My thoughts about all the changes...

[iap]

Hi. I see all the changes that are planned for the game, about the commanders and campaign and lancers and all the balance and experience stuff, and I get a strange feeling that... well they wasn't meant for me. I'll try to explain.

First let me say again that I love this game in particular, more then any other RTS I've played. Even more then StarCraft. The reasons for that you all know, so there is no need to state them again.
The thing is, except for all the bugs that are know and being worked on, I love the game as it is. Including its current weapons balance or damage or nature.

They way I play the game is by experiencing it. Each skirmish game I play is completely different then the other. I never figure out exactly what to research in order to unlock the next weapon, I don't really know the high strategies needed for the game, and I can't calculate each aspect of the game to completely control it. Hey, I even don't really know how to best use the sensors towers and tanks. I even never got a hero rank for my commander, witch IS GOOD because I need to play much bigger games to achieve this, and the experience to get it is extremely high, so I still need to learn the game! THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T SAY ABOUT NO OTHER GAME!

But I really really enjoy the game. I enjoy exploring it and discovering it and playing it and sometimes loose because I make the wrong research.

Now I see that there are lots of suggestions of changing fundamentals aspects of the game, like the way commanders work, or campaigns, or make lancers so much weaker and more and more.

I know the game must evolve. But I get the feeling that all of these changes are meant to make the game more suitable for experienced players who used to play it on PS in the 90's and know each and every aspect of the game until they get bored from it.

Do those changes not meant for my kind of players? Because most of them I don't appreciate so much, and it seems my vote doesn't count because I'm a minority "not-experienced-enough" player here.
Aren't there MODs for these kind of changes?


Please excuse me for my rant here, I appreciate your hard work and effort you all put into this game, and just because I feel this community is open enough for opinions and discussion, that I let myself say this. After all, this game really really got into me, and all I say is because I love the game so much... As it is, not including known bugs.

Hope this post will not get unattended...

Thank you :rolleyes:

[3drts]

experienced players who used to play it on PS in the 90's

It didn't come out until '98
And it was on PC first , I played it in 98, when I didn't have internet.

I still don't know every aspect of the tech tree, I know some crucial parts, and can stumble well enough into the parts I want.

You can always revert to 1.10 stats, and play skirmish, but 1.10 stats aren't that good for multiplayer.

Do you really want worthless flame throwers? because thats what they were in 1.10

If you play multiplayer, do you really want every game turned into a lancer+ ripple rocket fest? with the only variation being someone whose team holds off the enemy with lancer+ ripple long enough for massive VTOL bomber strikes?

I never figure out exactly what to research in order to unlock the next weapon

Then why do you care if it changes a little?
If you don't know the game that well, you may not even notice the changes.

Hero commanders: only in single player, which is unchanged (at least as far as weapon stats go), ranks in multiplayer are nigh meaningless, attrition is too high, and armies are of near equal sizes most of the time, and kills tend to get evenly distributed - 3 kills gets your unit a whole lot of nothing.
The only hope for getting to trained rank, is vtol bombers with splash damage on cyborg groups, or once you are already dominating.

Lancer weakening -we are only talking a 25% nerf when fully upgraded.

Aren't there MODs for these kind of changes?

WZ now comes with 1.10 mods you can put in your autoload folder to get back the old (unbalanced) stats.

As for the other changes, like queing structure building and showing transparent green "holograms" of the structures to be built, I like very much

[Zarel]

Hi. I see all the changes that are planned for the game, about the commanders and campaign and lancers and all the balance and experience stuff, and I get a strange feeling that... well they wasn't meant for me. I'll try to explain.

When you find a game you truly like, you may be distressed to see it change, since you may be afraid that a change may make it worse rather than better.

However, I assure you that these changes are not the case here - they make the game better for all players, not for some minority.

They way I play the game is by experiencing it. Each skirmish game I play is completely different then the other. I never figure out exactly what to research in order to unlock the next weapon, I don't really know the high strategies needed for the game, and I can't calculate each aspect of the game to completely control it. Hey, I even don't really know how to best use the sensors towers and tanks. I even never got a hero rank for my commander, witch IS GOOD because I need to play much bigger games to achieve this, and the experience to get it is extremely high, so I still need to learn the game! THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN'T SAY ABOUT NO OTHER GAME!

