PDA

View Full Version : multiplayer game design is broken



pyalot
09-27-2010, 12:58 PM
Since only kills by money are counted for the winning condition, the best strategy which works 90% of the time is to camp it out in your home sector with cheap units and perpetual camouflage+radio silence. Any attack on you is more expensive then what you loose, and even though you're doing miserable, if you manage to hang on for 25 minutes, you've "won".

Any game where there is a single best way to win is badly unbalanced.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
Since only kills by money are counted for the winning condition, the best strategy which works 90% of the time is to camp it out in your home sector with cheap units and perpetual camouflage+radio silence. Any attack on you is more expensive then what you loose, and even though you're doing miserable, if you manage to hang on for 25 minutes, you've "won".

Any game where there is a single best way to win is badly unbalanced.

This is most definitely NOT a winning strategy.

I see it occasionally, and it usually leads to the most out of hand scores that I get. For one, you are allowing the other player to grab the economic advantage by ceding them map control. Two you never are attacking and assaulting. And most importantly, you seem to operate under the assumption that the other player will blindly suicide his units against you. While that may be true for bad players, against good top competition, you will not get a single kill because any good player knows exactly what he is going up against with recon.

When I am in a game like this, its boring as hell, and the for the first 5-10 minutes the score will be zero-zero. But I am grabbing every depot I can, while the turtler sits behind what he thinks are an impenetrable wall of defenses. I then have free rein to build and upgrade absolutely whatever the hell I please, and also have a huge economic advantage (these kind of games usually end with me having around a 2000-800 resource advantage).

But the final straw for this strategy comes when the player you let sit for 10 minutes with majority map control and no harrassment is able to build a prototype building, and pump out the most effective arty units his faction can field. Sure you have camo net and radio silence, but the opponent can slowly creep up with his force using recon to spot AT guns and the like, and move closer and closer to your base. If you try and build arty units yourself, the enemy can target your arty which will pop up through the radio silence when they fire (and indirectly hit your buildings since you are holed up inside your base). Whereas your arty wont be doing **** since the smart aggressive player will only have units with armor which are effectively invulnerable to arty.

Like I said, I have seen it many many times. And its never pretty for the turtling player.

Ghoullio
09-27-2010, 01:31 PM
You also assume that the turtler has no resources of his own. When i turtle, and i admit to being an avid turtler against the AI, i love to build those admin buildings and put a ring of defenses around the supply depots i dont need or want. Once the enemy has exhausted his supply, he comes towards my bases looking for resources. Is is when i open up with my incredible defenses and pound his units with artillery while my fighter-bombers take out his long reaching units.

No, its not pretty and no, its not awesome fun to watch. But its how i like to play sometimes as i am interested in how units are arrayed on a strategic battlefield and i like to see how different defenses interact.

Turtling has its fanbase for various reasons and im tired of seeing people harp about it. Its no different a strategy than the lame tank rush or arial bombardment. A turtling strategy is more in line with an actual war; neither side wants to needlessly risk resources or units in combat. No one strikes until their own defenses are in place and they are assured of victory.

Just sayin. There is a time and place for the Turtler http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 01:53 PM
I emphatically disagree. You are playing against awful players if thats how you win, or the AI. But in ranked 1v1 games, you will be beat down hard when you turtle if you face anyone with a pulse.

And no you will not have anywhere near the resources of the other player when you turtle. Admin buildings cost 100, and only net you 15 resources a minute. Therefore it takes about 7 minutes just for the admin building to pay for itself. A supply depot only costs 40 and nets about 18 resources a minute. Therefore it only takes a little bit over 2 minutes to pay for itself and everything afterwards is profit. And notice still that the depot gives MORE resources per minute then the admin building. What this means is that after 10 minutes, the player controlling the map has way way more resources then the player who stayed in a corner with only 2-3 depots and built admin buildings the rest of the way.

This is really all that matters. If you turtle, you end up having way less resources then the player who has map control. So sure you can have artillery and bunkers and fighter-bombers of your own. But the player with map control will have more. Way more.

If you are really unsure about this, I play on the xbox, and would happily show it in game. My username is the same.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 02:04 PM
I've won 4 games like this against players who way outlevel me.

