.

But it was first mission of the game.
All first missions in all RTS games are like this - basic and simple

Why do You think, that the other missions will be like that?

This sounds like conclusion, that the game is dedicated to MP players, because skirmish AI is too hard on normal difficculty...

BTW: They already released other missions, harder ("surprisingly")

Ursprungligen skrivet av Delirio:

This whole thread makes no sense, starting from its title.

This thread should be probably locked :D

[PrexMP3]

For the part of your response addressed to me...

Bruh, just because one game "was like this" doesn't mean all games have simple intro missions with mechanics that don't pertain to the rest of the game.

Do I think all missions will just be a nonstop cavalcade of boom-boom barrels? Of course not, but a bad look is a bad look and if they couldn't resist the urge to have explosive red barrels be a major solution in the first mission of their strategy game...might I ask why it's so hard to believe I don't have much faith for more challenging missions?

Lastly, did they release other mission? I don't know everything these devs do. I have a life and responsibilities outside of pouncing on every one day demo run they do...

Were the missions fun? Serious question, that. Did you enjoy the missions?

[Lotor13]

Ursprungligen skrivet av PrexMP3:

Bruh, just because one game "was like this" doesn't mean all games have simple intro missions with mechanics that don't pertain to the rest of the game.

It is not "because one game was like this" - because all games are like this, this games does it too

All RTS games have simple intro missions

[PrexMP3]

Simple could mean introductory strategies.

If a first mission is supposed to be a tutorial, show concepts like how to make an infantry rush work. Economic raiding. Creeping forward under cover of artillery or fortifications. That's simple.

Explosive barrels are literally not a thing in "the real game" so why have it in an intro mission? It just teaches a dependence on something that has no bearing on actual gameplay.

[Lotor13]

Did You play campaigns in other RTS games?

[PrexMP3]

Yes. Yes I have.

Listen, let me preempt something, I literally don't care how many games have simple intro missions.

Simple doesn't need to mean fails to teach anything worthwhile to the actual game. This is 2025, now, we can do better.

[Lotor13]

Okay, it seems that You are new in RTS genre, and did not play single-player campaigns in other games.

First missions are simple and easier, later missions are more complex and harder.

Ursprungligen skrivet av PrexMP3:

If a first mission is supposed to be a tutorial, show concepts like how to make an infantry rush work. Economic raiding. Creeping forward under cover of artillery or fortifications. That's simple.

The SP campaign serves primary for introducing units, not "concepts"

You need to get familiar with infantry units, before You can make infantry rush

in first missions You have basic units. Later, as You progres campaign, You get access to new units, and the new unit can be a key unit for a mission.

[PrexMP3]

Cool, bro.

[Jules]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Lotor13:

The SP campaign serves primary for introducing units, not "concepts"

Pretty sure that the SP Campaign should be a whole lot of fun and engaging. Not Just for 'introducing units'. Obviously it is a progression of Tech. For a large proportion of RTS players, the Campaign is the only part of the game they are interested in. They do necessarily NOT want to engage in Online Multiplayer games. So the AI needs to be fair but interesting.

Watching Bikerush videos of playing TR are pretty dull after while, when it is generally build up massive army/ economy and rush. Games lasting around ten minutes, with no tech growth are just plan boring to me. Even if it is the means to get to the top of ladder boards. I really don't want to play a Skirmish AI that relies upon those same tactics.

So I do like it when the Skirmish AI sometimes taking to Engineer rush, or sometimes to Air attack later in my games.

[PrexMP3]

Right? There's a reason that people started to find the RTS games they already have boring...

[Lotor13]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Jules:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Lotor13:

The SP campaign serves primary for introducing units, not "concepts"

Pretty sure that the SP Campaign should be a whole lot of fun and engaging. Not Just for 'introducing units'. Obviously it is a progression of Tech.

I completely agree.

My sentence "The SP campaign serves primary for introducing units, not "concepts" is on context in discussion with the other guy, who complained, that first campaign mission in Tempest Rising is too simple and basic, I pointed, that every first campaign mission in every RTS game is basic and simple... We went a little off topic here, about mission design in campaign.

Ursprungligen skrivet av Jules:

For a large proportion of RTS players, the Campaign is the only part of the game they are interested in. They do necessarily NOT want to engage in Online Multiplayer games. So the AI needs to be fair but interesting.
....
So I do like it when the Skirmish AI sometimes taking to Engineer rush, or sometimes to Air attack later in my games.

The proportion of RTS players, who play only campaign is questionable.

To the point:
I spoke about Starcraft 2 in my previous posts - Starcraft 2 is directly designated for online multiplayer, but at the same time, it is perfect RTS game for casual SP player, who does not play online multiplayer, because both campaign and skirmish AI (5 difficulty options + strategy options) is perfectly balanced.

The problem of Tempest Rising is not, that is designated for multiplayer players - this is comepletely nonsese, but unbalanced AI difficulties - in comparison to Starcraft 2 or C&C RA3, The normal difficulty is too efffective, that is it.

[___]

+

[PrexMP3]

Well as "the other guy who complained" I don't like being gaslit about what I say.

Since you seemed to have forgotten the part where you said "it seems that You are new in RTS genre" you did, in fact, respond to my complaint about the simple missions that the campaign serves to introduce units.

You said that...why are you backtracking on it, now?

[PrexMP3]

Well, since that got no response...

Jules? You mentioned that you got engineer rushed, have you or anyone else experienced more advanced tactics like that from the A.I.?

It's been said before, but it can't be understated how important varied A.I. is to gameplay.

[nafcom]

Ursprungligen skrivet av PrexMP3:

Cute, but it is now...what? Two months until release? They can't just fix everything.

Go ahead and keep changing the argument, though. I'm confident that I'll learn my lesson, soon.

Have you ever heard of games being improved and changed after release? hint hint, No Man's Sky is probably the most prominent example of a game which did that many many times.