Playtest Review Thread

Discussion about the game and its default mods.
noobmapmaker
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 am

Post by noobmapmaker »

@Graion: would be sad news if you have made up your mind on not doing PRs. A big, big thanks for all the ones you did though!!
Playlist with ALL games of the Dark Tournament Youtube.com/CorrodeCasts
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

SoScared wrote: My best guess is the main criticism after the feature goes live will be with game design, not balance. Non-competitive players will likely not appreciate being forced to flip stances back and forth to kill off buildings when standing around in bases.
Right-click/force firing groups of units on one building at a time looks silly as all unit types fires in synchronicity. This is really a shame as the new HitShapes, as I hoped to see it, is supposed to specifically make the game look and feel better on targeting.
Most of all big-team games with massive bases will bear the brunt of this feature and big team games being the pillar of the online community needs to be considered first in this context. Alienating the broader player community you're inevitably pulling the rug out of the competetive community.
This is the same mechanic that is in RA96 and CNC95. For new players coming in and casuals alike it will be the same gameplay for them. Just the added feature of changing stances to their liking. The stances present choices rather then hinder of their gameplay. In lan games I was able to camp with my recon bikes at refineries and snipe harvesters without moving them around since they ignored buildings. As mentioned this was natural in CNC95. So im not sure what the dislike is exactly in terms of "Its much different" when its the same as the original games.

---

The post down below is a reiteration of the point made here in a cycled loop.
Last edited by AoAGeneral1 on Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

@AoAGeneral: Just for the record I'm addressing the RA mod. Regardless there's a big difference between our local lan games back in the day and the online experience with OpenRA.

When you mention people dislike of the feature for being different you will have to quote someone of this else this is a pretty lazy observation.

Regardless, the main point in my comment (you quotation) was addressing the likelihood of players experiencing the feature as tedious and overbearing.
Last edited by SoScared on Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

Casual players who come from RA96 will experience very resembled controls in regards to the RA mod itself. That's my point with your comment on casual players finding it tedious and overbearing when it is the same in RA96.

I never presented that they dislike the feature. Not sure what you mean by this.

Evidence in the peoples comments in regards of the stances itself. (IE: The strawpoll posted.)

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

AoAGeneral1 wrote: So im not sure what the dislike is exactly in terms of "Its much different" when its the same as the original games.
That was your response.

Anyway finding a resembles to the original game be anything. It's not inherently a good thing by default and all I'm saying is I believe it will likely backlash because of the reasons given above.

User avatar
AoAGeneral1
Posts: 597
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:11 pm

Post by AoAGeneral1 »

It isn't anything if its specified. (IE: Stances and attack mechanics in control of the units.) Specifications does not stagnant to other mechanics.

and aye that is the response. Because it is the same as the originals in compared to RA mod. RA mod and RA96 are the same stance mechanics by defense.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

I'm sorry you lost me. What exactly are you addressing with my quoted comment? It just felt like you quoted my comment and responded to something or someone else.

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

Ok that conversation just buried my original point in seconds.

Restating:

My best guess is the main criticism after the feature goes live will be with game design, not balance. Non-competitive players will likely not appreciate being forced to flip stances back and forth to kill off buildings when standing around in bases.
Right-click/force firing groups of units on one building at a time looks silly as all unit types fires in synchronicity. This is really a shame as the new HitShapes, as I hoped to see it, is supposed to specifically make the game look and feel better on targeting.
Most of all big-team games with massive bases will bear the brunt of this feature and big team games being the pillar of the online community needs to be considered first in this context. Alienating the broader player community you're inevitably pulling the rug out of the competetive community.

Speaking of alienation, the suggested compromise of allowing players to set buildings with their own unit stances only compounds on the broader issue. Although a useful feature in and off itself it doesn't really address the impact of this issue outside the competitive community. Players not bothering for the optimal refinery placement sure as hell won't give a second though micro managing production facility unit stances and will likely regard it as a superfluous feature.

I'm not a coder by any means but this urgent attempt to patch and compromise the unit stance feature with the competitive playerbase is the greatest hack solution I've ever seen in my time with OpenRA.

r0b0v
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:30 pm

Post by r0b0v »

Regarding possibility to change default stance: In my opinion most players of all levels will like this feature. I just did quick search as I remember such requests from other RTS games:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/ ... e_default/

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

SoScared wrote: Speaking of alienation, the suggested compromise of allowing players to set buildings with their own unit stances only compounds on the broader issue. Although a useful feature in and off itself it doesn't really address the impact of this issue outside the competitive community. Players not bothering for the optimal refinery placement sure as hell won't give a second though micro managing production facility unit stances and will likely regard it as a superfluous feature.
I really don't think the ability to change the default stance in match can be considered a compromise or "hack solution." As r0b0v said, it's something that a lot of RTS games lack but players (competitive and casual alike) ask for. In the case that someone utilises the stances, this makes managing troops x10 easier since you dont have to change the stance of every unit that gets produced or risk having some that you forget to change. It can also be used strategical in combination with waypoints to ensure that when your units reach their destination they are in the correct stance.
Image

User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared »

https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/13817

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I took pchote's last comment regarding 'compromise' as a reference to the unit stance discussion.

As I said the feature is useful in and of itself. Whether it will be actively used or waved aside by the broader player base, I believe the latter but really it's a minor point to what I was getting at.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

SoScared wrote: https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/13817

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I took pchote's last comment regarding 'compromise' as a reference to the unit stance discussion
I read this as him referring to pushing into the next playtest. Its a feature thats been asked about before and many have suggested it for other RTS games.
Image

User avatar
netnazgul
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:32 am
Location: Minsk
Contact:

Post by netnazgul »

SoScared wrote: A quick count on the participants on this thread: https://pastebin.com/apCkaS5d

The thread started off inflammatory which made it harder to analyse the problem or come out against the feature without being looked upon as a troll supporter. This feedback thread has been way more split than alleged earlier on - regardless of the fact that 50% have been Happy/JuiceBox posts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Image

Btw, mine response was pro-change, not "Issues". At least over time.

camundahl
Posts: 150
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:36 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas

Post by camundahl »

Would be cool if you could select your production building (Helipad, Runway, WarFactory, Barracks, Naval Yard) and press "Z" to change default stance of all units leaving that particular building.

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew »

camundahl wrote: Would be cool if you could select your production building (Helipad, Runway, WarFactory, Barracks, Naval Yard) and press "Z" to change default stance of all units leaving that particular building.
We should see it in the playtest :D
https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/issues/13817
Image

Post Reply