It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:14 am


Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

Chat with other players about your DoWO experience!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Enders1nk

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:19 am

Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostTue Nov 04, 2014 7:09 am

Before I start I must first state outright that this is all opinion and is merely based on my experiences in gaming in general, and why I play them.

Ok, so what is characteristic of this games combat gameplay? Its a static damage with a randomized percentage hit mechanic with criticals. This is the core gameplay, along with the wound system and abilities that is combat.
This game is a strategy/tactics game, people have fun in it by coming up with the best strategy (or plan for the battle), as well as coming up with tactics (mid battle plans). Now what makes coming up with strategies and tactics fun? Its the feeling of achievement. You get a feeling of achievement when you win a match against all odds simply because you had the better strategy for the situation (either the match victory goal or team compositions working in your favor), or had superior skill in tactics. You can sit there and say that with nothing but your wits and the tools at your disposal you vanquished your foe. This game is in beta, so I wont talk about the balance issues, however because I like this game I will not excuse the single most flawed thing in it. The lack of variety.
This game has many units to choose from, many of them feel the same both aesthetically, and in their stats/ability comp (their kit). They are the same concept with different stats pasted on them, even in the form of abilities. In fact most of the available abilities do nothing but change stats. This makes the game feel like you should just be crunching numbers the whole time.
Is that fun?
To some people yes it is, but to most it isn't.This could be easily remedied by adding a damage indicator box when your mousing over and about to attack a target, which includes how much health they have and how much damage you would do (without crits), and if its a debuf or a buff it could show what their current stat is and what it would become. This would make what is already there be better, but what else is making this game lack variety? This game has only a few abilities that promote interesting and clever tactics and strategies that would make you feel the aforementioned sense of achievement.

-Blaze(strategy)- because you know your opponents faction has great archers/magicians

-incapacitating shaft(tactics)- shuts down a targets movement (can be used in so many ways that you can have fun finding them)

-morbid puppet invocation(tactics)- can be used as walls, and extra damage, and for grouping up on an enemy, and for distraction, etc.. (so many uses that you can have fun just finding them all)

-guardian angel(tactics)- you can use it once and it can save that unit (you feel that sense of accomplishment when you choose the right unit (it would be even better if the enemy couldn't tell what unit has it))

-inversion(tactics)- do I even have to explain this one (soooooo many uses)

Now why is this a problem?

This is a problem because every abililty fits in one of these 5 catagories
-melee buff
-archer buff
-magic damage
-defense buff
-debuff

and if every ability feels like just another buff, or some extra damage, etc. Things start to look bland.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything in the game is bad or should be removed. I am saying that something needs to be added to make each unit feel unique. Like more weapon types, for example a unit with a chain that can attack at distances 1 and 2 instead of just another guy with a sword, or a high damage flail wielded by a crazed berserker that injures himself if he's parried (because he's so careless), or someone with a scythe that can attack 2 people next to him if they are standing next to each other (with a sweeping motion), the possibilities are endless. Don't limit them anymore.

That's what this game needs as far as gameplay, this will keep people interested. Especially if you release more units periodically.
With more interest in the gameplay, you can get people to stay more effectively (because people won't just take a look at it and leave for something else anymore).
And that means more money, which means a larger budget, which means better content, which means better publicity, and the cycle continues until you reach the apex.

I hope this has been helpful, and remember to always make sure most things if not everything feels unique within the game. Because difference and change is what keeps people playing.



That's all I wanted to say, cause I really like the game.
Offline

chimeraelite

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:29 pm

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostTue Nov 04, 2014 5:24 pm

I think that you and I have a lot of the same complaints in terms of the unit/weapon variety. (Not to much in the magic, but then again, I play wolfen and run an enchanter)

I think I posted somwhere on here that the different tiers of units should be FAR more varied, not only in terms of stats but also in terms of the weapons they use and just the overall look of their character models. I would love for the wolfen assault to have different weapons, but I don't think it should be something like equipment, just because that just adds another possiblilty of abuse and then balancing is another issue... right now the devs have enough to balance as it is. Maybe those weapons could simply be cosmetic, but again, currently, I'd rather the devs focus on balancing the core game and making new units and armies before putting a fresh coat of paint on the character models.

Things I'd like(ranked in order of importance):

-BALANCING. Check out my youtube and you'll see a few fights that illustrate how silly 3 guardians of the equilibrium are. (I do run two myself, so I am exploiting their OP-ness slightly)

-New units and armies for me to fiddle around with. We've been playing with the same units for the past 3-4 months with very little change. (not counting the de-buff to the Chimera, which was very much needed)

-Updating/creating variety in the look of each unit, and each tier of that unit might not bring spice in terms of gameplay, but I like my army to look good while they cut down their enemies.
Temper your aggression with strategy and you will be unstoppable. Fight with reckless abandon and you will be slaughtered.
Ign- Chimeraelite
Youtube Channel- Chimeraelite1
All criticisms are welcome. Just trying to start a dialogue on the game.
Offline

Enders1nk

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:19 am

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostTue Nov 04, 2014 7:16 pm

I completely agree that the devs should prioritize balancing if this was a full game, however this is a beta experience and thus need not be fully balanced all the time.

That said, quick fixes like changing some stat values, only takes a few minutes. meaning that balance issues can be quickly fixed, but shouldn't be made perfect until release.

I also did not emphasize aesthetic changes, I only hinted at them.

