China, A question |
China, A question |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Tactically Toxic ![]() Group: Members Posts: 248 Joined: 29 February 2016 Member No.: 12634 ![]() |
Due to the US redesign in 1.87 and GLA''s redesign in 1.85, is it safe to assume that China might be getting a redesign? For me, China feels the least changed and therefore it feels like it has the blandest gameplay out of all the factions due to it being too close to its original ZH gameplay.
However, it's completely acceptable if you want to keep all those features and redesigns etc. Until 2.0 and don't want to spoil anything. Thanks. |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() AI Coding Expert ![]() Group: Dev. Team Posts: 1846 Joined: 9 May 2014 From: Poland Member No.: 10450 ![]() |
QUOTE Horde Bonus system, which as it was said is very easy to be "activated How does this remove the need of troop crawlers and classic tactics? You can still do infantry Transportations within Troopcrawlers, and they are still an important source Propeganda. Also why wouldn't horde be passed by all units? The main idea is that the red army feel inspired fighting near each other, that it makes them fighter. I don't think this is a mechanic flaw ( to extend something that was slightly trivial and unimportant in vanilla generals to something essential for most of their units to operate at optimal capacity). It can be argued that it's easier to achieve in order to make hording more user-friendly rather than having your core units only rely on being in groups of 5 to get their normal unit efficiency. It also helps to keep very powerful artillery/other units like infernos so that they need the horde bonus to preform normally rather than having them at their optimal efficiency from get go ( essentially would require ridiculous nerfs to balance out). It's easier to factor in horde bonus for all units at this point, since it makes scaling firepower of spammable cheap units easier , while also fitting in the main faction theme that is mass numbers. QUOTE Black Napalm is already a redundant upgrade that fit the ZH proposal but not the current ROTR proposal. Doesn't make any sense, since the upgrade is unique to General Mao. This is one of the ways to give him "better infernos/hellfires/Dragon Tanks , and upscaling his unique shenlongs rather than having some generic "qhite Napalm" or "Advanced Inferno cannon" or "advanced Dragon Tank" that really serves no distinction other than being a statistically better unit. , which is typical and boring. This method of passing a current upgrade that seems generic and boring to turn it into something more exotic ( as a unique upgrade ) is going to probably be applied elsewhere. QUOTE Nuke: Wisely in vGen China's nuclear power was restrained to the max (Nuke Cannon, "nuke tanks") and the most powerful upgrades were devoted to this issue for obvious reasons. In ROTR these powers were released indiscriminately This still doesn't address what I stated above. What other theme could be applied to replace nuclear based weapons that wouldn't be copy paste or a rip-off of other weapons from other generals while still fitting within the specialty of what Mao has to offer , which area firepower. It's all about diversity, fitting playstyle, and playing off by the rule of cool ( because while you feel nuclear weapons are saturated now, other people enjoy the blasts and find it rather cool). QUOTE it could be much more inspiring to think in a China Implying that this should replace nuclear weaponary? ( because screaming at people with zeal.and patriotism will cause the same.effect on the enemy as of that of a nuke , but that's probably not what you meant). Also this theme bas already been expanded upon, through Frenzy and Spotlight War Propaganda, and the game engine can't really handle any more types buffs so really, what else can you do with it? QUOTE Mass Mobilization": Something that seems to be very cool at first sight, in practice not so much; probably this theme has ruined a good part of the gameplay The spam theme ruined China as a whole? I wouldn't really state this as an objective fact because a good portion of the community here do enjoy large armies. I could aegue that this theme is a nessessity to create a faction that feels unique from the other 4 , while not having any overlaps ( because REALLY what else can you make China be based on theme wise? Cost efficent tanks that are high quality is covered by Russia, fanaticism and sacrifice is covered by GLA, artillery is covered by ECA, what else can China do that would make them completely stand out from the rest that is possible within the game's engine? If you come up worth 1 theme, then divide it into 3 generals, thst has to carry the main faction theme, 1 of them being the exaggerator of that said theme. Again this is for diversing the factions to fit unique RTS playstyles, not to make China authentic and 'interesting' ( that comes as a second priority). Heck what a guy may find boring, can be interesting to.others , so it's better to set styles for everyone to get unto, which again, judging by your distaste to the abundance of nuclear weaponary, and spam being a brain dead tactic, China is probably not something you would find personally fun, but others would. QUOTE I would also like to explain that China's gameplay learning curve is minimal compared to the other factions, Been like this since 1.7, China has always been a Beginner friendly faction that's easy to get into, play as and win with. By that I don't mean that it's a newb faction , but rather it's a faction that's rather straight forward and easy to get into, due to their initial simplicity. It also offers deeper mechanics for veterans to abuse and have fun, for example mixing spotlight ECM tanks with overcharge ect... Russia and.China are easy-to-learn factions, good for.casuals and people who are new. There is nothing wrong in having 'simpler' factions. Not everything has to mechanically intricate like USA or ECA , or have alot of sneaky options as GLA. This post has been edited by Mizo: 28 Mar 2017, 17:31 -------------------- ![]() Not a Rusty Spoon........The_Hunter uses a goddamn wooden spoon on his AI Scripters.... |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2642 Joined: 18 April 2012 From: Southern Brazil. Member No.: 9084 "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." ![]() |
