Oldfags.rpgcodex.com?
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Incline Larian's Dragon Commander - Released
- Thread starter catfood
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 9,873
There's certainly lots of blobbing in the game, but the special abilities are really powerful as well, just have to find the micro to use them while not neglecting dragon form or building. Quite tough that, so I suspect most people will just blob.
Stabbey
Learned
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 155
It may be true that the RTS maps were designed for 4 people, Forktong, but a lot of people want to play 1v1 (or Free-For-All, which against the AI, usually ends up being a series of 1v1 battles anyway). That said, the recent reduction in population really has helped a lot, the games no longer drag on forever because there are 8000 recruits on a map.
The recent changes to casters and duration of abilities also makes them more useful and also reduces the amount of micromanagement, letting you focus less on making sure everyone's shields are refreshed and more on tactics.
P.S. No matter what else you do with the map Falcon's Rocks, it really, REALLY needs a shipyard construction site at each base. The ones in the middle are just too far away to make naval units an important factor for the map.
The recent changes to casters and duration of abilities also makes them more useful and also reduces the amount of micromanagement, letting you focus less on making sure everyone's shields are refreshed and more on tactics.
P.S. No matter what else you do with the map Falcon's Rocks, it really, REALLY needs a shipyard construction site at each base. The ones in the middle are just too far away to make naval units an important factor for the map.
Cursed Platypus
Unwanted
Which does not preclude it from being an overhyped piece of shit, does it. Just because it's the only game in town doesn't mean it's good.
Uhm... In the field of "RTS with meaningful macro elements", SC2 is the only contender at the moment.
Well, what's so bad about it? It's not perfect but it's more than decent. As for the hype, I really don't see all that much of it, except for among the die hards (which is to be expected really). Most media just goes "it's a hardcore rts, omg esports omg koreans now over to CoD". And to claim that it is the worst thing to have happened to the RTS genre is fucking inane, considering that SC2 belongs to the most hardcore RTS subgenre and it is the only one of this kind at the moment, considering that this subgenre (along with RTSes in general) already had its heart stopped beating at the time SC2 came out so it really couldn't go anywhere but up.
Honestly I'm half expecting someone to proclaim the virtues of CoH, the next generation truly immersive RTS, and claim it to be the only really tactical game.
The game in itself is only mediocre. The problem is the influence it's had on the whole RTS genre, due to it being the only one that sold like a COD.
It really did contribute to the decline of the RTS genre.
Gord
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 7,049
Yes, some 1v1 maps might be asked for.
As it is, unless you manage to quickly capture and hold a large enough part of the map, the probability that the AI will eventually just run you into the ground with a huge blob of spammed units IS quite large.
Although efficient microing and the right units/abilities might give you the possibility to deal with it, dunno.
Thing is, as Jaedar said, you have to manage keeping the balance between a certain amount of micro and macro, which can get tough, esp. if yo aren't used to it.
Maybe I'm just too slow...
But anyway, I'd be interested in playing an iteration where the map gets chosen according to how many factions are taking part in the battle, not by assigning a fixed multiplayer map to each region
As it is, unless you manage to quickly capture and hold a large enough part of the map, the probability that the AI will eventually just run you into the ground with a huge blob of spammed units IS quite large.
Although efficient microing and the right units/abilities might give you the possibility to deal with it, dunno.
Thing is, as Jaedar said, you have to manage keeping the balance between a certain amount of micro and macro, which can get tough, esp. if yo aren't used to it.
Maybe I'm just too slow...
But anyway, I'd be interested in playing an iteration where the map gets chosen according to how many factions are taking part in the battle, not by assigning a fixed multiplayer map to each region
Stabbey
Learned
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 155
Yes, I've won many recent games against large odds by careful micro and management of my units. One early match I was in deep trouble, because I had lost a ton of units, the resources were gone, and the AI was moving packs of units around the map. I thought I could sweep in with my Dragon and crush them. But I was using the Mountain Dragon - a "glass cannon", and the AI had wised up and was moving a huge pack of Grenadiers to guard that unit. Engaging that blob carelessly gets you killed. Sending my few remaining units to deal with that pack would have been fatal, so I ended up having to hold on to my last base, and do hit and run attacks with my Dragon (getting killed sometimes) to whittle the numbers of Grenadiers down. Eventually that worked and I won, but I barely had any resources or units left.
Brotherman Bill
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,933
What influence exactly? It was released in 2010, long after the death of the genre. The underlying elements are identical to those of classic RTSes. Can you point to one game today that is influenced by SC2?
Cursed Platypus
Unwanted
Of Starcraft 1 I was speaking. They releasing almost the exact same game (except for a few minor changes that only the hardcore clowns can
Hence we have gay clowns like TotalBullshit who will imply any RTS not comparable to SC is a shit game.
Kind of like all the retards thinking every voxel based games must be compared to minecraft (which minecraft isn't).
Brotherman Bill
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,933
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,442
Oh, yeah, my bad.