I'm not sure how balance changes will change that.

Now I see that there are lots of suggestions of changing fundamentals aspects of the game, like the way commanders work, or campaigns, or make lancers so much weaker and more and more.

Well, the changes I've suggested so far are minor changes, all of them. I wouldn't call any of them "fundamental", at least not yet.

I know the game must evolve. But I get the feeling that all of these changes are meant to make the game more suitable for experienced players who used to play it on PS in the 90's and know each and every aspect of the game until they get bored from it.

Now, this, this is not a true statement. As mentioned earlier, all of the proposed changes are made to benefit all players.

The lancer nerf, for instance, it's only a -12% nerf on average - if you're a skilled player, you understand the need for the change. If not, you won't notice a difference (or a vague difference that the game "feels" more fair).

Do those changes not meant for my kind of players? Because most of them I don't appreciate so much, and it seems my vote doesn't count because I'm a minority "not-experienced-enough" player here.
Aren't there MODs for these kind of changes?

That's not true at all. Your vote is no exception: No one's vote counts. Game balance has never been a popularity contest. I take popularity and the opinions of others into account, but in the end, too many people simply have too many opinions that cannot be easily reconciled.

In the end, there needs to be someone to say "This is where the game is going." And I guess that means some people's preferences don't get satisfied. But we always try to address every objection, and if, for some reason, I have not addressed your objection adequately, please repeat it, and I will be sure to.

Thank you :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that you use that particular emoticon.

As far as I know, rolling eyes is a sign of disrespect and dismissal, and is moderately rude, and it seems out of place given the polite and respectful tone of the rest of your post. Are you using it differently than how I usually interpret it?

[iap]

Forget about the emoticon... It came out wrong...

Let me try to explain what I meant:

Commanders:
You plan of making them always behind the close combat units. But that will make the commanders stop acting like a normal tank. I would be very frustrated if I will tell my commander to do something and it will just wait until everyone bypass him. As I said in that thread - you can design a very very slow commander that has a big armor, this will make him always behind everyone else. Or - Make a "Formation Panel" Where the player can choose, but you said there will be no choice.

You also plan of making the commander gain ranks much quicker. This is not so ground-shaking change, but.. well after all, higher ranks must always be hard to achieve. I never got a hero commander, that whats makes me try harder...

Campaign:
You plan of disabling time limit for most of the levels. But time limit is a fundamental part of the campaign. There wasn't a level in witch I did not look at the clock and ask myself "will I make it? will I?!". That is part of the game's fun

Lancers:
Well, ok I just loved the way they start somewhat weak, but build themselves to be a super lancer (from 160 to 400). but need to research so much upgrades until you get there, so maybe it isn't worth it. With 5 research centers I always always ask my self "what do I need the most? To upgrade or to search new stuff". I remember one time that I decided to use all 5 of them to research upgrades for the lancers, instead of making new technology. Other players will probably make other decisions. When you say something like "By this time you should use Tank killers" its like saying that the way I play is wrong. And it might be true - but let me discover it myself, instead of making the lancer redundant at some point.
Directing me in a "preferred" research path is a fundamental issue.



Well, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe I just wanted to get things out. But seeing a game that I didn't had the chance to fully understand all of it, change so much, make me nervous.

Holograms and other interface changes are welcome, and by all means my intentions are NEVER to discourage the developers.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to understand me... I do love this game, it's wasting a lot of my precious time, but I don't care.

[Zarel]

Commanders:
You plan of making them always behind the close combat units. But that will make the commanders stop acting like a normal tank. I would be very frustrated if I will tell my commander to do something and it will just wait until everyone bypass him. As I said in that thread - you can design a very very slow commander that has a big armor, this will make him always behind everyone else. Or - Make a "Formation Panel" Where the player can choose, but you said there will be no choice.

To be exact, my plans are to make sure that commanders are 2 tiles behind the frontmost combat unit assigned to it, as long as there is a combat unit within 4 tiles assigned to it. The commander would wait for two seconds, at most - nothing major. The commander is designed to command other units - a lone commander can't do anything, anyway.