I would be fine if every unit was just a dot on a piece of paper, as long as I can do interesting things with them.
Offline

Astralwyrm

  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostTue Nov 04, 2014 8:13 pm

I brought it up some time ago when the devs asked what we wanted but free to play players don't like top heavy games which require lots of grinding before you get to progress. The reason ccgs and tcgs do so well in free to play is because they have lots of small progressions and randomisation so you can't easily just buy everything in the game. They also have alot of variety so that even though some cards aren't very good on their own, you can use synergy and a certain style of play to make them viable though not necessarily competitive. Which is why i think the game needs items/equipment because i can't see that they could pump in the variety needed through Units/Champions alone. Unlike cards, units require quite a bit more work to produce.

Say instead of having unit profiles have the base units e.g. Hunter, Crossbowman, Fang etc. Each unit would have so many equipment slots able to equip certain items and not some others. Perhaps even Champion specific items. Equipment would work as your way to customise a unit rather than leveling or having presets, you get equipment with different attributes, skills, stat increases and ap costs? They could do equipment with penalties that balance out bigger buffs, like an item that gives Savage but increases stats, has - ap cost. Theres lots of different combinations to make equipment from.

Personally i've never spent any of my money on this game, not because i don't want to but because i've always been able to see how much more i need to do to get to where i want to be. It seemed pointless to spend money to shorten the amount of time i might be playing the game. That and after the changes i had so much money that Chimera was the only Champion i didn't have. I've been pointing towards War of Omens which is a simiilar kind of game it is just a card based game and it's quite a successful little free to play one at that.
Offline

Enders1nk

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:19 am

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostWed Nov 05, 2014 1:50 am

The problems with items like you just described are, balancing it would be a nightmare, especially for a small group,
It would be increasing the importance of strategy over tactics, and it could make what you have more important than what you do.

Dont get me wrong it would make the game more interesting, and give you more reason to play (to get better loot), but how would it feel to lose to a guy that's got terrible strategy, no skill in tactics, but awesome loot.

An item system would be good, but it would need so much balancing that it's not what should be implemented first.

A card-game like pack system for units (maybe weapons if they choose to undertake the balancing challenge) would be a good way to go. You could get good units or bad units, and if theirs a chance that a unit could die in battle (be deleted) It would also give more meaning to keeping your units safe, which can add meaning to the battles (fire emblem). The feeling of Catharsis at the death of a trusted unit can add depth to the overall feel of the game (randomized names could increase this as well).
However without unit variety, the unit would still just feel like one of many, and there wouldn't be much emotional attachment.
Offline

Astralwyrm

  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostWed Nov 05, 2014 3:26 am

They did try a similar system to units dieing idea with the injury system, not everyone disliked it but atleast the devs seemed to think it was not popular. Personally i didn't think it was very interesting or it wasn't implemented in a way that would have made it interesting. It probably didn't help the system that there was a way to heal these units if you didn't mind paying for it, it did get to a point though when paying for it wouldn't be worth the cost unless you really hated grinding exp. The game also had levels back then too which is why you still see the remnants of the level system in the game. I would say the old version of the game was more balanced while the new version has some interesting mechanics like the Champions which i personally like but they need some tinkering.
Offline

Enders1nk

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:19 am

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostWed Nov 05, 2014 7:03 pm

I agree. The reason I mentioned the death system was because i remember that this game had it, I liked the idea, but it wasn't implemented well. It comes down to the fact that death should not be such an easy thing to circumvent. Maybe you should have had to play a PvE quest to obtain an item that can revive a unit or something like that, so it doesn't feel like their selling real death cures on the streets.
Offline

Enders1nk

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:19 am

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostWed Nov 05, 2014 7:12 pm

what do you guys think about an a munition system for ranged or thrown weapons, and secondary weapons like javelins and knives (potentially throwing knives)?

So guys with spears could have the option to throw it and pull out a couple swords or knives, a unit with an axe could throw 1 or 2 javelins (on his back) in a match, or an archer could put away their bow to pull out a sword.

If an enemy unit is next to them they could drop their primary weapon on that spot to be picked up later by them or someone else who uses the same weapon (if they dropped their own as well).
Offline

Astralwyrm

  • Posts: 325
  • Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:09 pm

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostThu Nov 06, 2014 1:48 am

For archers munitions wouldn't work i don't think, it would be unlikely they would use up a realistic amount of carryable munitions before either they died or the game ended. 10 turns, 10 shots, 12 if the unit used offensive stances. Maybe something along the lines of munitions that were not standard munitions that are rationed out to the troops/battlefield would work like a certain number of poison tipped arrows. Preset munitions lying across the battlefield might work if done right.

Trap laying would be nice. Throwing the main weapon sounds ok but for each time they implement that onto a unit they then need to code twice the amount animations for that unit. Dropping weapons would be the same deal, i'm not sure there would be that many opportunities or reasons for your units to choose to drop their weapon besides when archers are already engaged by the enemy. Alot of this could be done through the skill system since Mortal Insolence is proof that they can limit the number of uses of a skill per game.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon_Warrior

  • Posts: 1054
  • Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: Why this game didn't take off like a rocket

PostThu Nov 06, 2014 3:09 pm

For archers munitions wouldn't work i don't think, it would be unlikely they would use up a realistic amount of carryable munitions before either they died or the game ended. 10 turns, 10 shots, 12 if the unit used offensive stances.

Indeed smallest hunting quiver holds 12 arrows, normal quivers - over 20, While historical Archers had piles of 40-70 arrows in bigger battles.
ign: Draconnor, Cynwall player, 23 years in computer games, 14 years in battle games, 8 years in Confrontation Universe, 4 years of making own battle games.
Image
Next

Return to General Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron