Why are so many people hellbent on murdering the RTS genre?

[VolteVaris]

Thanks ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥; There are some of us barely able to even run the game but still love it anyway; Why do you have to ruin it for everybody else? Why cut the game down before it can reach it's prime?

Unfortunate; IH will get killed before it truly can show off the extent of it's capability

[Radoras]

well, I don't know which posts specifically you are referring to, but I - as a potential buyer who had it on his wishlist for a while now - am glad to be able to read up on the game flaws others see (examples: weird cover behavior, infantry not shooting out of buildings, stupid rushes to fixed weapon crates right at the beginning of skirmish battles, and - mentioned by SOME - that the factions aren't exactly that different, beginning with the infantry) so I could withhold my purchase until I see how it turns out & if they changes things.

Of couse I don't listen to people who just bash the game like the anti-christ himself programmed it to torment RTS-players, but better having that knowledge before buying a game that, given those problems, would annoy me to no end after a while.
I get that people don't want a game to be bashed into oblivion, but the community would do itself a disservice if they just kept quiet about problems in hopes of everyone who comes later overlooking it as well.

[Tenshin51]

Originally posted by Radoras:

well, I don't know which posts specifically you are referring to, but I - as a potential buyer who had it on his wishlist for a while now - am glad to be able to read up on the game flaws others see (examples: weird cover behavior, infantry not shooting out of buildings, stupid rushes to fixed weapon crates right at the beginning of skirmish battles, and - mentioned by SOME - that the factions aren't exactly that different, beginning with the infantry) so I could withhold my purchase until I see how it turns out & if they changes things.

Of couse I don't listen to people who just bash the game like the anti-christ himself programmed it to torment RTS-players, but better having that knowledge before buying a game that, given those problems, would annoy me to no end after a while.
I get that people don't want a game to be bashed into oblivion, but the community would do itself a disservice if they just kept quiet about problems in hopes of everyone who comes later overlooking it as well.

The game definitely have an issues.
Weapon crates is not one of them. They are just noobs.
Resources plays more important role in the game due I can easily unlock powerful units using reserve.

[Armitage]

Originally posted by Sokar:

Thanks ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s; There are some of us barely able to even run the game but still love it anyway; Why do you have to ruin it for everybody else? Why cut the game down before it can reach it's prime?

Unfortunate; IH will get killed before it truly can show off the extent of it's capability

You think the RTS genre is carried solely by this game?

Sacrifice (released in 2000) is the first game that used requisition points as resources, and no requisition based RTS has managed to surpass the way Sacrifice did it. The game is one of a kind and way more fun than Iron Harvest will ever be. Shiny Entertainment are done sadly, so a sequel will most likely never happen.

Battle Realms was an extremely innovative RTS for it's time, and still is today. Unfortunately, funding for the sequel fell short.

Petroglyph (consisting of former Westwood Studios employees) are struggling majorly to reach their former glory.

Sequels to Homeworld and Age of Empires are on the way. Previous iterations played a huge role in the success of the genre. Those two games failing will have a far larger impact on the genre than Iron Harvest could ever hope for.

Dawn of War 3 was dead on arrival, meaning we may never see another sequel by Relic.

Nothing wrong with you liking this game, but if you think this game has so much potential that its failure will result in the collapse of the RTS genre as a whole. Then you obviously don't know ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about the RTS genre.

[-SIBERIANWOLF-]

Originally posted by Armitage:

Originally posted by Sokar:

Thanks ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s; There are some of us barely able to even run the game but still love it anyway; Why do you have to ruin it for everybody else? Why cut the game down before it can reach it's prime?

Unfortunate; IH will get killed before it truly can show off the extent of it's capability

You think the RTS genre is carried solely by this game?

Sacrifice (released in 2000) is the first game that used requisition points as resources, and no requisition based RTS has managed to surpass the way Sacrifice did it. The game is one of a kind and way more fun than Iron Harvest will ever be. Shiny Entertainment are done sadly, so a sequel will most likely never happen.

Battle Realms was an extremely innovative RTS for it's time, and still is today. Unfortunately, funding for the sequel fell short.

Petroglyph (consisting of former Westwood Studios employees) are struggling majorly to reach their former glory.

Sequels to Homeworld and Age of Empires are on the way. Previous iterations played a huge role in the success of the genre. Those two games failing will have a far larger impact on the genre than Iron Harvest could ever hope for.

Dawn of War 3 was dead on arrival, meaning we may never see another sequel by Relic.

