Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
SWR Productions Forum _ Rise of the Reds _ 1.5 Impression
Posted by: Anubis 1 Oct 2009, 2:45
Since there is no topic like this opened yet, i'll be the first to post. Discuss opinions about 1.5, what you like, what you don't like etc. I'll go first as i'm the topic starter 
.
After playing a few days of rotr 1.5 here is my view of it.
1. Tier system - while the whole tier system is really interesting i find some of the ingame aspects a bit odd, and some really odd.
- the current defense tier system feels really strange imo - the usa protector requires tier 2 while the firebase tier one. what is the point of the howitzer upgrade with this system. Imo the protector should be the T1 defense, while the firebase the T2 one, as it can garrison 4 infantry and upgrade with the howitzer and all of this without any power req. The Tower Component system also feels really odd - imo the RPG tower should be T1 and tesla/air raid sirene ones T2.
- the MBT system also feels out of place and way to RA3-ish.
2. USA Detention Camp - i dunno exactly what plan's are for this structure, but it's current design is the oddest one ingame. A jail that can research high tech upgrades... ? I know realism is not something rotr aim's for, but then again what is the difference between a jail that researches advanced technologies and a tomahawk launcher that launches tomahawk axes ? . The design looks good enough to get renamed at least - maybe rename the Detention Camp to - Tech Center or something ( even research centers have defense fences and guard towers ).
3. USA Firebase howitzer - the thing looks big and bad enough to make even the mighty inferno cannon cry. But currebtly it has a really low range/damage and radius damage. Imo the howitzer should gain as much range as the infenro cannon, but at a lower ROF. Currently it's just to big, and does to little. It's like an overlord that fires scorpion shells.
4. Some designs - while some units ingame looks really awsome, and some redesigns are really cool, other suffer from old looking/EA shity job designs imo.
- while the new paladin feels better than the old one, compaired to the crusader it looks like a box on treads. It's suppose to be a heavy armored tank, yet it's the same size as the crusader, and looks alot lighter. If it wasn't for the treads side covers, the paladin could just as well be the crusader mk2 and the new crusader would be the paladin. It has 4 treads, it looks alot heavyer, and the design is alot more high tech than the paladin box on treads design.
- the Chaparral looks like a black dot on a white sheed. With newer designs aimed at AA combat like the THAAD launcher or the ADATS system, the chaparral really looks absolite, ugly and out of place with the modern and even a bit futuristic design of the current usa faction.
- with the new design/texture detail on the russian barracks and airfield, i couldn't help realising that some of the russian buildings really need some loving - russian CC, Radar and Warfactory. There skin simply looks bland, and the models look highly simplistic.
- Chinese Battlemater - the mg on the turret looks really ugly. While the model got a improved design, that mg looks like crap ( because it's EA's crap ).
- Chinese Propaganda Tower - with the new redesign of the chinese defenses, the prop tower is starting to look really old and bland. Needs some loving to, and probably some visual addons once the subliminal messaging is done - like additional patriotic flags on it or stuff like that.
5. I miss the Helix - i personaly was really dissapointed to see the helix out again. While the han is probably one of the coolest gunships in any ZH mod ( and the flamer addon is really great ), the helix had it's coolnes factor as well .
6. Cobra Gunship - while the cobra was one of my fav gunship designs, i really think it's a bit to old for RotR. Again, i'm not a big fan of realism and it's not why i don't like it in rotr, but with such talented team members i really can't understand why not create a new cool/modern/bit futuritic design for it, and use a 40+ years old design.
7. Nighthawk bomber - again, with so many new design possibilites, i simply cannot understand why keep this crapy old plane. It just looks bad, and feels out of place with so omany other design possibiltes, that would be more modern and more in touch with the RotR timeline.
8. Cool new stuff :
- the Crusader mk 2 is really cool, although the locomotor type upg system feels a bit buggy as it starts with bouth upgrades 'not researched' and only once you chose one status the upgrades become - one active and one unactive.
- The Osprey - really great model and skin job on this one.
- The black hawk - again great job on it ( ignoring the small copy/paste errors we all know of ).
- The new Raptor model and skin.
- The new chinese defenses and nuke cannon, as well as the flame upg for khan.
- The new Russian sentinel and airfield.