It doesn't work equally well on any map, some maps are better. It works best if you have 3 depots within one sector and lots of wood and city around which you can place lots of ambushing troops in.

Yes of course you're screwed when the opponent sends in recon, but that can be handled with a few artillery pieces, well placed AA and two fighters.

Eventually the game spirals down into either a suicide attack, or a resource slaughter, and since the other player always needs to bring in more expensive units to beat cheaper ones, again the disadvantage is on the attacker.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 02:12 PM
The gist of it is, having the economic upper hand does not ensure you're winning. If you're unable to bring to bear your economic superiority within 25 minutes, you loose.

I've played a bunch of games where I had the better strategy, occupied most sectors and had every toy I could wish for. But the opponent just camped it out, and I lost. That sucks.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
I've won 4 games like this against players who way outlevel me.

It doesn't work equally well on any map, some maps are better. It works best if you have 3 depots within one sector and lots of wood and city around which you can place lots of ambushing troops in.

Yes of course you're screwed when the opponent sends in recon, but that can be handled with a few artillery pieces, well placed AA and two fighters.

Eventually the game spirals down into either a suicide attack, or a resource slaughter, and since the other player always needs to bring in more expensive units to beat cheaper ones, again the disadvantage is on the attacker.

Armored recon is countered by artillery or fighters? Thats news to me.

And yes, every top player will be sending armored recon at you right off the bat. Unless they are US in which case its $5 jeeps. So by all means, use the turtle against bad players. But dont be surprised when you start facing more and more competent players as you move up and get beat horribly time and time again.

All of the above is one of the reasons why france is the most broken nation right now. Its a faction that focuses on turtling, but turtling is so positively easy to beat with artillery.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
The gist of it is, having the economic upper hand does not ensure you're winning. If you're unable to bring to bear your economic superiority within 25 minutes, you loose.

I've played a bunch of games where I had the better strategy, occupied most sectors and had every toy I could wish for. But the opponent just camped it out, and I lost. That sucks.

Again, you didnt counter turtling correctly then. You counter turtling with lots of the best artillery your faction can get. Period. Thats all there is to it. I have 93 total victories and 1 minor victory to 2 losses. (And the losses were definitely not to turtling players). I am not speaking out of my *** here when we are talking counters and strategy.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 02:29 PM
That's all well and true, but a good turtler can last 25 minutes during which he costs you more then you cost him. You *only* win if you can overrun the turtler, and if you can't be sure he'll magick some nasty surprise out of his radio silence hat, you can't simply expose your expensive hardware or you'll loose even more points, every one of which brings you further from victory, and all that while time is against you.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 02:38 PM
I have so far only seen one really good counter strategy to turtling, which was a last ditch bomber run.

Basically amass a lot of bombers before the turtlers fortress, and time it just right such that the bombrun finishes just as the game ends, before the bombers have turned around and get blown to pieces.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
That's all well and true, but a good turtler can last 25 minutes during which he costs you more then you cost him. You *only* win if you can overrun the turtler, and if you can't be sure he'll magick some nasty surprise out of his radio silence hat, you can't simply expose your expensive hardware or you'll loose even more points, every one of which brings you further from victory, and all that while time is against you.

What about this is hard to comprehend? The best artillery in the game comes from the prototype building. The player with map control has a huge income advantage as I discussed above with the difference between depots and admin buildings. The player with map control builds a prototype building (while the player who is turtling doesnt, otherwise he isnt really turtling and will simply lose to a light tank rush right at the beginning of the game). The artillery units from many of the prototype buildings either a) have incredible damage and shoot from twice as far as the artillery from the regular arty buildings, or b) are armored assault guns that will be impervious to everything except tanks, AT guns, or bunkers (all of which the assault guns outrange).

This is not theorycrafting. I have had it happen in many many games. And usually the final score will be about 1000-15 or something similar. I dont even believe there is such thing as a "good turtler", because its a very inferior playstyle in this game. But regardless, when i play a turtler I can usually destroy most of their forces with arty before the 25 minutes are up. And even if they survive past 25 minutes, the score differential is so outrageous from me artying them to my heart's delight while their artillery have no real targets to shoot at, that they might as well have quit early.

