Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
I don't think much will be changed there anymore, as I guess that's part of the essential design concept: Each race should have access to the same unit types to be able to counter each other. However, I think a lot could be done in terms of upgrades. While I'm okay that the units of Humans and Orcs - and probably Elves - fulfill the very same functions, I think upgrades could help a lot to give each race a distinguish flavour and even playstyle.
However, even the upgrades are mostly identically, e.g. there aren't any (!) differences between the building upgrades - all they do is boost numerical values, which are nice, but don't have any influence on how I play the game. I'd love to see upgrades which do more than (a) boosting numbers or (b) granting units additional damage types. Just to toss in some ideas:
(1) Building Upgrade, Orcs: If attacked, Orc buildings damage nearby melee units.
(2) Building Upgrade, Orcs: Increase number of produced units by <value>.
(3) Building Upgrade, Humans: Workers can be stationed in buildings, granting them shelter and allowing the building to attack nearby enemies.
(4) Building Upgrade, Humans: Gain <value> of additional henchman for each settlement if researched.
(5) ...
Same goes for units. While keeping their basic roles - cavalry, pikemen, etc. pp. - untouched, I think that's the place where the races could become more diverse, maybe even providing two upgrades for one unit so the player has to decide which upgrade - and thus strategy - he wants to go for.
Just a few examples:
On Tech level 1, Humans have access to Infantery and Ranged, which is also effective against buildings. Orcs, on the other hand, have no ranged AND their early units don't have any bonuses against buildings. However, they get access to the warg rider, a direct counter for infantery. For whch Humans have no direct counter at this early stage.
On Tech level 2, it evens out a bit, with Barracks Units beeing largely similar. However, Orcs retain their cavalry advantage, getting an advanced (armored) cavalry unit while Humans "only" get scouts. Humans don't get their armored cavalry until Tech 3, AND it'll cost them Aria instead of just Food and Iron.
Humans however keep their advantage on the ranges/siege side, having an easily spammable ranged/siege unit that won't eat up your precious iron.
There are quite a few differences on second and third glance.
There should be at least a visual difference.
Really when I first played for the orcs, I was surprised. The title in baracks are the same and such units as pikermans and warriors are also the same which Humans have.
This definitely should not be in the final game.
It really creates an impression as if everything is identical, only pictures and 3D models replaced for Orcs.
This is for pikemen and regular warriors!!! To the rest of the units I have no remarks.
-never make units smaller, you need to target them after all, so such thing like zerglings can be really annoying.
Orcs have a huge diversity right now
-early cavalry unit tier 1
-Troll for Siege tier 2
-Troll as Tier 3
-drummer to buff units tier 3
-healing tower
-By the way look how many are spawned, by goblins you get 4, not 3 like by humans
And most importantly , just random do diversity as possible can extremely backfire on balance.
And did and does backfire by any RTS game, simply becouse it so much work to fix balance
In my opinion you need to see the whole, game like after Elves are introduced.
And most important one, I rather have several slightly different factions, than 3 broken different.
Have a solid 10 basic units for all factions and 5 unique units is the thing.
This way they could easy implement more factions
-Dwarfs
-Dark Elves
-Undead
-Barbarians
What they have in common:
1) All tier 1 and tier 2 buildings are identical. Orcs and Humans only differ in one (!) building on tier 2 - namely the tower. That's it. One building.
2) Orcs and Humans have identical building upgrades. They are the very same, one for one.
3) With one expection on tier 1, all units up to tier 2 fulfill the very same function. Both factions have a pikemen, infantry, cavalry and a basic ranged unit. Numbers aside, they hardly differ and don't allow different strategies. Everything I can do with Humans, I can do with Orcs as well.
(4) Unit upgrades seem identical, i.e. they usually grant a certain unit one additional damage type or passive ability which - again - is identical for Orcs and Humans.
(5) Humans have a catapult at tier 2, Orcs have a troll. Cosmetics aside, both units work the same and fulfill the very same function.
Given Humans and Orcs have so much in common, I don't see a "huge" diversity so far. They are diverse in terms of the visuals. Orcs and Humans do "look" different, but I cannot say they play or feel different. If I compare it to other games such as Starcraft 2 or Command&Conquer - or even Spellforce 2! - each faction had their own strategies and each faction offered a different experiences. But cosmetics and minor differences aside, you play Orcs just like you play Humans. They get a little bit more diverse at tier 3, but so far hardly any game ever lasted that long. In 90% of all cases, I either lost or won before any of us ever got to tier 3.
What's the point of having more than one faction if they hardly feel or play any different?
Orcs have two clear differences to Humans. 1: Cavalry and 2: late game benefits large armies.
1: They get early T1 cavalry (at this point, a human opponent won't have access to pikes to counter them). Plus: they get an upgraded cavalry on T2 instead of T3 for humans. As such, they won't have to spend black ash for their armored cavalry, while Humans have to process aria for theirs.
2: Their T3 units and buildings are geared to larger armies. Their T3 Tower aoe-heals them. The drummer provides aoe-buffs. Trolls and Firemasters auto attack have a knockback effect, making it easier to break enemy formations and swarm vulnerable units with their respective conters.
Also: The T1 Goblin spawns 1 more unit (4) compared to the human recruit (3).
-1- You can not compete with Starcraft2,
you don't have 10 years budget to make 1 game with millions of fans,
I wish every other developer would finally get this "Starcrafting the games" out of their heads, it's a deadly disease for RTS games.