- nuke cannon and tomahawk new working systems.
- new AI .
- new maps - especialy the waterfall one from the video feed. Awsome detail job on it.
Final words : RotR imo has a great potential, but at it's current state feels and looks way to much like vanila generals - in terms of the old faction that is. I know it's to early to talk about it, but the thing is, the stuff in 1.5 might just as well make it in 2.0 , so my point is - add alot of new designs and mechanics - scrap almost everything EA used/did, and get as far away from the generals style as possible ( like using really old crapy techs with newer weapon warheads - like the cobra and chaparral ). At least this is how i see it. Imo the current rotr might just as well pass as a different view of shockwave, but instead of new generals it adds new factions. Feels to much like a addon made by EA, and to litle like a true stand alone ( gameplay wise not game wise ) mod. Again this is my personal opinion. Feel free to comment on it, or post your own. It's after all the point of this topic.
Anubis out.
Posted by: Kirasama 1 Oct 2009, 2:59
and a nuclear power plant able to research black napalm is normal?
yeah, that hit me too, while the battlemaster looks better, its looks worst than the other main battletanks, but then, for the other side it hit me the china units are suppose to be spamed, so it looking more bland actually has a funtion(i mean, how many polygons are in the mg turret of the Kodiak compared to the rest of the tank?)
the F117 is kinda a icon of US, even in reality, and like the cobra it looks freaking cool so why not?
Posted by: KILL 1 Oct 2009, 4:20
Crusader:
looks like:
therefore:
(Mind the turret)
Other notes:
-Chem suits don't seem very useful... yet
-Blackhawks <3
-Crusaders look awesome now (explained above)
-Jail = Technology lolwut
-Troop crawler still looks bland... well, that's just my opinion
-China infantry & USA infantry should have better looking default skins (note: I put custom skins on the infantry cause it looks... well, bland←Still my opinion btw)
-Cobra is major fun
-I miss the Littlebird
-But cobras are still fun
-They should put some type of turret base looking thing on the un-upgraded firebase instead of just a black hole
-Want moar better voice acting on Blackhawk PLZ
Overall:
4.5/5
Posted by: JJ 1 Oct 2009, 13:51
As I have an insider's view on development, 1.5 doesn't really feel "much" to me, but I do have some opinions.
1.5 just doesn't seem to add that much, most "new" stuff are just remodels of old units, including the Osprey. It's still practically the same. Yes, there's this new tech tier thing, but what you're caring here are the units you're using, not the structures you're building.
The tech tree is screwed here and there. China is severely limited, and MBTs in general aren't as useful as they ought to be, now that they require teching.
Blackhawks are nice and all, but could be better implemented. They don't actually fill in a required role. It does exactly what the Osprey can (ignoring bugs). Starting with 8 (practically useless) Rangers makes its price high, unsuited for an early game unit. The minigun also discarded its fearsome reputation to become a peashooter. So while I love the idea of a Blackhawk, it just needs to be actually useful.
T1 AA units are also too weak, especially the Gattling Tank. I do recomment buffing the GATTLING damage it and the Tunguska uses against vehicles and structures, it requires more umph.
Model quality and visual remains excellent, and that does make it up somewhat. One of my favourite new additions is the Crusader. It just looks and feels awesome. The barrel does spoil it a little, however.
Hopefully, bugs get ironed out quickly, because having Blackhawks transport vehicles is simply weird.
Posted by: Stinger 1 Oct 2009, 15:59
T1 AA units are also too weak, especially the Gattling Tank. I do recomment buffing the GATTLING damage it and the Tunguska uses against vehicles and structures, it requires more umph.
I fail to see how tanks are worse, even with the tech requirement, as their natural counter - missile infantry - was made weaker, having a reduced rate of fire.
Gattling Tanks doing "more" (what's more?) GATTLING damage would make them even stronger against infantry. In addition, I don't see the point of making a Tank Hunter/Gattling Tank combo any stronger if you think there is a problem with the practical applications of the game's MBTs.
The strength of Paladins, the damage output/survivability of air units, their counters, the Russian Supply Truck rush/War Factory/Barracks camp, and the lack of micro-intensive units in general, are the main issues for me so far.
Posted by: Shock 1 Oct 2009, 16:16
^ Which is why I prefer the current USA faction, as it's the most micro intensive one out there.