And I don't even know why I have to add this, but it seems like you arent getting any of this, but obviously I wont have just artillery. The first 10 minutes of the game I will have normal units like armored recon, light tanks, infantry and such. When I realize you are turtling with my recon, I will immediately switch to econ boom mode, while also getting out whatever buildings I dont have that I might need against a person rushing for advanced heavies or an allout air attack (airstrip for advanced fighters, AT building for advanced Tank destroyers, etc). This is possible because of the huge resource advantage. This entire time, you are not getting any kills while sitting in your base twittling your thumbs. Once I have all my bases covered against normal attacks around the 10 minute mark and have close to full map control, out come masses of artillery from the new prototype building and I start creeping slowly towards your base with vehicles impervious to any artillery you might have. The heavy arty demolishes all turtling defenses along the way.

Again, I really do not see how you think you get kills against a skilled player while you are turtling?

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:18 PM
Bull****. Listen, really, big yadda bull****. I just had another one of these games. I had everything and he had nothing, but just enough to tie me up for 25 minutes and make me bleed a bit more then him.

And sure, I had it all, armored recon, big artillery, bombers and whatnot. It count's for big ****ing bull****. You can't win against clever turtling.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:19 PM
****ing game is broken, last time I had that abysmal disc in my ps3. say hello to the secondhand bin.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
Bull****. Listen, really, big yadda bull****. I just had another one of these games. I had everything and he had nothing, but just enough to tie me up for 25 minutes and make me bleed a bit more then him.

And sure, I had it all, armored recon, big artillery, bombers and whatnot. It count's for big ****ing bull****. You can't win against clever turtling.

This is why people without many games played should not comment on balance.

YOU cannot win against a turtling player. YOU for whatever reason are bleeding units to a turtler that should not be happening if you were using good recon.

Unfortunately the consoles dont have replays so I cannot see what you are doing wrong or show you replays of how to counter a turtling player.

But obviously its the game and not you right?

Ask yourself this... when you first saw the player turtling with your opening recon did you immediately stop trying to attack and switch to building lots of depots? If the answer is no, you are doing it wrong.

And who said anything about bombers? Bombers are going to be sh*t against a player turtling with lots of AA. THE KEY IS LOTS OF BIG ARTILLERY WITH RECON SPOTTING AND TO NOT TRY AND ATTACK WHILE YOU ARE WAITING FOR SAID BIG ARTILLERY! Its not rocket science.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:35 PM
For ffs you your big bloomin uber tanks need frackin 10 minutes just to get to the other guys base, and your crafty big artillery you don't get until late in the game, and it's worth jack anyhow since that bloomin camouflage and radio silence, and by the time you're done dealing with his AA and fending of enough of his fighters so your recon can peek trough the game's frackin over.

Joppsta
09-27-2010, 03:36 PM
If you're getting beaten by a turtler you're obviously not really using the right nation for your playstyle or your not using the correct tactics.

I play Germany, high quality goods. Once i've got king tigers.. it's game over pretty much. KTs+Wirbelwind = map lockdown

The KT's in my opinion are better than the Maus.. because they are anti-infantry capable. Furthermore, they aren't as slow. The fact they are 100$ to research and 50$ a piece also.. 10$ cheaper than the Maus, also adds to my list of reasons to purchase it, over the Maus.

Throw a couple wirbelwind in the nearby vicinity and we're cooking with gas

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:37 PM
Look matey, you don't know if you go into a game against a turtler, so half the game is spent anyhow figuring out his strategy. By which time, of course, it's mostly to late to do anything about it.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:40 PM
The balance's is broken. It's broken because of the idiotic 25 minute fix, and because the counting of win stats is borked. Now let's look at one of the gold references of the RTS genre: Starcraft. Does it have adjustable session times? FFS yes of course! Does it just count kills by money? No of course not, it has a fracking pleathora of factors you need to dominate in order to win if you don't manage to wipe your enemy out.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
For ffs you your big bloomin uber tanks need frackin 10 minutes just to get to the other guys base, and your crafty big artillery you don't get until late in the game, and it's worth jack anyhow since that bloomin camouflage and radio silence, and by the time you're done dealing with his AA and fending of enough of his fighters so your recon can peek trough the game's frackin over.

