View Full Version : Was this supposed to be a RTS/RGP hybrid?
Many years ago, I tryed out SF demo but it didn't fall into my taste yet SF 2 seems even less appealing, I bought it in the naive belive the game had improved.
The good:
+ nice custom faces for campain
+ nice with multiple dialogue choises
+ nice design and graphic
The bad:
- the smith offers no weapon/armor upgrades for normal troops.
- units buildings doesn't have respond sounds, i'm leader of a mute army! (unit aknowledgemen = on)
- no siege weapons?
- no walls? (not really importaint, but would be nice)
- (singleplayer) microing spells/abilities sucks, it's running around trying to pin the tail on the moving and dying donkeys, it's impossible in greater fights.
- not setting waypoint/rally point on minimap
- peons can't be sent by rallypoint into the fog of war to gather resrouces
- Microing and useing special skills/spells sucks!
Targeting a new target takes a long time, since everything is moving, and often my own units get selected, thus wasting precious time. Finally getting targeted a units:
* it takes too long reaching the special abilities
* heroes takes precious time running towards the selected target, wasting good killing time
+ would be much nicer having auto ability on, just like Age of Mythology and WarCraft III.
- feels lame everybody can ressurect
- feels lame heroes just has the summon friend ability out of nothing
- lvling goes slow
- (skirmish) only gets hero out when the fight is almost over, look to Dawn of War where one can choose a hero amongs other units as a strategic choise.
The ugly:
- no hotkeys, bye bye 1/8 of potential customers.
- GameSpy online, bye bye 1/4 of potential customers.
- StarForce mega customer killer, though only for Europe (why do the developer not sign a contract with the manufacture not including StarForce? Do the devs want their product to fail THAT BAD?)
- skirmish offers only 1 difficulty?
---------
The list could go on, but what the developer really needs, is hireing poeple with better understanding of what makes a good game.
Most likely not a single high rated player has ever had a say in the design of this game, as both strategic/tactially depth are at miss, the RPG element are bland.
Sure the mods will go full lengths to defend the game, doubtfully any of them ever was high rated in any competetive RTS.
Many years ago, I tryed out SF demo but it didn't fall into my taste yet SF 2 seems even less appealing, I bought it in the naive belive the game had improved.
...blah...
Sure the mods will go full lengths to defend the game, doubtfully any of them ever was high rated in any competetive RTS.
As your title says, this game is a RTS/RPG hybrid. So one should judge it as that.
As a player playing only single player and prefering the adventure/role playing aspect I like it very much, though SF 1 was far better in my personal view.
I love this mix of RPG and RTS, there is no other game series really doing this.
But you are talking only about the RTS aspect and mention RPG only in one sentence without qualified judgement about that.
So seeing that you only see RTS and that you did't like Spellforce 1 I would suggest that you play some RTS crap like WC3 or something.
On the other hand you might want to play some Spellforce 2 player versus player online and prove your superiority to those Spellforce 2 players you are offending. I expect that you get toast.
Try actually read what i have written, and plz don't make farfetched assumptions.
Free Flinker
09-23-2006, 12:47
- the smith offers no weapon/armor upgrades for normal troops.
Better, they improve as you level. For someone who seems not to like microing, that must even be good in your opinion. Meanwhile, certain upgrades are available at your buildings to still provide that RTS feel.
- units buildings doesn't have respond sounds, i'm leader of a mute army! (unit aknowledgemen = on)
Bug? Sound drivers need updating?
- no siege weapons?
Yes, there are.
- no walls? (not really importaint, but would be nice)
Bit pointless anyway, especially when the game has flyers. Setting walls would just be pointless microing in this game, using the terrain is better.
- (singleplayer) microing spells/abilities sucks, it's running around trying to pin the tail on the moving and dying donkeys, it's impossible in greater fights
Bit of an exageration there. Clearly it isn't impossible and plenty of us manage it np.
