Your number one error is in thinking that this is JUST and FPS. It has some FPS elements, but it isn't a BF game where tanks just autospawn in places. Hell, I'm the person who hates in starcraft that people would just zerg rush. I loath rushing in RTSes. I played EMP for the tank battles. Because comming was at one point FUN. Hell, even because of community. Stupid shitheads boomtanking were banned. Not to load, get a comm, start some research and refs, maybe a forward rax....just to get "game over" because the comm was flipped. The best rounds were the LONG rounds. With arty, lights, meds and heavies. With competant squads moving around - hell, squading with Nebajoth rocked.
i think your error is that you at first imply i think its too much of an fps and therefore think that rushing is the best strategy. but right afterwards you say you hate that people do it in RTS games. also you then say you play empires for tank battles, which undoubtably is more FPS then RTS. so it apparently (since i only see it because i see empires as FPS only) is the most valueable (or people wouldnt do it) strategy there is in competetive online gaming? do you agree or disagree with me now? and yes, we all like long rounds ...
you are grouping the definition of fast paced and short games together. rushing to refineries aims for a fast paced games, get raxes up in 30 seconds, getting kills and deaths in seconds, but even if it's fast paced doesn't mean it's going to be a short round. Almost every round you get the chance to see mediums or heavies, arties and/or nukes. Normally rounds last from 20 minutes to an hour, but the research is going at a fast pace and people are still having fun.
If the tank battles were like battles in BF2 with tanks...sure, it'd be an FPS. But these tank battles are constructing walls, pushing to certain points, stopping to build...customizing your tank to combat the enemy's tanks...no, this isn't an FPS style of tank combat. It's not that "dumb." As for rushing, I'm saying that your initial logic is invalid. FPSes like CS you expect action at round start. Empries is also an RTS of sorts and so you cannot really expect action right away. Also, last I looked there was a long beginning to a round for voting and all. I do not want to spend minutes waiting for round start...for the round to then last minutes due to a rush. As for my comments on RTS rushing, I'm saying it can happen, and it sucks. And it's not at all a valid gameplay option in emp; in a regular RTS, your units are controlled by YOU. In Emp...they have free will. Grant, when I say rushing, I mean rush to kill the comm in the first 10 minutes. I don't mean rushing to nab a ref. That's different. Fast paced is OK. Fast ending is not.
Most players want to win by combat, not by outmaneuvering. That's why all-out-combat maps like Escort, Money and District are fun for most people: lots of action, all the time. Most people want to be part of a victory. To win as Squad B when Squad A has ninja'd the comm, while you were attacking the wrong way, thats pretty boring. There have to be multiple roads to victory, and not just one. I can live with a team winning by exploiting an overzealous or overconfident opponent though.
This is so true and together with the way research is structured the biggest flaw in Empires' design.
i actually like it but you should probably be able to construct new ones but you can only activate one at a time when the currently active gets detroyed-> game over
That defeats the purpose though. You still have to target all of them, not knowing which one is active.
sorry RA but u talk bullshit. i dunno what your memories of the game tell you, but you aim yourself and its nothing like an RTS at all. if it be like an RTS the it be like dota where your hero (=tank) attack on its own and hit each shot (unless the enemy has evasion ofc) its also no RPG, though the inventroy (=loadout of the tank) might suggest, and in most PRGs you dont have to care to aim either since a dice roll decides the outcome ... so where is this no FPS, dont fool yourself ...
well if its nothing like an FPS, RTS or RPG, there is little left ... oh i get it, its a tank simulator - no really
No, I'm saying the stupid broad buckets that are FPS, RPG and RTS...none fit. It's not a true RTS, it's not a true FPS, nor is it a true RPG. It's some crazy hybrid. You're not even inferring, you're just taking what I say and adding whatever meaning you like.
You just tried to turn a thread that was having some interesting debate on a game suggestion into...making posts that contain a single adverb and nothing else.
Take battlefield 2. What would battlefield 2 be like if the first central flag cap determined which team got 90% of the vehicles and flag caps were impossible to reverse without vehicles? And the only two ways to win were capping all the flags or sneaking / driving a jeep into the enemy uncappable spawn and C4ing their UAV terminal? Good FPS games have limits, in games like battlefield and other good FPS games you don't get any real benefit from running past all the flags and blowing somthing in the enemy spawn, so the object of the game becomes to push across the map and cap flags. The object becomes to fight between the flags, so you get good amounts of fighting. The flags also distribute vehicles and tickets fairly evenly between the teams at the start, you need a major advantage in flags to have access to significantly more vehicles than the enemy, and even if you do have that, it doesn't help you that much because the enemy AT infantry is generally more powerful than your tanks and the enemy gets them all the time. The game forces enough balance to ensure that both teams get a fighting chance, it is impossible to massively tip the odds in the first 5 minutes, and the objectives are concentrated around pitched battles, not simply trying to get somewhere quickly and blow up one thing. This is what you don't understand, you need to change the game to make players do fun things. When it was possible to get inside the cliffs or under the map on canyon and shoot through it unstoppably, the game was changed to prevent it, because while it was a good way to win, it wasn't any fun. Similarly, when the best way to win is ignore everything and just rush the central refs/the command vehicle and success guarantees you the game, you change the game so that those are no longer possible or desirable. You find more interesting ways to win and promote those. There is potential for a lot of depth in empires, the interplay of tanks, infantry, structures, and map layout could bring a lot of possibilities in pitched battles. However currently that is all moot most of the time, because one team has already won by the time tanks are rolled out. That is simply not good enough.
Can you guys stop derailing the thread, this is a good conversation about... Oh right. I think we're done here.
From what I understood you want to turn Empires upside down. Which I do not like however good your arguments are. For relevance: Assassins and Templars in AC. What do they want? World peace. What are their means?... Yes I'd be a conservatist.
Did...you just mention a shitty game - assasin's creed - to try to prove a point? It's....a game. Fiction. /facepalm.