Like I said, I am 94-2 in ranked 1v1 on the xbox and have never once even come close to having a problem with a turtling player. Recon sees through camo and radio silence. And I dont even use upgraded tanks against a turtler because they are slow and useless.

And how the f*ck is the game over before recon can see the enemy base? You should always start with recon as your first damn units and always send them ASAP towards the enemy base until you find some of his units/buildings and figure out what he is up to. You can have recon knocking on his door within the first 2 minutes.

Trust me when I say its you, and not the game.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:42 PM
Nevermind the fact that you can't even destroy or sell your own bases.

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:44 PM
If you're waiting to do things for 2 minutes until your recon have either encountered resistance or arrived at his base, it's mostly to late to counter rushers...

pyalot
09-27-2010, 03:44 PM
b.o.r.k.e.d. mark my words

Joppsta
09-27-2010, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
Nevermind the fact that you can't even destroy or sell your own bases. Now you are actually talking some sense, i'll back you up here.


But seriously dude, you should play some games with people that know what they are doing (2v2) and learn from them, then maybe you'll see your mistakes. Or if you haven't completed campaign mode (which it sounds like you haven't) go do that.

Axe99
09-27-2010, 03:47 PM
This is a very animated thread, nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Personally, and I've played 40+ odd games (maybe 50+ now, but I don't check my stats after every session http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), and I've _never_ been beaten by a turtler (I generally lose when I'm trying to consolidate a defensive line a bit far forward, and get paradropped (very embarrassing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif) /flanked because I'm overextending).

For me, Turtlers are the most relaxing opponents - you do just what Gunners said - kick back, build some good tanks and AT, and move a stack of tanks towards 'em, backed up by Arty, AA and recon, and flatten 'em. Never had the slightest trouble taking one down. Almost feel sorry for 'em when they try it.

GunnersMate07
09-27-2010, 03:49 PM
Lol of course I am not sitting still doing nothing waiting for rushers. I am expanding to another depot in that first 2 minutes and building light tanks+infantry and the like until I find out from my recon what the enemy is up to. Once I see the guy is turtling (within the first 4 minutes max), I stop building units and go to eco boom mode like I already described.

If you are trolling, good job, you got me.

If not, you can listen to players who have way more experience then you and try and get better, or go ahead and go to starcraft. Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

x3Form
09-27-2010, 06:05 PM
This is the most anti-turtle game I've played.

Turtling in this game gets you absolutely nowhere.

If you refuse to accept this then it is you at fault.

pyalot
09-28-2010, 03:17 AM
Amazing banner, just what I was thinking about.

Anyhow, sure, an entirely passive turtler is somewhat easier. He can still make you loose, if you realize it too late.

However there is something like a clever turtler. He commits just enough forces to the outside to make you busy and make you doubt what he's having in store, and at the end you figure it out, aw****, a turtler.

pyalot
09-28-2010, 03:20 AM
What I'm bemoaning is the fact that this game does not reward winning. It rewards the efficiency of killing.

Somebody who really technically lost, because he's out of resources, troops and space, can "win". That's just wrong. You may chalk it down to realism after a fashion, but then I ask you, how realistic is it to count as "winner" that one which would be obliterated in the next few minutes?

pyalot
09-28-2010, 03:29 AM
By the metric of Ruse, germany won World War 2. To put it in Ruse terms: Total Victory for Germany.

Funny that. Actually not how this was perceived by everybody else, including them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png

airborneguy
09-28-2010, 03:37 AM
I love it when people turtle against me, I end up killing all their supply depots, then arty the crap out of them then set up bomobong runs with blitz and fanaticism towards the end of the the game and kill all the admins and most of their base with about 4 bombers, CLASSIC!

Axe99
09-28-2010, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by pyalot:
By the metric of Ruse, germany won World War 2. To put it in Ruse terms: Total Victory for Germany.

Funny that. Actually not how this was perceived by everybody else, including them.

That's a strategic chart though - the vast majority of RUSE's gameplay is tactical. If you want real strategic gameplay, have a look at Strategic Command 2 or (if you're keen for some uber-depth) Hearts of Iron 3.