I'm not a fan of totalbiscuit but he is right about one thing IMO. This game would benefit from having smaller scale rts battles instead of the current mass warfare. Also, since I'm old and not twitchy enough I need to play on slowest rts speed, which drags the battles a lot.
Also, did I get this right? We will be fighting bots in 'destroy enemy base' type battles in the single player campaign? No hand crafted missions with variable objectives (SC style) seems like hugely wasted opportunity.
Also, did I get this right? We will be fighting bots in 'destroy enemy base' type battles in the single player campaign? No hand crafted missions with variable objectives (SC style) seems like hugely wasted opportunity.
Cursed Platypus
Unwanted
For me it seemed quite the opposite. This game looks like it could be a lot like SupCom, with massive battles, slow evolving frontlines, macro strategy and maneuvers on a massive maps.
Your dragon perspective would allow you to experience first hand the battlefield. Having a micro heavy game + dragon form is impossible. You throw big unit packs at each other, then you enter the fray as a dragon. The micro is replaced by the dragon mode.
Gord
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 7,049
That's not how Dragon Commander works, though.
You have to find a balance between dragon mode and micro.
Personally I'd rather have fewer, more expensive and durable units which would make micro'ing easier and the overall fighting in RTS less hectic, or do away with micro-intensive abilities alltogether - esp. the single-unit dragon abilities seem weak to pointless.
Cursed Platypus
Unwanted
It would be impossible to balance such a game.
Yes.
How you move your troops, where you move them, at what angle you attack, which to send first, what position to hold, how much frontlines you maintain... Those are the macro elements. ANd everything should remain kinda slow. When you need an extra hand (help create a gap in an enemy line...), or have nothing better to do, you engage your dragon.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 9,873
I think there will be some hand crafted missions. Probably similar to dow:dark crusade, where enemy strongholds etc are unique.
I hope you're right.
Stabbey
Learned
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 155
ForkTong, from the single-player beta preview videos that have come out, I noticed that the consequence for supporting certain things, like government healthcare or equal wages for women is something like 2 gold less per turn. Is that a flat 2 gold per turn, or is it a percentage based of your income (healthcare) / army size (equal pay)?
I'm asking because a flat fee is appropriate enough early on, when you have a only 5 countries, 2 gold matters, but when you have 20 countries, 2 gold matters a lot less. The costs for providing universal healthcare should probably increase as the amount of population you need to cover increases.
Will there be some way in-game, to see the amount of your budget that is diverted for other things? (so you can think "If I had made this choice differently, I'd have this much more to spend". It's not that important, just asking.)
I'm asking because a flat fee is appropriate enough early on, when you have a only 5 countries, 2 gold matters, but when you have 20 countries, 2 gold matters a lot less. The costs for providing universal healthcare should probably increase as the amount of population you need to cover increases.
Will there be some way in-game, to see the amount of your budget that is diverted for other things? (so you can think "If I had made this choice differently, I'd have this much more to spend". It's not that important, just asking.)
Flat. The things you decide on are random. So yeah, getting healthcare at the start of your campaign hurts.
Stabbey
Learned
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 155
The thing which bothers me a bit is that all decisions are supposed to have an upside and a downside. But as your empire's size increases, the 2 gold downside to providing the government healthcare basically vanishes once your income per turn is something like 30 or more. Of course, I do not know how many of those decisions there are and how much could end up draining from your treasury.
This part is getting a little bit nitpicky, but you'd think that as the population of your empire increases and more fall under the effects of your government-provided healthcare, your healthcare costs would go up. That would make for a longer-lasting consequence.
I suppose it probably would be tricky if you had a big-spending government where everything cost a percentage of your income, and finding the balance for fees would be hard. ... Tying it to your gold income doesn't quite work, because of gold mines and income-increasing cards. ... Maybe something like Healthcare costs a flat 2 gold per turn, plus 1 gold for every 5000 population in your empire? That makes a bit of logical sense, and doesn't penalize you for getting gold mines or playing income up cards.. I don't know... something to ponder, anyway.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 97,442
Swen on last minute changes: http://www.lar.net/2013/07/23/on-last-minute-changes-media/
All of the changes that we agreed on were implemented or being implemented, and a number of new crashes had been found and solved. If you’re wondering why we are still changing things, well, you needn’t look further than our forums, youtube, the steam community hub, facebook , twitter and what have you. There’s a continuous feedback loop going on there and we’re seeing some very well formed opinions appearing.
Our code of conduct is that whenever somebody posts a bright idea it gets on our list, and then put it in, as long as it remains feasible for us.