- not setting waypoint/rally point on minimap
Minor inconvenience and if anything is pin the tail on the donkey, setting a waypoint on a small scall mini-map is.
- peons can't be sent by rallypoint into the fog of war to gather resrouces
They don't need to be, simply create the relevant worker and it'll begin gathering that resource automatically on creation.
- Microing and useing special skills/spells sucks!
You're entitled to your opinion, certainly.
Targeting a new target takes a long time, since everything is moving, and often my own units get selected, thus wasting precious time. Finally getting targeted a units:
* it takes too long reaching the special abilities
* heroes takes precious time running towards the selected target, wasting good killing time
+ would be much nicer having auto ability on, just like Age of Mythology and WarCraft III.
No offence but it sounds like you want a difficulty setting less than easy. Ability recharges are tuned to what they do vs what they do it on. Any faster and who'd need an army. Instant tps to the target are not something even WC or AoM has either so don't see a particular problem there. As for auto abilities, well there aren't any.
- feels lame everybody can ressurect
No, only heroes can res. It's explained as part of the background story and even used in cut-scenes as something wholly part of the story. What's the alternative, heroes die and stay dead?
- feels lame heroes just has the summon friend ability out of nothing
You'd prefer walking the length of a map? It's a nice touch but if you don't like it, don't use it.
- lvling goes slow
One repeated complaint has been levelling goes too fast because you can easily reach L30 a couple of maps before the end. As I said, seems like you want a difficulty setting <easy because that's what you'd get from levelling faster when each map is custom designed for a specific level range.
- (skirmish) only gets hero out when the fight is almost over, look to Dawn of War where one can choose a hero amongs other units as a strategic choise.
Just takes resources to summon one so it can't take so long the fight is almost over.
- no hotkeys, bye bye 1/8 of potential customers.
- GameSpy online, bye bye 1/4 of potential customers.
- StarForce mega customer killer, though only for Europe (why do the developer not sign a contract with the manufacture not including StarForce? Do the devs want their product to fail THAT BAD?)
You have a link to how you calculated those stats? Also, you may want to desist in making libelous statements because without facts to back them up, that's what they are.
- skirmish offers only 1 difficulty?
Apparently that setting is 'hard'. You are meant to learn from the campaign game first but yeah, it should have included more than one setting. Hardly game breaking though and some people prefer a challenge.
Thanks for you'r long answers, i hope not you got the impression i have tryed to bash SF 2, but merely as the forum suggests trying to put what the "perfect" SF needs.
- the smith offers no weapon/armor upgrades for normal troops.Better, they improve as you level. For someone who seems not to like microing, that must even be good in your opinion. Meanwhile, certain upgrades are available at your buildings to still provide that RTS feel.It just so happens I do like heavy micro.
In Age of Kings I liked to rush early with just 4 forward villagers and mess up the enemy base and wall in his stuff, while building up army in his base.
Yes I'v been living life on the edge, that aside the:
- no smith upgrades IMO scares off any serious gamer, those few upgrades in other buildings are extremely boring no brainers.
- in other games one can in the middle of a fight, mouse click on enemy unit while use keyunits # and then click on spell hotkey in fast succession taking up only 0.4 sec, in SF2 the same would take about 1.4 sec
- I do see the current micro system has it's good sides too, specially making multiple units do their special in very fast succession.
- no walls? (not really importaint, but would be nice)
Bit pointless anyway, especially when the game has flyers. Setting walls would just be pointless microing in this game, using the terrain is betterUsually groundunits are needed to support flyers, if there are walls it buys time to block out the groundtroops.
- not setting waypoint/rally point on minimap
Minor inconvenience and if anything is pin the tail on the donkey, setting a waypoint on a small scall mini-map is.
- this is a serious gamekiller, ask any serious gamer.
- even scrolling directly on the minimap (instead of scrolling on big map) will take up precious seconds placing a rally point. This just convince me the developer never played competetive games, where the miniscule miliseconds counts.