How does this remove the need of troop crawlers and classic tactics? You can still do infantry Transportations within Troopcrawlers, and they are still an important source Propeganda. Also why wouldn't horde be passed by all units? The main idea is that the red army feel inspired fighting near each other, that it makes them fighter. I don't think this is a mechanic flaw ( to extend something that was slightly trivial and unimportant in vanilla generals to something essential for most of their units to operate at optimal capacity). It can be argued that it's easier to achieve in order to make hording more user-friendly rather than having your core units only rely on being in groups of 5 to get their normal unit efficiency. It also helps to keep very powerful artillery/other units like infernos so that they need the horde bonus to preform normally rather than having them at their optimal efficiency from get go ( essentially would require ridiculous nerfs to balance out). It's easier to factor in horde bonus for all units at this point, since it makes scaling firepower of spammable cheap units easier , while also fitting in the main faction theme that is mass numbers. I believe that the horde bonus should not be extended in the way it is currently extended because it makes all Chinese units similar - something that does not seem to be very creative or original - yet as I said before the mechanic itself is interesting, but it is a problem when combined with the effect of "ROTR's China mass units", because you make something that was intentionally limited in something unrestricted (it is very easy to produce tanks in quantity in WF and activate the horde bonus). I do not think that the horde bonus system in vGen or ZH was trivial or unimportant, on the contrary, it was fundamental to decide a game, in ROTR it became irrelevant because in 90% of the times that the game advances you will have active horde bonus; became a rule and not the exception anymore. Doesn't make any sense, since the upgrade is unique to General Mao. This is one of the ways to give him "better infernos/hellfires/Dragon Tanks , and upscaling his unique shenlongs rather than having some generic "qhite Napalm" or "Advanced Inferno cannon" or "advanced Dragon Tank" that really serves no distinction other than being a statistically better unit. , which is typical and boring. This method of passing a current upgrade that seems generic and boring to turn it into something more exotic ( as a unique upgrade ) is going to probably be applied elsewhere. Black Napalm's main problem is related to the fact that it directly benefits a powerfull GP Rank 5 of damage that 90% of Chinese players choose, so it's easy to conclude that 90% of players will attempt to purchase this upgrade in order to upgrade its power. Added to this is the fact that it benefits another 30% of China's units (some of the most powerful ones like Shenlong and Inferno Cannon), so it is concluded that 99% of players will choose this upgrade (the same logic as the Capture Building upgrade); so why, after all, does China (or Gen. Mao) need this upgrade? This still doesn't address what I stated above. What other theme could be applied to replace nuclear based weapons that wouldn't be copy paste or a rip-off of other weapons from other generals while still fitting within the specialty of what Mao has to offer , which area firepower. It's all about diversity, fitting playstyle, and playing off by the rule of cool ( because while you feel nuclear weapons are saturated now, other people enjoy the blasts and find it rather cool). Probably nothing can be done now about China's abundant nuclear weapons, but somehow it could be tried to make up for this by offering the player alternatives (I will not go into the specific merit of what alternatives these would be in order not to make the discussion into suggestions). I particularly like the visual effects of the nuclear explosions of China in the game, but I do not really like the idea of seeing soldiers for example blowing up the whole map, even so I understand that many may like it... but it goes against what was said about ROTR to contradict the ZH in terms of style (generalized gameplay). The spam theme ruined China as a whole? I wouldn't really state this as an objective fact because a good portion of the community here do enjoy large armies. I could aegue that this theme is a nessessity to create a faction that feels unique from the other 4 , while not having any overlaps ( because REALLY what else can you make China be based on theme wise? Cost efficent tanks that are high quality is covered by Russia, fanaticism and sacrifice is covered by GLA, artillery is covered by ECA, what else can China do that would make them completely stand out from the rest that is possible within the game's engine? If you come up worth 1 theme, then divide it into 3 generals, thst has to carry the main faction theme, 1 of them being the exaggerator of that said theme. Again this is for diversing the factions to fit unique RTS playstyles, not to make China authentic and 'interesting' ( that comes as a second priority). Heck what a guy may find boring, can be interesting to.others , so it's better to set styles for everyone to get unto, which again, judging by your distaste to the abundance of nuclear weaponary, and spam being a brain dead tactic, China is probably not something you would find personally fun, but others would. I also like large armies, which is why China is probably my favorite faction in vGen. The problem is in combining several themes that should be restricted in insane combos (even if balanced in some way), such as horde bonus + mass mobilization + black napalm, or horde bonus + mass mobilization + nuclear tank + uranium shells; do you realize how much of this becomes a "step-by-step" rather than a tactic? But as you said, maybe in version 2.0 that is resolved, as this is currently not much fun for me. Been like this since 1.7, China has always been a Beginner friendly faction that's easy to get into, play as and win with. By that I don't mean that it's a newb faction , but rather it's a faction that's rather straight forward and easy to get into, due to their initial simplicity. It also offers deeper mechanics for veterans to abuse and have fun, for example mixing spotlight ECM tanks with overcharge ect... Russia and.China are easy-to-learn factions, good for.casuals and people who are new. There is nothing wrong in having 'simpler' factions. Not everything has to mechanically intricate like USA or ECA , or have alot of sneaky options as GLA. I agree with this statement, but I confess that I expected a leap a little higher since the same applied with the other factions. And Russia, in my opinion, is a faction with an exciting gameplay these days, quite different from yesterday's Russia; the upgrades are well thought, stimulating the player to choose them carefully, there are indeed tactics that need to be well elaborated in order not to lose precious equipment, etc. -------------------- ![]() You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16 June 2024 - 13:07 |