If you forget the Paladin, that is.
Posted by: Erik 1 Oct 2009, 16:57
I have the feeling that it all comes down to "who has the biggest army" in Rotr. The graphics are nice but the gameplay is just not very appealing to me.
Posted by: Stinger 1 Oct 2009, 20:37
Compare ShockWave 0.8 with the current internal beta of ShockWave, Erik. That is the position ROTR is now in. Balance and gameplay wise the mod is still in its infancy.
I do agree with you on the "biggest army wins" gameplay, though. Player skill doesn't have the same impact as it does in Generals/Zero Hour/ShockWave.
Posted by: KamuiK 1 Oct 2009, 21:32
That problem exists everywhere. Units who lack special abilities or effects are not quite effective micro'd because it does not matter if you select them single handly or not. I mean, look at China: China IS a spam faction, most units have next to no special abilities (ground forces) so that is quite ok. Then look at Russia: cheap infantry, big vehicles with more firepower than other factions at a higher price, designed for 1v1 to win, however in a 1v2 they loose normally, so you still need to buy more of them. Then look at last at the USA: the USA units have nice effects or abilities to more than compensate their firepower which is lower than the same money worth of other factions units, but their airforce is uber and can be build way sooner.
Result: only the USA are atm supposed for microing, China not and Russia partly.
This might be a bit easy taken from my side, but I believe strongly the team can and will fix issues.
Posted by: huhnu 1 Oct 2009, 22:42
i'm with kamuik on the micro stuff
also i really enjoyed the hans ability to get the flamethrowers, no more using that early game generals point for the nuclear stuff for me anymore, but what should i do with it? overlords?
Posted by: Stalker 1 Oct 2009, 22:50
I'm pretty sure he means increasing the damage recieved by "GATTLING" damage in most Vehicle's armors
Posted by: DerKrieger 2 Oct 2009, 0:46
.After playing a few days of rotr 1.5 here is my view of it.
1. the MBT system also feels out of place and way to RA3-ish.
Actually I thought the tier system from RA3 was one of the better things about that game.
. The design looks good enough to get renamed at least - maybe rename the Detention Camp to - Tech Center or something ( even research centers have defense fences and guard towers ).I thought the same thing too...probably rename the Detention Camp to Advanced Training Center or something like that.
.Fear not...the Helix will be returning to one of the Chinese subfactions in v2.0.
- while the new paladin feels better than the old one, compaired to the crusader it looks like a box on treads. It's suppose to be a heavy armored tank, yet it's the same size as the crusader, and looks alot lighter. If it wasn't for the treads side covers, the paladin could just as well be the crusader mk2 and the new crusader would be the paladin. It has 4 treads, it looks alot heavyer, and the design is alot more high tech than the paladin box on treads design.
- the Chaparral looks like a black dot on a white sheed. With newer designs aimed at AA combat like the THAAD launcher or the ADATS system, the chaparral really looks absolite, ugly and out of place with the modern and even a bit futuristic design of the current usa faction.
6. Cobra Gunship - while the cobra was one of my fav gunship designs, i really think it's a bit to old for RotR. Again, i'm not a big fan of realism and it's not why i don't like it in rotr, but with such talented team members i really can't understand why not create a new cool/modern/bit futuritic design for it, and use a 40+ years old design.
7. Nighthawk bomber - again, with so many new design possibilites, i simply cannot understand why keep this crapy old plane. It just looks bad, and feels out of place with so omany other design possibiltes, that would be more modern and more in touch with the RotR timeline.
The new Crusader is the same size as the old one, and I think the new Paladin is a big improvement in the looks department.
As for the Chaparral and the Nighthawk, I do agree with you. The Chaparral makes the most sense because in the lore it's actually fires AIM-120s instead of Sidewinders, thus making it closer to the SLAMRAAM concept. The SLAMRAAM system was mounted on a HMMWV, so I guess the Chaparral chassis was used to distinguish it from the other HMMWV based vehicles in game. Note that the AH-1Z Viper upgrade for the Cobra was just introduced (production of new airframes will run until 2018), so the appearance of the Cobra isn't too far fetched.
