What's the meaning of balancing..?

There is this one thing I'd really like to point out. This is completely my opinion. And I'm very serious about this.

I think you (developers) did a good job at balancing the weapons and stuff. Now almost all of the weapons are equally good, meaning they're also equally bad, making the variation of weaponry useless. Sniper Rifle ain't really a sniper rifle anymore, you have to get close to kill people. The same thing is with all the weapons. They are equal and have no variation. There's no need for different style of gameplay with equally bad weaponry and so on...

Making some features balanced, doesn't really balance the gameplay in any way. It just lacks variation.

I've played the new version for enough long time to see that every game seems to end the same way now. Only maps change. Everything else stays the same from round to round and get boring really quick.

If you want a game perfectly balanced, why make any skills, ranks, squad points, classes, big weaponry, research trees with different stuff to research, different style of gameplay depending on map, and so on in the first place?

READ: I don't think the new version got much worse, but it lacks things that made the gameplay balanced in the previous version. And what makes gameplay balanced? It's the fact that everyone get the style of class, the skills, the ranks, favourite weapons and vehicles and so on.. to get the best out of their own skills and make their best to make their team win. It's not a solution to make everything equally bad so that there's no point in different classes, weapons etc.

And I also know that the developers had to renew the coding almost completely to port the mod to a new engine, so things like this can be fixed.

Even if this is a hybrid modification of RTS and FPS doesn't change the fact, that commander is the main role of RTS and the infantry is the FPS-side. There are something like 20 FPS players in the game while having 1 commander.

Balancing is a good thing when it is actually dedicated to gameplay itself.

I think many of the players that have said the previous version was more balanced are trying to say something like this. The gameplay was very balanced in that version, even if the features and teams weren't always equally good/bad.

 

I'd rather have a poorly balanced fun game than a 100% equally balanced game that isn't fun.

Because in either case, it's a 1 in 2 chance you win, except in the poorly balanced one you have fun.

 

Indeed. I think counter-strike is a well balanced game, thus its very bad. Its something so awful compared to Empires that words cannot descripe how bad it is. It can be fun for 5 minutes, if you spam duke nukem sounds and make people laugh at you, but then again, thats not part of the gameplay, really.

 

On the other hand, a badly balanced game that is fun nets you Red Alert 2: People end up kicking any players that choose France or Yuri, and the game eventually gets boring and repetitive as everyone does pretty much the same tactic.

Starcraft is a well balanced game that is extremely fun on multiplayer, attested to by its longevity and choice for professional competitions. It's pretty easy to pick up but rewards expert gameplay.

You're going to want balance in Empires, especially when you only have two factions, since without being properly balanced, one side will get the shaft and people may actually choose not to play a game rather than go on a weaker faction.

 

We're talking about FPSs.
Empires is an FPS.
Not an RTS.

 

Starcraft sucked.

 

its only partially FPS im afraid.

it has gone from mainly FPS into mainly RTS/idling now.

if you neglect individual performances (yes i mean rambo people.... why are they rambo? cuz they know how to play) and generalize everything and make things sloooooooowwwwww it turns into a rts... iow... becomes rather dull due to being a first person game.

well rts games are normaly more fast phased on professionall levels than how empires is...

this is more of a beginners game where both retards are in a valley and spam 200 turrets to defend the middle and wait for their spam of the best unit type to be completed...

then both sides launch 5 billion battleships / hyper tanks / mechas / nukes or whateva depending on the game and it end depending on which person that spammed the most and conserved resources the best by doing the best idling previously.

Thats empires. sadly.

If you dont agree, then please think for a second of how the current battles are like...

its a big idle with lots of walls...
reviving/healing engineers to keep the camping soldiers there alive to prevent any kind of movement from the enemy side.

the enemy does just the same and it end up with a dull fight.

2.2 in a nutshell?



its sad.

 

The same rules apply. If sides aren't equally balanced then we have a situation where people "ban" certain aspects of gameplay or that the "fun" factor of a game can be compromised by a generally superior faction regularly defeating a weaker faction.

You could be very well right, but several people may be inclined to disagree with you on the subject.

 

Foxy didn't just say that.

And it's and RTS for 2 people.

2 people Alceister. Now I dunno about you, but I'd rather not be a terran marine, or an SCV. No matter how you spin it, being an RTS unit sucks.

 

Funny, because I've seen complaints about 2.2 being the exact opposite of that.

 

It looks pretty fucking close to what I've played.

Hide behind cover and shoot eachother until one team gets heavies.

Also, a team reserached railheavies. Epic lols. We beat them with grens.

 

Its two factions actually. If one faction in any game was noticeably better or worse than any other faction it's going to see more play.

Alternately if any weapon is noticeably worse than the others, people will not use said weapon unless they have no alternative. Or if there is a weapon that basically accomplishes the same aims as another weapon, but comes with special bonuses, people will tend to use that weapon. Case in point, pre-2.2 Engineers.

Balancing makes it so that every aspect of a game useful or not useful in certain situations. So that no one aspect is singularly superior to all others and therefore deters massing, which lowers the fun and playability of a game.

 

What the fuck are you talking about.

 

Let me re-iterate for clarity. Remember System Shock 2? I never bothered with the EMP rifle because the Laser pistol did pretty much everything it could do plus more.

In the same vein, pre 2.2 Engineers had enough firepower to easily gun down other infantry at most ranges, and can also repair and build. Riflemen are too comparatively specialized and their advantages don't endear them to players as much as Engineers.

 

Tell that to the loads of engineers I left in my wake.

 

But how many people played Engineer on each team relative to Riflemen? I only played 2.2 briefly, but as I remember 2.12, it was not unusual to see entire squads of Engineers for the entire game.

 

Please, Do point out where... im very curious about it.

 

YOU SHALL BURN ALIVE FOR THAT STATEMENT!

 

At least I think that's what Z1000000M means.

 

complaints regarding emp_recruits (hidden thanks to steam names) not using cover doesnt count.
its nothing new.