I can guarantee you that there’s a lot of people in the development trade (that actually includes guys in my office) that will tell you that this is the way to ruin, but my experience has been such that you’re better of with a game that’s fun and maybe not polished than you are with a game that’s polished but not fun. Fixing the polish is an easy enough thing and almost always a matter of money. Fixing the fun otoh is still somewhat of an arcane art coveted by many but mastered by few and money will not necessarily make the difference. Because my interest and joy in making games comes from stumbling upon ways of making them fun, I tend to sin more than often against the rules of maintaining the outwards production values that are so important these days, preferring a message box if need be over not putting something in that clearly improves the game mechanics
I joke, but I really do believe that whenever you realize a certain change will make your game more fun, you should do it, no matter how late in the development process you are. You should actually count yourself lucky that you had the insight prior to release. The only reason I can see why you shouldn’t embark on making the change is when you can’t implement the change properly for whatever reason. But you shouldn’t let that be an excuse for not making the change.
Stabbey
Learned
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 155
Patch 149 has dropped.
I might have missed some stuff, but here's the details of what I've found:
Balancing:
- Shaman Speed increased from 100 to 105
- Warlock Damage increased from 75 to 76
- Hunter Health increased from 1850 to 1940
- Hunter Damage increased from 41 to 42
- Armour Health increased from 2400 to 2440
- Devastator Damage increased from 318 to 324
- Transport Health decreased from 4500 to 4000
- Juggernaut Health increased from 6400 to 6500 (from patch 142)
- Imp Fighter Damage increased from 136 to 138
Skill Rebalances:
- Grenadier “Enhanced Explosives” Radius increased from 70 to 75
- Grenadier “Chemical Warfare” Damage increased from 3.0% to 3.5%
- Warlock “Death from Above” Damage decreased from 375 to 365
- Devastator “Besiege” Range decreased from +100% (2600m) to + 40% (1820m)
- Imp Fighter “War of Attrition” effect duration increased from 2.5 to 3 seconds
- Zeppelin “Fly my Flaming Pretties” Damage increased from 245 to 248
Campaign:
- Trooper Gold cost decreased from 4 to 3
- Warlock Gold cost decreased from 7 to 6
- Hunter Gold cost decreased from 9 to 7
- Armour Gold cost decreased from 14 to 7
- Devastator Gold cost decreased from 14 to 9
- Ironclad Gold cost decreased from 16 to 12
- Juggernaut Gold cost decreased from 25 to 20
- Imp Fighter Gold cost decreased from 14 to 10
- Bomber Balloon Gold cost decreased from 22 to 16
- Zeppelin Gold cost increased from 6 to 7
Also, note that once the map's population drops to zero, you can spawn only once as a Dragon, REGARDLESS of how many recruits you have in the bank. You could have 3000 recruits in the bank, but if the map's population is zero, you can only spawn as a Dragon once.
Swen said:
I might have missed some stuff, but here's the details of what I've found:
Balancing:
- Shaman Speed increased from 100 to 105
- Warlock Damage increased from 75 to 76
- Hunter Health increased from 1850 to 1940
- Hunter Damage increased from 41 to 42
- Armour Health increased from 2400 to 2440
- Devastator Damage increased from 318 to 324
- Transport Health decreased from 4500 to 4000
- Juggernaut Health increased from 6400 to 6500 (from patch 142)
- Imp Fighter Damage increased from 136 to 138
Skill Rebalances:
- Grenadier “Enhanced Explosives” Radius increased from 70 to 75
- Grenadier “Chemical Warfare” Damage increased from 3.0% to 3.5%
- Warlock “Death from Above” Damage decreased from 375 to 365
- Devastator “Besiege” Range decreased from +100% (2600m) to + 40% (1820m)
- Imp Fighter “War of Attrition” effect duration increased from 2.5 to 3 seconds
- Zeppelin “Fly my Flaming Pretties” Damage increased from 245 to 248
Campaign:
- Trooper Gold cost decreased from 4 to 3
- Warlock Gold cost decreased from 7 to 6
- Hunter Gold cost decreased from 9 to 7
- Armour Gold cost decreased from 14 to 7
- Devastator Gold cost decreased from 14 to 9
- Ironclad Gold cost decreased from 16 to 12
- Juggernaut Gold cost decreased from 25 to 20
- Imp Fighter Gold cost decreased from 14 to 10
- Bomber Balloon Gold cost decreased from 22 to 16
- Zeppelin Gold cost increased from 6 to 7
Also, note that once the map's population drops to zero, you can spawn only once as a Dragon, REGARDLESS of how many recruits you have in the bank. You could have 3000 recruits in the bank, but if the map's population is zero, you can only spawn as a Dragon once.
Concerning the gold changes to the units: the way the strategy map units translate to amount of units you take to RTS has also changed. So if you think Devastators have greatly decreased, the amount you take to RTS when you go in battle has changed.
We want to make sure that units that you build on the map do make a difference in RTS. We saw a lot of people playing with merely troopers/hunters/grenadiers on the map, because they felt that building the more expensive ones on the map didn't make sense anyway: you get more troopers for that money, and once in RTS, you can start building those other guys fast enough.
We want to make sure that units that you build on the map do make a difference in RTS. We saw a lot of people playing with merely troopers/hunters/grenadiers on the map, because they felt that building the more expensive ones on the map didn't make sense anyway: you get more troopers for that money, and once in RTS, you can start building those other guys fast enough.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.