Posted by: KamuiK 2 Oct 2009, 1:32
Hm, afaik the Frogfoot is a VERY old unit too, as are most chinese vehicles, and yet they coexist with Golems, Sentinels, Overlords, ECM tanks and Tesla weaponry. I see no problem in the Nighthawk and Chapparel, when the lore is solid.
Posted by: Pickysaurus 2 Oct 2009, 1:40
I have to say I find a helicopter with flame-throwers a bit odd.
I know someone is going to say about hover tanks and such, but serious.
Flame weapons from the air that aren't projectiles seems wrong. Most other slightly weird things are fairly practical in essence, but I doubt this has ever even been considered to hold and kind of tactical advantage.
Just my opinion on it though....
Only other thing that confused me was that the crusader still leaves track marks in hover mode.
Posted by: Kirasama 2 Oct 2009, 3:26
http://img10.imageshack.us/i/usriverboatusingnapalmi.jpg/
not directly at you, but just raising a point
just think the han is flying low
Posted by: Jester 2 Oct 2009, 4:40
Awesome picture id like to see that in a mod watercraft that shoot fire sweeeet.
Posted by: Zhao 2 Oct 2009, 5:02
I did not expect much
I Guess it will be Ra3 like.
But should it be the MBT still useless being tier unit.
Tanks in ra3 where not imbalanced but still rather good.
Just my opinion on that matter
Posted by: Overdose 2 Oct 2009, 6:01
If you play Roman and Greek era RTSes with naval combat there's plenty to please you.
Posted by: KILL 2 Oct 2009, 6:19
Posted by: Overdose 2 Oct 2009, 9:17
Exactly. That was the finest way to put an enemy vessel out of action at the time.
Posted by: JJ 2 Oct 2009, 10:35
Gattling Tanks doing "more" (what's more?) GATTLING damage would make them even stronger against infantry. In addition, I don't see the point of making a Tank Hunter/Gattling Tank combo any stronger if you think there is a problem with the practical applications of the game's MBTs.
The strength of Paladins, the damage output/survivability of air units, their counters, the Russian Supply Truck rush/War Factory/Barracks camp, and the lack of micro-intensive units in general, are the main issues for me so far.
Tanks are worse because there is simply not much incentive to build them. Why Kodiak when you can Hokum? Why Crusader when you can airwhore? Why Battlemaster when... wait you'd be dead already.
Make GATTLING do better against structures and vehicles. It only makes sense, and I have experimented with that before, and it works fine. Look at it this way, in ZH, Quad + RPG is not problematic, well I think anyway, even though Quads deal lots of damage against vehicles and structures. Gatt + TH is also quite slow, compared to BMPs and USA aircraft. I'm not sure if it matches up against other factions, because frankly I just don't feel like playing ROTR online.
And yea, Russian Supply Trucks are ridiculous.
Just because your previous project has a crappy first release balance and gameplay doesn't give you an excuse to do the same in your next project. Your aim is to do better, and by balance, what I mean is just basic balance. It's especially important now that the ZH community is much smaller than those days, you just don't want to drive off people.
Posted by: Razven 3 Oct 2009, 16:41
Woah guys, everyone has their own perspective and each of them have their own merit. If I recall correctly, since RotR isn't taking any suggestions at the moment some points are moot although they show a more pressing issue. It's just simply not ReLaxed Balanced to the point where there is not much of an incentive to play against another player because the battle is as good before the real gaming bit begins.
I'm sure the Dev Team will be ironing these things out in their next patch/release as we get more feedback from the beta team and fans (who for once, are on the same page)
Also: Supply Trucks? I thought it's been nerfed once already since that particular inccident where a bunch of my supply trucks ran down 2 Humvees upgraded with TOW rockets
Posted by: Destiny 3 Oct 2009, 18:29
I thought the new AT infantry were engineered to kill tanks and not resources gatherers? O.o
Shit, typo.
Posted by: Zhao 3 Oct 2009, 18:51
Theres still no reason at all it can be that Imbalanced , you have to purposely do something like so
Posted by: Razven 3 Oct 2009, 22:35
The current argument is that there was and is no effort to do so until all the new General specific faction stuff is done along with the ECA and GLA stuff since there's no point in doing so since the whole playing field is going to change with each major release. However, the counter argument is that there's no value in playing a game where the units are completely unbalanced to the point where some people may not see the point in playing at all.