Nothing wrong with you liking this game, but if you think this game has so much potential that its failure will result in the collapse of the RTS genre as a whole. Then you obviously don't know ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about the RTS genre.

but you listen 2 very old games (also they are magic themed) you like its like i would say
cossaks, generals and coh1 nobody wants to play this old games

the rts is dead since i dont know 2004-5 only relict did some good and ok games (all squadbased aka the same) but coh 2 isnt for many great (never played homeworld looks interesting hmm)

so here comes IH (also maybe saddly coh based would loved a more aoe/c&c rts IH) its ok i like it but yep it needs patchs like coh2 did at the release which sucks but saddly standart since 2012 like in most games
(okey maybe someone like starcraft XD)

but to say that microsoft/relic aoe4 will save the day im very unsure about that also they suck they just needed to resale aoe2 twice lol gg

as i said homeworld looks cool will try it

still i hope this little overpriced game gets his attention and player base its the best the last 8 years for me cossaks 3 was a letdown coz of no support and bug 2016 helo wars was fun but what happend to the glory days of rts like dune c&c good cossaks1 redalert2 and coh1 they murdered c&c and totalahnilation never made a new aoe and all hyped starcraft (damn stress game)

anyway have fun boys

[Armitage]

Originally posted by -SIBERIANWOLF-:

Originally posted by Armitage:

You think the RTS genre is carried solely by this game?

Sacrifice (released in 2000) is the first game that used requisition points as resources, and no requisition based RTS has managed to surpass the way Sacrifice did it. The game is one of a kind and way more fun than Iron Harvest will ever be. Shiny Entertainment are done sadly, so a sequel will most likely never happen.

Battle Realms was an extremely innovative RTS for it's time, and still is today. Unfortunately, funding for the sequel fell short.

Petroglyph (consisting of former Westwood Studios employees) are struggling majorly to reach their former glory.

Sequels to Homeworld and Age of Empires are on the way. Previous iterations played a huge role in the success of the genre. Those two games failing will have a far larger impact on the genre than Iron Harvest could ever hope for.

Dawn of War 3 was dead on arrival, meaning we may never see another sequel by Relic.

Nothing wrong with you liking this game, but if you think this game has so much potential that its failure will result in the collapse of the RTS genre as a whole. Then you obviously don't know ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about the RTS genre.

but you listen 2 very old games (also they are magic themed) you like its like i would say
cossaks, generals and coh1 nobody wants to play this old games

the rts is dead since i dont know 2004-5 only relict did some good and ok games (all squadbased aka the same) but coh 2 isnt for many great (never played homeworld looks interesting hmm)

so here comes IH (also maybe saddly coh based would loved a more aoe/c&c rts IH) its ok i like it but yep it needs patchs like coh2 did at the release which sucks but saddly standart since 2012 like in most games
(okey maybe someone like starcraft XD)

but to say that microsoft/relic aoe4 will save the day im very unsure about that also they suck they just needed to resale aoe2 twice lol gg

as i said homeworld looks cool will try it

still i hope this little overpriced game gets his attention and player base its the best the last 8 years for me cossaks 3 was a letdown coz of no support and bug 2016 helo wars was fun but what happend to the glory days of rts like dune c&c good cossaks1 redalert2 and coh1 they murdered c&c and totalahnilation never made a new aoe and all hyped starcraft (damn stress game)

anyway have fun boys :supersusguy:

I understand that Sacrifice and Battle Realms are old. I mainly brought them up because those two games were revolutionary even by today's standard. Relic's requisition style of resources exists thanks to Sacrifice.

Never receiving a sequel from especially Sacrifice, sucks way more than Iron Harvest never quite taking off. And the way the thread creator is going around blasting everyone, it's clear as day he doesn't know the history of the RTS genre, nor has he played some of the amazing games of the past (successful/underrated/cult classics) if he thinks this games potential is so high that it will carry the RTS genre.

Iron Harvest is fun, combat is engaging, the aesthetics is top notch, but that's all it has. It only took 1 hour for 5 of my friends and myself to know we weren't playing this game beyond the demo.

Easy to learn, yet hard to master is one of the hardest things to achieve in gaming. This game is as simplistic as it comes. Even with patches, new maps, improvements to pathing and cover. It will not be enough to push this to the soaring heights of the best in the genre.

Many of us are waiting for the next crazy fun RTS game. Just because most of us don't feel this game is it, just because we don't want to support it, just because people are criticizing it. That does not mean we want to see the RTS genre die for good.

It's actually the opposite. We want something amazing, and we'd be willing to support it even if it was rough around the edges, as long as it looked like a diamond in the rough.

[VolteVaris]

The game has it's flaws; nobody's denying that; but then you have idiots going on a crusade of false user-protection for their own personal gain and clout; meanwhile hapless devs get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over by lies and deceit.
People are just treating it like it's an absolute pile of garbage and made by the devil himself; much like other quality titles beforehand; and it's really not the case. It's flawed; but it's still enjoyable.
Probably why I like the Overlord games so much

[Armitage]

Originally posted by Sokar:

The game has it's flaws; nobody's denying that; but then you have idiots going on a crusade of false user-protection for their own personal gain and clout; meanwhile hapless devs get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over by lies and deceit.
People are just treating it like it's an absolute pile of garbage and made by the devil himself; much like other quality titles beforehand; and it's really not the case. It's flawed; but it's still enjoyable.
Probably why I like the Overlord games so much

This game is certainly not trash, I'll agree with you there. It is an above average RTS and there are far worse games out there. And being a kickstarter funded game, it will always have to come off the starting line with a massive handicap.

Those types of vocal people that you are referring to, there is no inbetween with them. And unfortunately, there isn't really any way to deal with their BS.

Anything can set them off on a rampage - OMG games too hard, I get lag, game crashed, not working on my PC, no cross play. That's all it will take for people like that to trash a game and bury it in their review.

[[OG] Brandoid]

Originally posted by Radoras:

well, I don't know which posts specifically you are referring to, but I - as a potential buyer who had it on his wishlist for a while now - am glad to be able to read up on the game flaws others see (examples: weird cover behavior, infantry not shooting out of buildings, stupid rushes to fixed weapon crates right at the beginning of skirmish battles, and - mentioned by SOME - that the factions aren't exactly that different, beginning with the infantry) so I could withhold my purchase until I see how it turns out & if they changes things.

Of couse I don't listen to people who just bash the game like the anti-christ himself programmed it to torment RTS-players, but better having that knowledge before buying a game that, given those problems, would annoy me to no end after a while.
I get that people don't want a game to be bashed into oblivion, but the community would do itself a disservice if they just kept quiet about problems in hopes of everyone who comes later overlooking it as well.

How is the cover weird? There is only one weird instance that I know of on the oil spill map where the rock cover beats the wooden crate cover with no indication of a difference between the two.

Infantry does show out of buildings, specifically the windows and only one model can shoot from one window so the layout of the building matters and is why a unit in cover fighting a unit in a building can win against it given the building has poor window count on that side.

The map all have fixed placements of weapon crates that are always the same thing. It is just another variable point of contention between you and your opponent to complain about such a thing is to complain you have to put any effort in besting your enemy in that case why even play?
there are also resource caches around the map which serve the same purpose.
In my opinion it is pointless to call something a rush in this game as the whole gameplay is based around controlling nodes evenly spaced between players on the map. There is no way to sit back in your base or behind it to build up and eventually push out past an arbitrary amount of time.

The factions are similar, but based on that they are all human at the same technological 1920+ level in bordering nations. For example they all use guns and cannons, their foot soldiers all use their legs to get around etc.

The base infantry unit for each different. Polania have riflemen the longest range of the three. Saxony have machine pistols with high rate of fire and medium range. Rusviet have shotguns with shortest range but in that range they have the highest damage. Rus inf. also has the highest HP and are better at melee than the other two. The grenadier is same deal while the engineer, medic, gunner, machine gunner, flamer, mortor, heavy MG, field cannon are all same only look different. The exosuit unit is very different for each faction with different stats, armament, and abilities.
All the mechs are different for each faction but fall under a category such as "artillery mech" "anti armor mech" etc.

edit: past the standard pillbox emplacement the upgrade for anti personal and then anti armor is different for each faction as well.

[B166ER]

Originally posted by Sokar:

The game has it's flaws; nobody's denying that; but then you have idiots going on a crusade of false user-protection for their own personal gain and clout; meanwhile hapless devs get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over by lies and deceit.
People are just treating it like it's an absolute pile of garbage and made by the devil himself; much like other quality titles beforehand; and it's really not the case. It's flawed; but it's still enjoyable.
Probably why I like the Overlord games so much

Sokar's at it again and I have something to laugh at.
I'm still convinced you're either a dev or family/friend to one.

> The game has it's flaws; nobody's denying that;

You did deny exactly that in your earlier crusades against critics.


