Dogs of War Online

if i we say about skimish war bord game i think we see some more Quest type than 3 i remember that it was discussion about add more maps but i dont remember discussion about new types of quest.
at the moment we have:
DeathMatch scenario that i think is rly nice balance i dont see person who playing for draw only sometime 2 players with turtle strategy when game is rly long
Vip scenario actually less playable cause on this type on game bifore we saw PoB who can end game at 2nd turn now i always see turtle strategy when person who will atack first almost always lose so IMO on this scenario should be add 2nd Victory condition for example 3 items that only can be accumulate via VIP and first person who take 2 will win
Hill scenario y need to take and control hill for 5 turn actually most interesting scenario and only one that is always fast and exhilarating

but allmost always when i look to tabletop games i see about 10-15 scenarios and on net game we have just 3

so its my few ideas about new scenario and i hope y will write more and improve my ideas and in future we will see this option in game

Defending Bunker
1st team need to survive 5-8 turn and win
2nd team need to go inside the building for example inn or farm with units that entire cost is more than 25% of starting AP army and survive 1-2 turn inside

Reinforcements
1st team need to cross map with units that entire cost is more than 25% of starting AP army but they cant use run
2nd team starts on the center of map and need to stop enemy patrol that trying punch yours terytory they win when turn limits will be end and enemy will not make his victory condition

Recce
on map we have 3 buff place for example small village with 3-4 buildings and bridge on center in this village. On map we have armory (all melee units that control this buff have +1dmg) tower/hill (all range units that control this buff dont have terrain penaty for shoting) and Bridge in center that give for all units to person who control it mobility or something other with movment like all terain is easy

Victory condition control more buff area than enemy at the end of turn limit or eliminate enemy. this scenario should be rly fast like hill scenario 5-6 turn will be ok cause buffs should give for first player who will control 2 fast victory

i really hate scenarios where one player have more ap than the other

currently biggest problem of scenarios are Wolfen companies that are both faster and stronger in mele than the others

Dragon_Warrior wrote:i really hate scenarios where one player have more ap than the other

currently biggest problem of scenarios are Wolfen companies that are both faster and stronger in mele than the others

but i think its possible to make it with thesame AP
especialy when y have order like
-type of quest
-companion select
-roll where y will start defender/attacker

and i think faster wolfen werent so OP when they will need to defend something cause they AP cost per unit, especialy when they will need to def 2 spots with 3 units where y will have 1 tank and 2 squishy wolfen

and i think faster wolfen werent so OP when they will need to defend something cause they AP cost per unit, especialy when they will need to def 2 spots with 3 units where y will have 1 tank and 2 squishy wolfen

not in current meta ;p

i hope it will be less than weak and this brain-less startegy like, i have more units than you so i win, will disappear

A greater diversity of maps and objectives is one of the surest ways to keep the meta interesting (particularly if players have no veto power or are rewarded for winning on diverse maps). Not sure these things specifically will work, but there are some good ideas. They'd work better if players had access to a wider array of options. Confrontation was pretty good about that. It's hard to do with eight units.

having team with different objectives in the same mp is not a good thing for a pvp game because it might be fun but it is not competitive.

how are you gonna choose wich of the two roles willl yur company fit? will they have to hold the enemy from entering the building or trying to ram through it?
if you cannot decide then you might have always the wrong team or a company that does everything but is not the best at anything
If you can, than there will be a top tier army list like in every other map, so what's the point in creating new maps? only for fun and not for the ranked system.

I think that new maps will still need to be balanced on every side and give the same goal to both the players,

and btw, competitive scene in other mobas is always played on a single map for every player. I think having 3 maps already is enough variety if we want to reach a "copetitive" feeling. If you want to play for fun, well ok then. maybe some scenarios would be fine but I think this should be limited to non ranked gaming.

To be honest current balance goes strightly for deatmatch and if devs want to add more scenarios - the balance must be moved in direction of assault and mele combat units.

For now we mostly need 1-2 additional and strightly deatchmatch maps - becouse both Vip and King of the hill maps gives too much/too few ranged cover

As for scenarios - they will be nice but as a alternative for maybe different rankings or achievment type pvp.

Deathalus wrote:and btw, competitive scene in other mobas is always played on a single map for every player. I think having 3 maps already is enough variety if we want to reach a "copetitive" feeling. If you want to play for fun, well ok then. maybe some scenarios would be fine but I think this should be limited to non ranked gaming.

DOW is turn-based, so I'm not sure that fits the (admittedly vague) definition of MOBA. Additionally, many MMORPG and FPS titles feature competitive gameplay across multiple maps.

Put me down firmly in the "more diversity, forget perfect balance" camp. I want to think on my feet and live by my wits; I want to constantly face novel situations. Seeing the same situation a hundred times leads to quick optimization and repetitive gameplay.

Deathalus wrote:having team with different objectives in the same map is not a good thing for a pvp game because it might be fun but it is not competitive.

i agree tabletop game almost always on competition have DeathMatch but almost 80-90% of players dont play this game cause they have championship but cause amazing miniatures worlds fluff ect.

Deathalus wrote:how are you gonna choose wich of the two roles willl yur company fit? will they have to hold the enemy from entering the building or trying to ram through it?
if you cannot decide then you might have always the wrong team or a company that does everything but is not the best at anything
If you can, than there will be a top tier army list like in every other map, so what's the point in creating new maps? only for fun and not for the ranked system.

roll, i think universal company is ok idea cause y dont win game on lobby with perfect composition but with wise orders and decisions on battlelfield, so y win cause y have skill and y can adapt, no cause y repeat 100 times the same strategy actualy i see this 2nd option

Deathalus wrote:and btw, competitive scene in other mobas is always played on a single map for every player. I think having 3 maps already is enough variety if we want to reach a "copetitive" feeling. If you want to play for fun, well ok then. maybe some scenarios would be fine but I think this should be limited to non ranked gaming.

on tabletop war game y have 8-10 scenario so 3 is poor for me, but i agree like i say that on competition we should play only on DeathMatch cause its easyer to create trustworthy ranking