RUSE isn't about the war, it's about the battle. And until they create a mode that revolves around capturing and holding points (which would be cool, I reckon), then measuring a battle based on how much of the opposing force was destroyed is reasonable - the aim of many battles is to destroy the opposing force.

Also - the above chart is heavily skewed by Russian tactics, the war between Japan and China (I'm pretty sure more Chinese died in the Second World War than any other nationality), and focusing only on deaths (a balanced count would include non-fatal casualties and prisoners of war).

GunnersMate07
09-28-2010, 08:13 AM
You are the only player in here complaining about turtling. Everyone else in this thread finds turtling very easy. They are the easiest games to play and are completely stressfree because at no point is the silly turtler putting you on the defensive.

There is no such thing to me as a clever turtler. If someone was to play offensively in the early game and beat you, they outplayed you without turtling. If that same player then decided to start turtling hoping to win score-wise, you have an easy opening to snatch victory away from him. Simply arty the hell out of him.

The point is, you are the only player that seems to have trouble with this, and yet you are insisting everyone else is wrong. Based on what? Just your limited experience in this game? Guess what? It is you, only you, and you are the reason you are losing to turtling.

And if you honestly still cannot get it through your head, then jump to the top of the leaderboard with your "unbeatable strategy". If its so damn hard to beat, use it and wrack up an insane win streak. But in reality, you will start seeing how to properly counter turtling as you face tougher competition and lose game after game after game.

pyalot
09-28-2010, 08:15 AM
Well sure, the Russians just made up with numbers what they lacked in equipment and training. However, the Russians did win the war...

No I don't think just counting kills is a good idea. First of all it gives rise to defeatist strategies (like turtling). Second it's utterly unrealistic, as it doesn't allow you to make good use of numerical/resource superiority. Thirdly, sometimes you want to acquire a strategic position at a loss, so you can avoid a greater loss or inflict more effective damage.

Multiplayer is broken until somebody introduces:
- adjustable stats measure of what "winning" means
- adjustable session times
- destructable or sellable buildings (or just abandoning it for crying out loud)
- more game modes

GunnersMate07
09-28-2010, 08:22 AM
Lol you are simply saying random **** with no basis and expecting everyone to accept it as fact. "it doesn't allow you to make good use of numerical/resource superiority"??? What the f*ck are you basing this off of??? This entire game revolves around resource superiority at the high levels.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. YOU ARE NOT GOOD AT THIS GAME YET. THE PROBLEMS YOU ARE HAVING ARE NOT SHARED BY OTHER PLAYERS. IF YOU CANNOT WIN WITH A RESOURCE ADVANTAGE YOU ARE SERIOUSLY F*CKING SOMETHING UP.

This game is a game of rock-paper-scissors that rewards unit preservation. It really sounds like you don't understand the rock-paper-scissors aspect and what effectively hard counters what. Learn the basics of the counter system, and maybe you will finally see why you are completely offbase.

pyalot
09-28-2010, 09:31 AM
No matey, this is a tic-tac-toe game.

GunnersMate07
09-28-2010, 09:36 AM
So why are you still posting on here? Go play starcraft if this game isnt what you expected.

For the rest of us however the game is great, and the only thing that needs fixing is slight balance changes between the factions here and there (like a buff to france since its the most awful faction in this game because of its reliance on turtling).

pyalot
09-28-2010, 09:54 AM
Look, all I'm saying is that multiplayer is horribly broken. Now if you do not think so, you obviously got used to the brokeness. But think about this. The whole single player campaign is crafted around objectives, a design that works very well with this game. Multiplayer with its simplistic and broken game mode is more like an aftertought to the "real" single player game design. It's like on most console games though, multiplayer is just tacked on.

GunnersMate07
09-28-2010, 10:03 AM
Its broken for you. Because you suck and dont know how to properly play it yet. If you and I played, I would win a total victory in absolutely every single game we played no matter what style you chose to play. You could rush, you could turtle, you could do whatever the hell you felt like and you would lose. Because you dont know how to properly counter the other player yet since you dont have many games played.

Thats not broken multiplayer design. Thats lack of experience. With more experience, you would see why what you are saying about turtling is so dead wrong. If you are winning by any metric, you will have more kills. If you are losing by any metric, you will have less kills. Its really that simple.