The commander also has a sensor/weapon range much more than 2 tiles further than any other non-artillery weapon, so it will be able to target anything the units it's behind can target.

Designing a slow commander will make the commander slow, which is undesirable. What I'm guessing most people want is a commander that can keep up with the units it's commanding, while still hiding behind them.

Have you ever played WarCraft III? Play it, choose a long-range hero, and watch how it follows behinds the units it commands. It's not a clunky interface at all.

You also plan of making the commander gain ranks much quicker. This is not so ground-shaking change, but.. well after all, higher ranks must always be hard to achieve. I never got a hero commander, that whats makes me try harder...

"Much quicker" is an exaggeration. It's one step more. In other words, if you've never gotten a Special commander, then you wouldn't've gotten a Hero commander using the new rank system, so it's still a lot to aim for (heck, even with cheats, I don't think I've gotten a unit higher than Special).

Campaign:
You plan of disabling time limit for most of the levels. But time limit is a fundamental part of the campaign. There wasn't a level in witch I did not look at the clock and ask myself "will I make it? will I?!". That is part of the game's fun

Yes, "most" of the levels.

To be exact, you were looking at the clock and thinking "Will I have to reload an earlier saved game?" That's not exactly a time limit done well. If you do find that thrilling, there's always using a mod for the old campaign, and that's very-long-term planning, anyway.

Lancers:
Well, ok I just loved the way they start somewhat weak, but build themselves to be a super lancer (from 160 to 400). but need to research so much upgrades until you get there, so maybe it isn't worth it. With 5 research centers I always always ask my self "what do I need the most? To upgrade or to search new stuff". I remember one time that I decided to use all 5 of them to research upgrades for the lancers, instead of making new technology. Other players will probably make other decisions. When you say something like "By this time you should use Tank killers" its like saying that the way I play is wrong. And it might be true - but let me discover it myself, instead of making the lancer redundant at some point.
Directing me in a "preferred" research path is a fundamental issue.

Well, they still build themselves to a super lancer, from 160 to 300.

I'm not outright saying that the way you play is wrong, but the problem as mentioned is thus:

- Lancer is too powerful
- No one is using other weapons
- Lancer needs to be made less powerful, so Warzone is more than just The Game of Lancer Research

Now, if, for some reason, you like playing Warzone as The Game of Lancer Research, that's what the Original 1.10 Mod is for.

[3drts]

Lancers:
Well, ok I just loved the way they start somewhat weak, but build themselves to be a super lancer (from 160 to 400). but need to research so much upgrades until you get there, so maybe it isn't worth it. With 5 research centers I always always ask my self "what do I need the most? To upgrade or to search new stuff". I remember one time that I decided to use all 5 of them to research upgrades for the lancers, instead of making new technology. Other players will probably make other decisions. When you say something like "By this time you should use Tank killers" its like saying that the way I play is wrong. And it might be true - but let me discover it myself, instead of making the lancer redundant at some point.
Directing me in a "preferred" research path is a fundamental issue.

Well, Lancers building up to a "super lancer", was a change itself.
When warzone first came out, the lancer upgrades were researchable, but they didn't actually upgrade lancers
People still used them because a 160x2 salvo firing light weapon with long range was favorable over a ≈133 (initial) damage heavier Heavy cannon.
As to a preferred research path, thats exactly what is being changed.
Right now, to win, you basically have to research lancers, you don't have any other options.
By changing the balance, hopefully multiple research paths will be viable.
And by the way, Tank Killers are basically just heavy lancers, and you get them by upgrading lancers.
So if you want to use lancers, and lancers are what you are upgrading, you will get Tank Killers.
If you are not upgrading lancers, why do you care if the upgrades only take them to 300 damage instead of 400?
If you are upgrading them, you'll get Tank Killers anyway, and that "forcing" of the research is already present in the game, that isn't a change.

[iap]

Thank you guys for clearing things up for me.
I don't remember being so emotional about a game before

Anyway, I'll keep playing it, some day I'll figure this game out...