Targeting a new target takes a long time, since everything is moving, and often my own units get selected, thus wasting precious time. Finally getting targeted a units:
* it takes too long reaching the special abilities
* heroes takes precious time running towards the selected target, wasting good killing time
+ would be much nicer having auto ability on, just like Age of Mythology and WarCraft III.
No offence but it sounds like you want a difficulty setting less than easy. Ability recharges are tuned to what they do vs what they do it on. Any faster and who'd need an army. Instant tps to the target are not something even WC or AoM has either so don't see a particular problem there. As for auto abilities, well there aren't any.- Thing is, everythnig is so noobish in the first place, why not do as the smith with autoupgrades?
- OR put auto cast on 1 spell/ability by choise
- OR like in WCIII only a few spells/abilities can put on auto.
...non taken, it's in realization of the customer base consist of different players with different ways of playing, and not just a rusher like myself.
- feels lame everybody can ressurectNo, only heroes can res. It's explained as part of the background story and even used in cut-scenes as something wholly part of the story. What's the alternative, heroes die and stay dead?Yes? In the campaign there are a overflow of heroes, and the backgroundstory are a bit thin. Please.
- Usually one gets a priest for such stuff
- maybe paladins also be allowed to ressurect
- maybe it should be an upgrade/building/purchase that allowed for ressurection
- feels lame heroes just has the summon friend ability out of nothingYou'd prefer walking the length of a map? It's a nice touch but if you don't like it, don't use it.
- horses, flying mounts or any other kind of mount?
- lvling goes slow
One repeated complaint has been levelling goes too fast because you can easily reach L30 a couple of maps before the end. As I said, seems like you want a difficulty setting <easy because that's what you'd get from levelling faster when each map is custom designed for a specific level range.- more lvls to please everybody :D
- okok i admit i'v been a bit too pessemistic, but still
- (skirmish) only gets hero out when the fight is almost over, look to Dawn of War where one can choose a hero amongs other units as a strategic choise.Just takes resources to summon one so it can't take so long the fight is almost over.
It does take an Altar? Altars comes late?
Let me repharse myself, in Dawn of War heroes comes with the very first building, they just needs upgrades to reach their full stregth, just as SF2 heroes should be able to be build early and get upgrades to reach full strength.
- no hotkeys, bye bye 1/8 of potential customers.
- GameSpy online, bye bye 1/4 of potential customers.
- StarForce mega customer killer, though only for Europe (why do the developer not sign a contract with the manufacture not including StarForce? Do the devs want their product to fail THAT BAD?)You have a link to how you calculated those stats? Also, you may want to desist in making libelous statements because without facts to back them up, that's what they are.- in any greater forum u'll see how players whine there are no custom hotkeys, not SF2 doesn't have any hotkeys AT ALL!
- just look at SF2's forum StarForce whining thread, as in any other gaming forum with StarForce. Gamekiller!
- there are no link to factual stats, yes my own stats are exaggerated, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't there, just look to u'r own forum how dead it is, just 1 year after release.
- skirmish offers only 1 difficulty?
Apparently that setting is 'hard'. You are meant to learn from the campaign game first but yeah, it should have included more than one setting. Hardly game breaking though and some people prefer a challenge.
There are campers, rushers and newcomers, just 1 setting hurts all groups, why?
- campers are often poor players, who doesn't like being whooped while they'r doing their stuff, building their empire and see things flurish.
- newcomers doesn't know how to defend themselfs, and gets fustrated quickly not having a chance learning the game.
- rushers want's a challenge, there are poor skilled rushers who doesn't like meetin their doom and never get a chance to win, the more skilled quickly get's bored with the poor AI.
- it IS a game killer
How the heck do i edit the former post?
[edit] just forget about that auto spell/ability stuff
Free Flinker
09-24-2006, 21:28
- no smith upgrades IMO scares off any serious gamer, those few upgrades in other buildings are extremely boring no brainers.