And also, this game was originally designed for multiplayer, and on the PC. If anything ,the campaign is an afterthought. But alot of players on this forum have been playing the multiplayer through the PC betas since last winter. I still don't understand why you feel more qualified to talk about balance when you have nowhere near the same amount of time with the game as others on this forum?

Joppsta
09-28-2010, 10:39 AM
Learn to play. Less QQ, more pewpew.

esiex3
09-28-2010, 02:33 PM
Somebody who really technically lost, because he's out of resources, troops and space, can "win". That's just wrong. You may chalk it down to realism after a fashion, but then I ask you, how realistic is it to count as "winner" that one which would be obliterated in the next few minutes?


Pyrrhic victory.


Look, all I'm saying is that multiplayer is horribly broken. Now if you do not think so, you obviously got used to the brokeness. But think about this. The whole single player campaign is crafted around objectives, a design that works very well with this game. Multiplayer with its simplistic and broken game mode is more like an aftertought to the "real" single player game design. It's like on most console games though, multiplayer is just tacked on.

First time I've heard that one - I absolutely hated the single player, and so do many reviewers. The multiplayer's not broken, it's just that the console metagame hasn't developed enough yet. I doubt that many console players even use ruses effectively - something that works much better with humans than AIs. You guys don't even know how OP the US is yet.


Look matey, you don't know if you go into a game against a turtler, so half the game is spent anyhow figuring out his strategy. By which time, of course, it's mostly to late to do anything about it.

Well, not really. If the opponent hasn't shown any units or buildings in the first 3 minutes, then they're probably turtling. You don't even need recon (although it's a very bad idea not to get it).


I'll admit that it's hard to learn how to attack in this game. However, attacking DOES work, but you can't just simply outnumber your enemy. You also need to counter his units correctly. If you let a turtle get counters to everything, then you pretty much lost or you are in for long game. Constant pressure is key in this game so the opponent can't play rock, paper, and scissors all at the same time. Don't forget to use the RUSEs so that the opponent has a harder time telling what to counter. If he sees tanks and planes coming at the same time at the start, he can't just counter them both and win. Chances are, he can't get enough AT and AA for both since he wastes massive cash trying to do that.

pyalot
09-29-2010, 02:35 AM
Yeah right, a Pyrrhic victory. Like, say, the whole of world war 2 was one, including each sub campaign like Normandy, invasion of Holland etc. Heck, pretty much everybody who went and attacked somebody who had dug in in the last, I don't know, 5000 years or so archived a Pyrrhic victory. So what's your point exactly?

It's not hard to learn to attack, use ruses and even if I suck, it's still broken. You're being apoplectic for a game that's broken. That is silly.

When I'm in a game and I saw that it was a turtler and go into resource overdrive and keep the pressure on, and on the last 6 minutes I'm about ready to get the big guns out, and in the last 20 seconds get good bearing on his base... but then the game ends. Teh suck.

Axe99
09-29-2010, 03:08 AM
Pyalot, it's clear that you're not having a lot of luck with the game, but just because of that doesn't mean the game is broken.

For example, I really disliked Demon's Souls - thought (and still think) that the combat was sluggish, dull and clunky, the camera early PS2 era at best, and the story virtually non-existent. However, I wouldn't say the game is broken - far from it, as many thousands of gamers have really enjoyed it. It is, however, most definitely not for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

RUSE is similar - you're the first person I've come across who's played RUSE and not enjoyed it, and you're also the first to suggest it's broken. I've spent over 20 hours playing online, and if the game was broken, I'd've noticed by now. I've also spent hundreds of hours playing other games online, and if you compare RUSE to other online games, strategy and otherwise, then it is most definitely not broken.

I think at this stage, if the style of gameplay doesn't suit you, or it's not something you want to spend the time learning how to play (because, as I've mentioned before, in 54 1v1 games and a bunch of 2v2s, I'm yet to be beaten by a 'Turtler' - it most definitely is possible, and I've beaten some fairly high-ranked turtlers). This isn't necessarily a bad thing - there are oodles of different styles of games, and not every game is for everybody.

pyalot
09-29-2010, 04:55 AM
it's not luck. I've played some 40 multiplayer (20 of which are ranked) matches and I've played the single player campaign trough (in medium) and I've played every single map against the computer AI.

