This is really disappointing.

[BrutalGlory]

I've been looking forward to this for years now, and i can honestly say this is the first RTS I've been genuinely disappointed by in about a decade. It seems to have kept the core of the old C&C games, but it's also taken all the wrong lessons while discarding the good ones as well.

Granted I've only played the (GDF i believe it was called? it's GDI for all intents and purposes) but the tech tree is an absolute mess. The UI is also messy; ratios for abilities and seeing what units are selected don't match the rest of what's being displayed and reading the abilities is a literal headache.

There's no range indicators for base defenses (at least while building them at a minimum, maybe there is while selecting them but i'm not entirely sure) and we're using the C&C RA3 wall building system here which is painfully tedious (but not the range indicators from RA3 for some unknown reason)

I don't know what the devs were thinking with every units having abilities by the dozen either; sometimes less micro is more. The game can't seem to decide if it wants to be the pre- Tib 3 & RA3 where it was large-scale skirmishes and the micro was in moving and focus fire or Tib 3 & RA3 onwards where it's a more slow and methodical experience and the micro is based on abilities and sieges. The game seems to have a serious identity crisis by trying to cram everything possible into it.

Building garrisons are functionally useless with the upgrade that enables units to deal damage to units inside the structure. Watching 6 basic anti-tank units get slaughtered by 3 basic vehicles while garrisoned is *not* the C&C experience, i don't understand the decision making here. The whole point of infantry in a C&C game is that it's supposed to be cost effective when fighting from cover.

The repair bays are an outdated mechanic from the late 90s. I don't want to be asked to build half a dozen bays and then manually tell vehicles to repair themselves after a fight like i'm playing Generals. It's one thing to ask someone to micro, but this is absurd. In no universe should we be going back to 90's mechanics that we scrapped and require more micro/macro than playing already APM intensive games like AOE 2, AOE 4, WC3, or SC2 to name a few.

As for MCVs they're the worst offenders. The build radius is absolutely *horrible*, they're slow, for some reason packing and unpacking has a cooldown that's much too long, they require tech to build (Seriously, what the hell is this? Just make it default from the vehicle factory!). (I actually edited this part because upon reloading the game queing multiple buildings of the same type worked, it didn't initially don't ask why.)

The eco is an absolute MESS. Resources run out on each node *far* too quickly, and it doesn't seem like there's any justification for having more than one harvester per node. The base storage of 6000 without silos is also absurdly low, if i can keep a factory, 2 mcvs, a barracks, and an airfield all pumping off of 5 nodes and *still* need to be spamming silos just to keep up then there's a serious problem here. Just do away with the storage limit altogether; pick an identity, is this supposed to be a slower RTS or a faster one? I can crank out 5 factories and keep them going if that's what the devs choose, but don't expect me to make 30 silos in the process while trying to tech and do everything else. At some point i'd like to actually take fights instead of staring at my base.

I'm sure there's more but I think I've made my point. This game is a hot mess, I get the devs want it to be C&C but they've crammed all the worst aspects of C&C games into one and created a monster. The last few times there were demos available i couldn't get the game stable enough to try it, maybe it was better a year ago before they decided to rehaul everything, and if so they really need to revert some of the changes they may have made.

(Edit: Mistake of thinking multiple tech buildings needed to get all tech pods removed. Both icons would simply appear blacked out after building one on further testing - goes to UI complaint.)

[Lotor13]

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

My dude, games can belong to more than one category at a time. If you don't understand that then there's nothing more to be said.

No, one thing needs to be said here.

You want to analyze and say verdict on this game and even You are trying to sound clever, You are not really competent person for that.

[GrenadesInSpades]

new rts comes out and doesnt have a few qol mechanics from other games. say it aint so! this happens every single time a new rts comes out. you wanna give feedback about it go ahead. but steam users going full attack mode is just so old at this point

[puppet74]

Originally posted by GrenadesInSpades:

new rts comes out and doesnt have a few qol mechanics from other games. say it aint so! this happens every single time a new rts comes out. you wanna give feedback about it go ahead. but steam users going full attack mode is just so old at this point

true, this is in part why rts never does well. everyone at this point as there fav rts game ,style and if the new one doesn't play copy paste the same its a awful...

[Punzler]

I like the general design of the game and the UI. I just have some minor gripes like:
The resource indicators could be bigger. Or I could use a clearer indicator that a construction is finished and so on.
Those are minor things I think and something I am still hopefull they will adjust at some point.
At the beginning I was a little overhelmed with all the features and things I had to look out for, but I am slowly getting used to it. So I guess its definitely not the most beginner friendly game, but if you give it a few hours of playtime, you will find your way around.
I guess a major factor in the unease regarding the interface and gameplay is also the fact that we don't yet have a campaign to ease us into the various game features.

[BrutalGlory]

Originally posted by Lotor13:

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

My dude, games can belong to more than one category at a time. If you don't understand that then there's nothing more to be said.

No, one thing needs to be said here.

You want to analyze and say verdict on this game and even You are trying to sound clever, You are not really competent person for that.

Let me get this right, I state my opinion on the game and your respond with what someone else says and claim it's the verdict. Then you come at me and claim i'm trying to make a verdict and insult my intelligence?

If you're going to insult someone else's intelligence at least make sure you aren't engaging in logical fallacies and being hypocritical first.

[Who cares]

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

Originally posted by Lotor13:

Yes, Tempest Rising is new C&C, beceuse it uses C&C gameplay formula, (it does not mean C&C remake),

You are trying to say "wise words" here... and You put Tempest Rising and 4X strategy games into 1 category. So Your opinions are indicative of the guy, who do not understantd strategy games.