It's a hybrid. The RPG side must also be taken into account don't you think? Besides, I'm a pretty serious gamer and have been for a long time. While I no longer PvP much anymore, that's for the simple reason that I've been there, bought the tee-shirt and got bored of it. You suggestion that it scares me and others like me away is therefore incorrect.
Usually groundunits are needed to support flyers, if there are walls it buys time to block out the groundtroops
More like rock-paper-scissors in that archers counter flyers, melee counter archers and flyers can take out melees. Either way, walls simply aren't needed, not when the game has been designed to take account of the fact that players can use terrain, not walls.
- not setting waypoint/rally point on minimap
- this is a serious gamekiller, ask any serious gamer
Again, any serious gamer? ;) It's a convenience in my experience, nothing more. Most definately not a game killer.
- even scrolling directly on the minimap (instead of scrolling on big map) will take up precious seconds placing a rally point. This just convince me the developer never played competetive games, where the miniscule miliseconds counts.
Can I ask if you yourself have actually played SF2 competatively yet? Good luck finding a game tbh because SF fans seem to be more the campaign gamer type and less the PvP gamer type but I can see how there might be other reasons for the poor take-up on PvP, for example, L30 only and a general lack of others online at any given time.
Thing is, it's called an even playing field. Your ability to twitch a fraction of a second sooner than the next guy is either removed or made less convenient. I don't personally see a problem with that though I've seen enough players complain that their ability to twitch is curtailed in other games, usually MMOGs but they still manage to be popular with serious gamers, some so serious they spend a large portion of their daily lives on them.
- Thing is, everythnig is so noobish in the first place, why not do as the smith with autoupgrades?
- OR put auto cast on 1 spell/ability by choise
- OR like in WCIII only a few spells/abilities can put on auto
I think you're again forgetting that this is not a pure RTS game. However, there is the ability to autocast a spell in this game but it has to be on a staff. Just a different way of achieving what you ask for but it does work, even if it's not to your personal taste.
Yes? In the campaign there are a overflow of heroes, and the backgroundstory are a bit thin. Please.
- Usually one gets a priest for such stuff
- maybe paladins also be allowed to ressurect
- maybe it should be an upgrade/building/purchase that allowed for ressurection
Thin story? Hmm, I think I'll have to utterley disagree with you there. Not only does this game have a detailled story but it builds on that found in the previous game and it's 2 addons.
And while we're on the topic, sure, SF2 may have disappointed some few fans while new players might mistake what this game is about, thinking it's meant to be pure RTS (it is not) but they don't make sequels and they don't plan addons to those sequels if the game is a flop. The game has most assuredly not been killed by anything.
- feels lame heroes just has the summon friend ability out of nothin
- horses, flying mounts or any other kind of mount?
Or how about summon friend? :D
Mounts have their own problems I imagine but then I'm not a dev so what do I know. I do know that a travel only mount would be a pain to use and as a gamer I don't want that instead of what's there, for that matter, not even as well as what's there. I like summoning. OTOH, if mounts enabled you to also fight then we'd only use mounted heroes and we'd need some means to cast spells from them, shoot bows from them, dual wield from them etc etc. If not, think of the complaints when you couldn't cast a spell, use an ability or shoot a bow from a mount. Sounds like a royal pain to program as it's not like current flyers and riders who basically do one thing. Also, kiting anyone? I would not want that either, no more than you can do on foot, which isn't much.
Let me repharse myself, in Dawn of War heroes comes with the very first building, they just needs upgrades to reach their full stregth, just as SF2 heroes should be able to be build early and get upgrades to reach full strength
As a RTS game, sure, DoW can do that. This is not a RTS though. Think of the RPG and you have your answer as to why it's done how it's done and not like you suggest.
- in any greater forum u'll see how players whine there are no custom hotkeys, not SF2 doesn't have any hotkeys AT ALL!