It's something that you can't discuss away. The fixed time limit is constricting, the way stats are counted towards winning is simplistic and the lack of other game modes is mind boggling. And practically *all* other multiplayer RTSes out there do better.

InfiniteStates
09-29-2010, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by pyalot:
It's something that you can't discuss away. The fixed time limit is constricting, the way stats are counted towards winning is simplistic and the lack of other game modes is mind boggling. And practically *all* other multiplayer RTSes out there do better.
Be that as it may, none of what you mentioned makes for a broken game. Just a game you feel could be better.

JulyDerek
09-29-2010, 05:24 AM
It's true, the game is Simple. Not too many complications in updates/units/tactics. Thats the beauty this game.

Chess is simple too. Its the greatest strategy game I have played. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Axe99
09-29-2010, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by pyalot:
it's not luck. I've played some 40 multiplayer (20 of which are ranked) matches and I've played the single player campaign trough (in medium) and I've played every single map against the computer AI.

It's something that you can't discuss away. The fixed time limit is constricting, the way stats are counted towards winning is simplistic and the lack of other game modes is mind boggling. And practically *all* other multiplayer RTSes out there do better.

When I said "Luck", I meant that you were unlucky that you and the game didn't get along. But in terms of "all MP RTS's out there do better", that's not true in my recollection - I've played every RTS on PS3, C&C3 and a bunch others on PC, and RUSE definitely doesn't seem less polished or more 'broken' than they are. And I've been playing RTS games since Dune 2 - I'm hardly new to the genre, or

RUSE does, however, play a little less like a 'traditional' RTS, and a bit more (although still some ways off) like an actual battle - and is far more strategic/tactical than your average RTS (which is often just an exercise in who can click/select units/make orders fastest, and are generally undeserving of the 'S' on the end of the acronym). If you're coming from a background of standard 'RTS' games, rather than gaming that involves deeper strategies, then RUSE will definitely feel quite different and take some getting used to. The fact that it is different, however, does not mean that it is broken.

esiex3
09-29-2010, 07:25 AM
It's not hard to learn to attack, use ruses and even if I suck, it's still broken. You're being apoplectic for a game that's broken. That is silly.

But this contradicts the original point of your post, where you said..


Since only kills by money are counted for the winning condition, the best strategy which works 90% of the time is to camp it out in your home sector with cheap units and perpetual camouflage+radio silence. Any attack on you is more expensive then what you loose, and even though you're doing miserable, if you manage to hang on for 25 minutes, you've "won".

Any game where there is a single best way to win is badly unbalanced.

If that last statement were true, then yeah, the design would be completely broken, but nobody else seems to have that problem. Everything else is just a matter of taste then, and everybody else is probably right when they say that this game isn't your cup of tea.

Joppsta
09-29-2010, 01:17 PM
I think this guy keeps getting his *** handed to him, someone join a game of his and beat him with italy.. then get him to say the game's broken.

It's cookie cut that he sucks then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

esiex3
09-29-2010, 01:51 PM
Honestly, it doesn't matter if he sucks or not. If anybody beats him, it doesn't really prove anything. However, as a guy who organizes tournaments for this game regularly (on PC though... why am I on the console forums? :P) I can tell you that turtling is NOT a 90% win strategy at tourney play. Maybe against random noobs, sure, but noobs don't know how to deal with a lot of things. In SC2, a friend of mine got to diamond league (the top league) with pure reaper rushes, but now that he's at high level play, he can't use that same strategy so often because better players can deal with it. Lower level players always have problems with certain strategies, and catering to them will only make the game less fun remove depth for the very dedicated and talented players.

pyalot
09-29-2010, 04:48 PM
Just for the record, I'm position 215 at lvl 24 (won 23 out of 33 games) on the leaderboard, so I can't all suck. But this game, it still sucks because it's so fracking limited in game modes, time settings and stats counting.