-2- Look all broken and dead RTS in last years with faction difference and their ratings.
Like recent Warhammer 40.000: Dawn of War 3 or Act Of Aggression.
-3- You have to realize one certain thing by diversity, its easy, really easy to do it wrong ad lead to abusive tactics and broken balance that do kill game online, you won't play and pay such game and people who advocated broken designs abandon it too, just do it by next game the same.
Like Eldar speed buff near own buildings in Dawn of War 3, a game series of over 2 million fans, reduced to just 200.000 "and possibly 50% refunded the game" , I mean by open beta only 10% of previous game fans were ever interested to try the game, its huge number of lost . And its not like Relic is a bad team.
It just someone does do bad designs and decisions, You just have your timeline limit where it should be released , unsuccessful titles.
I am speaking out of my experience,
at any circumstances try to do own Starcraft2 to avoid.
It will always backfire, in people complaining about the balance and creating much more work than it should be. In Worst case, actually in any case sabotage the success of the game on the Market.
By each game , you simply ended up by 1 faction , do 1 abusive tactic.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/1900/Earth_2160/?l=german
http://store.steampowered.com/app/290790/Grey_Goo/?l=german
http://store.steampowered.com/app/318020/Act_of_Aggression__Reboot_Edition/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/285190/Warhammer_40000_Dawn_of_War_III/
Especially the economy must be similar.
Look old Westwood Studios C&C games(1994-2001), Battle for Middle Earth 2 or Dawn of War1/2. You have a much bigger Strategy freedom and variety in strategy , if you have a solid and reliable unit rooster.
Than you can add something by units and units only to make the factions unique.
And its easy to add several factions, to have a gameplay that does more suit your play style and still encounter people who try something else.
As I said, there are small'ish differences, but yet: How would you define Orcs in comparison to humans? What strategy can you pull of with Orcs that won't work with humans - how does any of that affect the way you play them from tier 1 to 3? If one player would ask you "What do humans play like?" and "What do Orcs play like?" how would you respond to that?
In Starcraft 2 I'd say, Terrans are good at bunkering, sieging and ranged units. Zerg are specialized on building larger melee armies in no time while Protoss have access to expensive but highly expensive units. I could do the same with Warcraft 3 or Command&Conquer or even Spellforce 1 and Spellforce 2, where each faction differed vastly. Yet, I couldn't write such a short description on the Orcs and Humans in Spellforce 3 and the Elves will presumably follow the same formula.
What I mean is, for me, Orcs and Humans lack personality and character. It's not like Orcs are better at building larger armies while Humans have access to stronger units - or something like that. Merely differentiating units by the damage/armour type isn't enough, they need something more, like the Orc drummer, who boosts nearby units. Yet, 90% of all units just can do one thing: "Move and attack." They provide nothing else you could play with and build strategies around.
But they didn't. The only real unique unit the Orcs have so far is the drummer. The mentalist and firemaster for example pretty much do the very same thing - magic damage. I'm fine with units having no active abilities, but they need something that makes them more interesting.
I can compare it with Spellforce 2 as well. Again, a rather small German developer who offered three vastly different factions with unique and interesting units that allowed a plentory of strategies. That's really not a matter of budget, but one of design philosophy.
Ask me that again at the end of Beta, when we had access to all 3 factions, and not just in mirror matches.
I'm also not sure wether the games needs an entirley different playstyle for each faction. If i remember Age of Empires 2...that game had extremely minor differences between it's factions. And yet, it wasn't a bad game because of it.
By Spellforce 2 all 5 factions have same base build. And you have much less resources.
The only real difference there are the units.
I'd agree with you if Spellforce 3 would've started off with 13 factions as Age of Empires II did, but we only have three factions, so if two of them feel and play very similar, to me that's an issue. Of course I see the point of having an easier time to balance the game, but what good does a balanced game if the overall experience feels rather bland and the strategic depth is quite shallow? People will always complain about balance on the internet, but being balanced itself doesn't equal fun. The reason you play a game is because it's fun, not because it's balanced. Having three very same'ish factions isn't much fun for me, at least.
Even if Elves should differ vastly, it won't change the fact that Humans and Orcs - 66% of the available factions - feel like differently clothed twinks.
Ye, but the units were very different right from the start.
Wait a moment, we are talking about something you would find out pretty fast in Starcraft2.
Like by play some custom matches vs real people, because any second or third game they do use this tactics or if you manage to go beyond the bronze league.
So you suggest to do something like by Starcraft 2,
without to understand how even basics by SC2 do work ?
Just say "do it like there", but without to understand how and why is really dangerous.
The worst case of 3 diverse faction is, that only 1 faction is played online and using always same tactic.
------game mechanics is something really, really difficult by RTS game.
You need to understand how diversity works. Here is the Unit wiki for Spellforce 1 and 2,
as we see each unit has same role by each faction.
http://spellforce.wikia.com/wiki/Units
------
Altogether the diversity should result in equality
Any speciality should result in same cost effectiveness.
1 this way it would force Human faction to use no melee units by attacks while orcs can =
And loose melee units will be really annoying.
2 if you spam more units, it means they must be than weaker and we get instant balance issues. because you have unit limits.
3 its even worse , becouse Human faction will than use no towers and it would be impossible to attack in early or mid game a human base.
4 its the worst suggestion possible, this will break faction economy balance, so while humans can make faster more resources, orcs needs now to be cheaper there = kills balance.
I really dont see how the game is supposed to get better by this,
by add pointless balance and gameplay issues.