- just look at SF2's forum StarForce whining thread, as in any other gaming forum with StarForce. Gamekiller!
- there are no link to factual stats, yes my own stats are exaggerated, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't there, just look to u'r own forum how dead it is, just 1 year after release.
Strange how SF2 has won aclaim on gaming sites and even got awards from them then. Let's not mention the consistently good reviews. It's been out since Feb btw, 6 months, not a year.
As for the traffic on these boards, irelevant but count all languages traffic, not just English. There are also French, Spanish and German boards. Now since this game is made in Germany and produced in Austria, the German boards have always been more active than the others. At any given time of day there might be 200 people around, mostly lurkers which basically says info they need can be found here so they don't need to post asking for it. That's quite true if you can take the word of someone who reads every post and regularly has to do searches to find old info for people. Much has been discussed already. The game is finite after all, unlike a MMOG for example, where you will see heavy, daily traffic and larger communities. In stand-alone games it's quite rare in my own experience to see much more traffic that we get here. It has more than many. Sure, some can attract more but those are usually the ones with very active modding communities and even they aren't that much heavier in traffic than here.
As for starforce, fine, make your own views on it known but do not post rumor in a libelous way. You may not be hounded by the law but they are not moderate comments by any standard and therefore will be moderated. Facts only please or label it clearly as your opinion. This is not a starforce forum either so limit your facts and personal opinions to how it works on SF2 only.
As for it being a gamekiller, see above because it is a fact that SF2 has not been killed by this or anything else. The most likely thing to kill the franchise itself is the fact that the devs have been bought by EA and therefore can't work on it after the addon. Therefore JoWood need to find new devs if they decide to continue and since it is a good selling game, no doubt that's exactly what they will do. You may proclaim the game is dead only when it is indeed dead and not before. I'll stop there because this also covers your last point, also claiming the game is killed by yet something else. Sheesh, good job it does have rezz cuz all these things you reckon are killing it would be wasted after the first :p
Now as i ended my first post Sure the mods will go full lengths to defend the game, doubtfully any of them ever was high rated in any competetive RTS.By reading u'r replys i come to the conclution that u don't have any high ranking in ladder/rated games. But only played non-rated games.
There are no shame in that, but it just often hinders the full understanding of needs in gamemechanics to make it feel smooth and fun.
Gamekiller doesn't mean the end of the SF series and bankrupsy of the developer, just means there are few active in forum and online.
Sure a game can win a lot of awards, but that doesn't nessesarily mean it's successfully in longelivity.
Besides it is a RTS/RGP hybrid, one can build base, train troops, move in real time and do economy - so how is it NOT also a RTS?
Look to WCIII sold about 3mill, they managed to mix both RTS and RGP though the RPG part was a bit bland, yet people play by the 20,000 any day any time of day, that be just 1 of the many servers. SF2 5 online in prime time, wow! Wonder about the sales of SF2?
It's a hybrid. The RPG side must also be taken into account don't you think?As a RTS game, sure, DoW can do that. This is not a RTS though.Do u mean it's not a "pure RTS" ?
Free Flinker
09-25-2006, 12:39
You can't judge any other game by a forum dedicated to anything warcraft, though many game companies would like you too, well positively ;) I went through the point about traffic on this forum compared to others already and I've frequented plenty of game boards, enough to know something of what I'm talking about in terms of numbers. I even checked here just before I started that post and just after, for an example. Before: 183 people on here, After: 206 people on here. The vast majority were guests, as I said. Those numbers are fairly standard on here but I've seen many, relatively popular games with far fewer.
As for longevity, SpellForce has now been around for a number of years so I've still no idea of the point you're trying to make.
Mods defending this game? Hmm, since I have no interest in it other than playing it and hanging around these boards then my only "defence" is of my own opinion. If my username being orange makes a difference in anyone's eyes then they have mistaken preconceptions. How about we avoid assumptions about personal stuff and stick to discussing the actual topic only.