> meanwhile hapless devs get ♥♥♥♥♥♥ over by lies and deceit.

Promising A and not delivering A is exactly that: lies and deceit.

I really have to hold back tears for the "hapless" devs who get hit by the reality of over-promising and under-delivering.


> People are just treating it like it's an absolute pile of garbage and made by the devil himself; much like other quality titles beforehand

So you admit you can't and won't tolerate any other opinion than your own of "This is the best game every and will save RTS"?

[Radoras]

Originally posted by Brandoid:

Originally posted by Radoras:

well, I don't know which posts specifically you are referring to, but I - as a potential buyer who had it on his wishlist for a while now - am glad to be able to read up on the game flaws others see (examples: weird cover behavior, infantry not shooting out of buildings, stupid rushes to fixed weapon crates right at the beginning of skirmish battles, and - mentioned by SOME - that the factions aren't exactly that different, beginning with the infantry) so I could withhold my purchase until I see how it turns out & if they changes things.

Of couse I don't listen to people who just bash the game like the anti-christ himself programmed it to torment RTS-players, but better having that knowledge before buying a game that, given those problems, would annoy me to no end after a while.
I get that people don't want a game to be bashed into oblivion, but the community would do itself a disservice if they just kept quiet about problems in hopes of everyone who comes later overlooking it as well.

How is the cover weird? There is only one weird instance that I know of on the oil spill map where the rock cover beats the wooden crate cover with no indication of a difference between the two.

Infantry does show out of buildings, specifically the windows and only one model can shoot from one window so the layout of the building matters and is why a unit in cover fighting a unit in a building can win against it given the building has poor window count on that side.

The map all have fixed placements of weapon crates that are always the same thing. It is just another variable point of contention between you and your opponent to complain about such a thing is to complain you have to put any effort in besting your enemy in that case why even play?
there are also resource caches around the map which serve the same purpose.
In my opinion it is pointless to call something a rush in this game as the whole gameplay is based around controlling nodes evenly spaced between players on the map. There is no way to sit back in your base or behind it to build up and eventually push out past an arbitrary amount of time.

The factions are similar, but based on that they are all human at the same technological 1920+ level in bordering nations. For example they all use guns and cannons, their foot soldiers all use their legs to get around etc.

The base infantry unit for each different. Polania have riflemen the longest range of the three. Saxony have machine pistols with high rate of fire and medium range. Rusviet have shotguns with shortest range but in that range they have the highest damage. Rus inf. also has the highest HP and are better at melee than the other two. The grenadier is same deal while the engineer, medic, gunner, machine gunner, flamer, mortor, heavy MG, field cannon are all same only look different. The exosuit unit is very different for each faction with different stats, armament, and abilities.
All the mechs are different for each faction but fall under a category such as "artillery mech" "anti armor mech" etc.

edit: past the standard pillbox emplacement the upgrade for anti personal and then anti armor is different for each faction as well.

well, regarding some of your points (in some cases comparing to CoH because, honestly, it seems heavily inspired by that):

- on building vs infantry in cover: I also read in a post that, in some instances, even if there was somehow a hole shot into the building's wall (thus opening a new "window"), units wouldn't use it, but even then, I would expect a building used as a "makeshift bunker" to be superior to simply sitting behind a bunch of rocks or something like that, the tradeoff being that the buildings are a few stationary points on a map, while simple "cover" should be more abundant & readily available - again, may be just my perception or preferrence.
But I also read that in some cases, infantry didn't go into cover even if it was available in a shootout, meaning that 2 out of 5 men were standing in the open eating bullets; something that CoH 1 & 2 back in the day already got better with showing as dots on the ground where the infantry will go into light/heavy cover, depending on where you clicked (https://steamcommunity.com/app/826630/discussions/0/2943622078747481283/)

Not saying "bruh covah sux", but you have to admit that it IS objectively a step back to have that problem, when a game several years ago already had that ironed out (unless you go with the apple i-phone logic & mark every bug as a "hidden feature").

- on the weapon crates: It may be solely personal preferrence, but as far as I understood it, the crates also contain "game changers" for early game, like flamethrowers & other stuff, some even claiming they're often the axis on which the whole early-game turns.
(https://steamcommunity.com/app/826630/discussions/0/2914346777826073078/?ctp=8)
(https://steamcommunity.com/app/826630/discussions/0/2943620809085016592/)

That may be entirely up to taste, but I personally don't like it when a single thing right at the get-go tilts the balance of power too heavily, especially when it relies on having memorized the content of all weapon crates; would be more interesting to me if it was randomized, so you at least had to balance the effort it takes to get the crate with the risk/reward of what you might get.