My dude, games can belong to more than one category at a time. If you don't understand that then there's nothing more to be said.

"My dude", don't you think that even if some of your stated games have RTS in genres, it doesn't mean that you can compare base-building skirmish focused with simple economy game with turn based global games with just battles in real time , do you?

[BrutalGlory]

Originally posted by Who cares:

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

My dude, games can belong to more than one category at a time. If you don't understand that then there's nothing more to be said.

"My dude", don't you think that even if some of your stated games have RTS in genres, it doesn't mean that you can compare base-building skirmish focused with simple economy game with turn based global games with just battles in real time , do you?

Honestly you people make pet rocks look intelligent in comparison. You *just* made my point; no one is COMPARING them, the person asked for a list of games in the RTS genre that were good in the last decade, under the assumption that they could try and simply sandbag me as a naysayer, a bit like yourself with this whole poisoning the well shtick you have going on. So i gave them one. If you lot had read what was said you'd understand that.

But I know; it's a tall order. It would have taken too much time to find the original topic, read how it came to be, and put 2 and 2 together. Instead it's a lot easier to read the last comment and make an uninformed statement. Heck, you didn't even get THEIR point right; no one said it's the same category as they claimed, nor has anyone compared them.

Honestly now, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Spouting your uninformed opinions on a subject you aren't following is the sort of thing that belongs on Twitter, not Steam.

[Cat]

Perhaps it's still too early to judge.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

Honestly now, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Spouting your uninformed opinions on a subject you aren't following is the sort of thing that belongs on Twitter, not Steam.

You were the guy that literally said: "The internet is full off ********, what are you gonna do?"

Pick a lane.
You do not get to call other people incongruous, and then be so yourself.

[Apollysis]

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

I've been looking forward to this for years now, and i can honestly say this is the first RTS I've been genuinely disappointed by in about a decade. It seems to have kept the core of the old C&C games, but it's also taken all the wrong lessons while discarding the good ones as well.

Granted I've only played the (GDF i believe it was called? it's GDI for all intents and purposes) but the tech tree is an absolute mess. The idea of making a building and then upgrading it with a pod sounds fantastic, until you realize you need multiples of the same building to complete the tech tree for even tier 2 units that sever as basic counters. The UI is frankly a mess; ratios for abilities and seeing what units are selected don't match the rest of what's being displayed and reading the abilities is a literal headache.

No. A single building can have all the pods. Also Dynasty only has one upgrade per building.

[Apollysis]

Originally posted by Cryptic:

yeah this demo is a disaster honestly. none of the qol improvements or feedback made it in and they want $40 for this? really? on top of that: microtransactions and skins.


f this

There are no microtransactions. I have no idea where you got that and the skins are preorder bonuses.

[BrutalGlory]

Originally posted by Apollysis:

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

I've been looking forward to this for years now, and i can honestly say this is the first RTS I've been genuinely disappointed by in about a decade. It seems to have kept the core of the old C&C games, but it's also taken all the wrong lessons while discarding the good ones as well.

Granted I've only played the (GDF i believe it was called? it's GDI for all intents and purposes) but the tech tree is an absolute mess. The idea of making a building and then upgrading it with a pod sounds fantastic, until you realize you need multiples of the same building to complete the tech tree for even tier 2 units that sever as basic counters. The UI is frankly a mess; ratios for abilities and seeing what units are selected don't match the rest of what's being displayed and reading the abilities is a literal headache.

No. A single building can have all the pods. Also Dynasty only has one upgrade per building.

You are correct, I thought i'd edited that out with a note on like day one. Looks like I either accidentally mentioned it twice or am mistaken about doing so; it's fixed now so as not to spread misinformation further.

As for micro transactions, I think most people would consider skins to be a micro transaction.

[Stunner]

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

Originally posted by Apollysis:

No. A single building can have all the pods. Also Dynasty only has one upgrade per building.

You are correct, I thought i'd edited that out with a note on like day one. Looks like I either accidentally mentioned it twice or am mistaken about doing so; it's fixed now so as not to spread misinformation further.

As for micro transactions, I think most people would consider skins to be a micro transaction.

No they absolutely wont, preorder bonus and mtx are two completely seperate terms with seperate meaning and implications.

Dont spout nonsense in the hope of nobody calling you out on it

[Shaggy Rogers]

smart point farming bait. 10/10

[BrutalGlory]

Originally posted by Stunner:

Originally posted by BrutalGlory:

You are correct, I thought i'd edited that out with a note on like day one. Looks like I either accidentally mentioned it twice or am mistaken about doing so; it's fixed now so as not to spread misinformation further.

As for micro transactions, I think most people would consider skins to be a micro transaction.

No they absolutely wont, preorder bonus and mtx are two completely seperate terms with seperate meaning and implications.

Dont spout nonsense in the hope of nobody calling you out on it

It seems you need to take your own advice, I prefer people call me out if something I've said is factually incorrect and I believe I've demonstrated as much in the post above yours. I know it's a foreign concept for you, what with someone actually being open to admitting when they're wrong and all.

Now, as far as I've heard unit skins won't be coming out until after launch, and the only pre-order skins will be for neutral buildings. And as there's no information on the store page. If they sell skins after launch it's an MTX, and they'd be stupid not to try and do something to recoup their development costs at this point. Regardless of whether I or anyone else likes the idea.

Of course "commander pack" and "7-day early access" look and awful lot like MTX hidden behind the weak guise of a "pre-order bonus" to me. If the Government gets ♥♥♥♥ for taxing you in obscure ways i'm sure we can agree that a developer picking your pocket the same way is just as disgusting.