My competativeness is irrelevant to this discussion, it also being personal and not open to debate. You don't know anything specific about my gaming history because I have not told you. Nor will I because it's irrelevant. I will only repeat what I have already mentioned, that I am a 'serious' gamer and that I have competed in PvP (in several different genres) but became bored of it. I only mention that much to counter your insistance on speaking for gamers like me.
Do u mean it's not a "pure RTS" ?
Well, you can in fact imply the word "pure" in there but yup, I missed it off by accident. You don't expect me to type something that long and check it do ya :D
It seems pointless to continue this debate since u'r too stubbon to realize when something is dead etc, no matter what i say u have an odd way of being in denial ;)
Free Flinker
09-25-2006, 17:17
This isn't a debate. It started as you asking questions by means of a suggestion. I provided answers, explanations and even corrections. Since then you have simply repeated that this game is dead or dying, despite all evidence to the contrary. If you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the matter then I agree, continuing is perhaps a little pointless.
LennyLen
09-25-2006, 22:17
There are no shame in that, but it just often hinders the full understanding of needs in gamemechanics to make it feel smooth and fun.
The only way that not having a high ranking in any "ladder/rated" games can hinder ones ability to understand the way in which game mechanics make things "smooth and fun" is if you think that playing such games is "smooth and fun".
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. One that may surprise, perhaps even shock, you - different people find different things fun. This is an amazingly complicated concept I know, but repeat those words to yourself a few times. Maybe even say them out loud and see how they feel rolling off your tongue. Different people find different things fun.
If all everybody wanted to play was highly tactical PvP RTS games, then Spellforce would not exist, and neither would a lot of other games. SF was designed with another market in mind, and so it's not really surprising that you don't like it, since you aren't the target audience.
I'd have thought a "serious" gamer would have understood all this, since people who are seriously into games play ALL genres and not just RTS games.
And no, I'm not a "serious" gamer, and I have no rankings anywhere. I simply don't have the time for that. But I have been playing computer-based RPG games for 25 years, and RTS games since Dune II came out (about 15 years).
Besides it is a RTS/RGP hybrid, one can build base, train troops, move in real time and do economy - so how is it NOT also a RTS?
Yes, there IS a RTS element to the game, nobody is denying that. Hence, you can build a base, make armies, and do most of what you can in a "pure" RTS. But because it is a hybrid, you will not find all the features that you would regularly find in a "pure" RTS game.
If you try to remember that this is a RPG with RTS elements rather than the other way around, then perhaps things will make more sense to you.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret. One that may surprise, perhaps even shock, you - different people find different things fun. This is an amazingly complicated concept I know, but repeat those words to yourself a few times. Maybe even say them out loud and see how they feel rolling off your tongue. Different people find different things fun.Let me burst u'r bubble and let u in on a even greater secret. The developer could easily have given the game a broader appeal by implementing what I have pointed out and suggested, without going on compromise on either aspects.
Flann Gonderson
10-11-2006, 23:27
Let me burst u'r bubble and let u in on a even greater secret. The developer could easily have given the game a broader appeal by implementing what I have pointed out and suggested, without going on compromise on either aspects.
Just a thought, but some people may find that what you feel to be improvements make the game less fun. For example, while you may like the idea of walls, others may find them quite a trial to build, and enemies would have to have bigger forces if you could have walls, and vica versa.
Points like not being able to set a rally point on the map, wasting 'precious seconds' is not the end of the world, and people aren't going to decide not to buy the game just because of a few minor things that could have been better.
Everything could be better. WC3 could be better. WoW could be better. Age of Empires could be better. Spellforce could be better. All games could be better. However, I feel that this is a very good game, and, while a lot of your suggestions make sense, and the game would indeed look better with some of them, maybe we should accept the game the way it is, and try to enjoy like that, instead of always finding faults in things.
vBulletin v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.