- on the "factions being different", again referencing CoH: Here, opinions seem to differ; some seem to say that factions are playing completely different, while some seem to be concerned that they're mainly re-skins of each other or the differences don't make for real differences in how you play them.
(https://steamcommunity.com/app/826630/discussions/0/2516897767680348160/)
(https://steamcommunity.com/app/826630/discussions/0/2914346777826048759/)
(https://steamcommunity.com/app/826630/discussions/0/2943620809068569364/)
compared to CoH: Allies & Axis were also humans in the same time with about the same level of technology, but the Axis had a different building/unit progression (flexible allies vs Axis with fixed progression to unlock unit x); then the bunker brits (rush, fortify, rinse&repeat) and Panzer Elite (vehicle-mobility & veterancy upgrades) were added & again something different.
Even if they were all humans using comparable technology, gameplay-wise ,they were distinct in their tactics & pros/cons.
What I read online was that, while looking different, a significant portion of posters seem to think that the factions in Iron Harvest play too similarly.

Again, this may be a bit matter of taste as some pointed out that, by making factions too asymetrical, it would be a balance-nightmare that would never end...but I - as a more casual player who never cared for pro-gamer level balance down to the smallest detail - like it more on the "diverse" end of the spectrum, otherwise I would simply slap a skin on it & call it a day.

Originally posted by Brandoid:

The map all have fixed placements of weapon crates that are always the same thing. It is just another variable point of contention between you and your opponent to complain about such a thing is to complain you have to put any effort in besting your enemy in that case why even play?

Regarding that part: can we maybe agree that different people like different aspects of strategy games and concentrate on more objective topics instead of fighting about what constitutes as a valid "reason to play"?
In some games it's considered part of "mastering the game" to know when to skip attack animations/stutter-step for increased DPS or to know all the glitches & exploits; some people consider it fun, but others just think of that as a hassle they would like patched out.

[Tenshin51]

Again in Weapon Crates debates it doesn't make you win the game especially rushing those crates. Capturing flamethrower and gunner will slow down your early game expansion rate. Some players just got outplay in MP or just players never played any campaign without understanding this mechanic or just use Skirmish tactic and using strategy to defeat an AI instead against players.

Skirmish AI in this game is horrible, Ai doesn't know how to capture weapon crates.

The only issue in Weapon Crates I could think of this mechanic will be Gunner due this got buffed in current patch. Field cannon is another one due some players in MP doesn't know how to counter this unit.

Capturing nodes, resources and map control is more important in this game. Infantry control and rotation is important in Early game. Build order also played important in this game. Combine arms is another one.

The game is heavily focus on unlocking Reserve that unlocks hero, powerful units and spam units. It's hard to recover from this especially in early game your map control is horrible. If in early game both you and your opponent have decent map control, reserve units will not matter if you know how to counter this unit. Mid game will be more exciting especially on Early game infantry rush or blobs.

[JJ]

Honestly, I can't wait to get my hands on the game. It's just a bit pricey for me now. The only complaint I have the godawful music in the trailer that doesn't suit the theme at all XD
But otherwise I am so happy to see a new RTS and I will definitely buy this and put tons of hours into it.

[Dwarvenbelly]

Sokar this is just one of your crusades against people who are dissapointed with the game.
It is their opinion and if you dont agree with it dont call people trolls because they are dissapointed at what was promised by the publisher.

In my opinion it is a fun game, i am happy with the updates they are making and the steps they are taking,the game isnt finished i can tell you that.

the people who are vocal are either people who arent happy with the game or people like you fanboying. Either make good discussion or accept peoples opinion. everyone has the right to complain about the game.

[VolteVaris]

good god the trolls just don't stop

[Newsush]

Originally posted by Sokar:

Thanks ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s; There are some of us barely able to even run the game but still love it anyway; Why do you have to ruin it for everybody else? Why cut the game down before it can reach it's prime?

Unfortunate; IH will get killed before it truly can show off the extent of it's capability

we all happy you enjoy the game and you allow to have your opinion but whining about other whining is still whining i dont get people of forums everyone got a opinion but it like" your not allow to type your opinion but i can right mine it rather sad that people cant just say ok fine but i dont agree with people excepting trash for a over priced game if people serve you chocalte flavour turd it still a turd but dont complain becuase you going a better one in future that it?