Joppsta
09-29-2010, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
Just for the record, I'm position 215 at lvl 24 (won 23 out of 33 games) on the leaderboard, so I can't all suck. But this game, it still sucks because it's so fracking limited in game modes, time settings and stats counting. Well quit b*tching and learn to play the game so you can beat turtlers. Hell, turtlers get crushed so easily. Some fool tried to pull the turtle tactic on me.. i played my standard opening moves (earlier today). Stupid russkie built some tanks, could have steam rolled me quite easy but i used the RUSEs to their fullest effect.

With most people RUSEs seem more of an afterthought.


This game is almost exactly like chess. Your opening moves are what make your game a win or a loss.

airborneguy
09-29-2010, 05:39 PM
PYALOT, do me a favor, take the game out of your console, put in in the case and throw it in the trash, cuz you suck bad if you cant beat someone who turtles. NOOB

pyalot
09-29-2010, 06:02 PM
airborneguy, that you "Airborne-Mike"?

cuz I think Rank 1765 lvl 8 with 4 victories so far pretty much would disqualify you from having an opinion, wouldn't it?

esiex3
09-29-2010, 07:10 PM
I'll give you that the game is lacking on game modes, but I'm pretty sure you can change time settings on unranked games.

InfiniteStates
09-30-2010, 07:54 AM
Seems you've learnt to deal with your turtling issue, pyalot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You destroyed me twice last night (actually one might have been a draw). I remembered this thread, so attempted to turtle lol.

Unfortunately they were also my first 2 ever games with France.

WP.

pyalot
09-30-2010, 09:52 AM
BP_Charlie, ah that was you. Yeah the second one was a draw. Nah I still can't deal with turtlers really. But then, I might've started this thread to get people to turtle against me...

I think your main problem wasn't the turtling though.

Here's what I see occasionally that people get wrong in ranked matches.

1) administration buildings: This needs 6 minutes 40 seconds to amortize its own cost (100). A depot needs 2 minutes and 13 seconds to amortize its own cost (40). A ranked match lasts 25 minutes, and during that time an administration building could amortize itself maximally 3.75 times, while a depot (usually with some 200 inside), amortizes itself 5 times in 1/10th the game time. Almost always building an administration building is an error.

2) expensive units early: I avoid building expensive units as much as possible. The reason is simply that "kill" is counted by unit cost. So if a heavy tank (say 40) gets taken out by 4 improved infrantry (5 each) the risk/reward ratio is hugely in favor of the cheaper units. If you manage to take out a fighter bomber (35) with 2 lightweight portable flak (10 each), that is hugely more favorable then taking it out with two armored flak (25 each).

3) buildings that only produce expensive units early: While there is some use for expensive units, almost certainly any such use early in the game is very risky, therefore a building (like a prototype base) that only produces relatively expensive units, is almost useless early in the game.

4) failure to scout: A lot of really regrettable situations come down to a failure to install multiple reduntant ways to scout out the situation, therefore some units may sneak up on yours trough woods and such, and the price is terrible.

I don't remember if you did all of those, but you did some of those (as have I on other occasions), but one learns.

InfiniteStates
09-30-2010, 03:30 PM
LOL no, my main problem was I was using the French. See my thread about them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Although admin buildings aren't especially cost effective, they do make you self sufficient. It all depends how aggressive your opponent is.

Axe99
09-30-2010, 04:49 PM
Aye - admin buildings in moderation can be quite handy - and in terms of the time it takes for a depot to amortise its cost, that all depends how far away from the base it is. There'll be a place where you either have to build a secondary headquarters or wait a long time for those supplies to come back.

airborneguy
09-30-2010, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by pyalot:
airborneguy, that you "Airborne-Mike"?

cuz I think Rank 1765 lvl 8 with 4 victories so far pretty much would disqualify you from having an opinion, wouldn't it?

PYALOT,, my name isnt airborne mike, and I am lvl 20 1v1 and lvl8 2v2. So I am pretty sure that you should just throw the game away

Joppsta
09-30-2010, 07:48 PM
Pyalot, there is no need to be an *** when people get sick of your ********. Glad to see you're enjoying the game now, but turtlers are easy foes to defeat. Also your theories on risk/reward ratio.. keep them.. i'll steamroll you rather easily with armour power.

Gypsy816
10-01-2010, 11:28 AM
Mind the insults and arguing please and thank you!