I cannot see why no middle ground and be hammered down to make some patch-wise balance changes to make sure the game can be played while still making progress towards major releases and new content.
It's really a "Would you rather wait longer for a new release if we balanced it out" and whether or not the team agrees with the decision.
Posted by: Anubis 4 Oct 2009, 1:25
I don't think balance is needed atm, nor is it the time spent for it. It's not like any of the team members have a job in doing this mod. Spending time on balance means no time for further working on the mod. I doubt the team has 25 hours a day of free time so they can spend it all on balance and modding. Every balance change they make not only requires time to play the game, but also change the code and think of new ways to obtain that balance.
This is not a balance topic, since balance atm is kind of out of the question and simply not worth implementing. RotR at this point is just a single player based beta. Like other said before, what is the point in adding balance since most of the current factions units and defenses will be split arround when the generals factions are released, again considering this is not a job but a free time hobby. The point of this pre 2.0 releases is to give us a taste of what the end result will have in it, not a full working mulltiplayer experience.
So pls, end the balance stuff, and just focus on design/features that you enjoyed or not, because this is the purpose of this topic.
Posted by: KamuiK 4 Oct 2009, 1:34
Well said Anubis.
Posted by: Wi-Ta 4 Oct 2009, 3:45
For me this hits the nail on the head.
Posted by: Zhao 4 Oct 2009, 8:36
We all have are opinions.
Posted by: JJ 4 Oct 2009, 10:48
Exactly, also offline people never truly appreciates balance. Problem with ignoring balance completely is that the multiplayer community is almost non-existent, I myself have not played games with more than 2 players yet since 1.5.
Posted by: KamuiK 4 Oct 2009, 14:25
Maybe you should join some Hamachi rooms^^ I did, and it was a good choice.
Posted by: Razven 5 Oct 2009, 4:24
To be honest, I have yet to play a game of the public release version because there doesn't seem to be anyone there.
Posted by: Zhao 5 Oct 2009, 4:31
You could always as someone to upload it for you
Posted by: GrizzAFWX 5 Oct 2009, 6:43
For those who are having an issue with the F-117 being in the game because the USAF retired it, just follow this scenario (courtesy of AFBlues.com):
Posted by: KamuiK 5 Oct 2009, 16:53
Nice comic indeed, explains the whole situation well 
Posted by: D' WRTHBRNGR 5 Oct 2009, 18:00
Agreed, that "retirement" might just be a cover-up...
Posted by: Overdose 5 Oct 2009, 20:59
Nice.
Posted by: Anubis 5 Oct 2009, 21:05
Right ... they covered up the F117 wich had a few problems in it's stealth systems when deploying weapons and a few others, as well as ageing technology yet they keep the B2 F22 and F35 as close to public view as possible wich are far more advanced and stealthed ( B2 especialy ) than the F117. We are talking about a ancient plane compaired to this new ones. It's like saying the germans told the public the U-boat are retired and replaced by nukesubs, so they can still use the 'secret U-boat armada of death' . The comic is good. The point it brings is ball:@it . It makes no sense in any logical way.
Posted by: Overdose 5 Oct 2009, 23:27
Its not supposed to. =/
Posted by: GrizzAFWX 6 Oct 2009, 0:54
That's why it's a comic.
Posted by: Anubis 6 Oct 2009, 1:32
I was not refering to the comic itself when i said it makes no sense, but to the people who actually belived and sustained that the comic offers a true and belivable answer for the continuos use of the nighthawk. Belive it or not, i know what a comic is and is suppose to do .
Posted by: KamuiK 6 Oct 2009, 22:47
Of course the comic is silly and over the top, buth uhm just think about it: all those planes you mentioned, are very avdanced and VERY expensive (and obviously more difficult to produce) than the old F-117. Apart from that, the F-117 is an iconic unit considered 'American' (or so they say).
Posted by: DerKrieger 7 Oct 2009, 8:06
Actually the F-35 will be less expensive than the F-117, and the last F-117 was built sometime in the late 1980's.
Posted by: GrizzAFWX 9 Oct 2009, 0:56
Development on it actually started in the late 70s. The plane was operational by the mid 80s, and it saw action in Panama in the late 80s.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)