It’s been nearly a month since Act of Aggression was released, hence it is quite about time to have a look at all the community feedbacks and criticisms we have been processing since then. And how it will guide our hand in the weeks to come …
One of the most recurring topic for debates, disputes, rants, … was and remains … balance! According to some Historians, it could even have been one of the oldest topic on Earth, with cavemen debating about mammoths’ early rushes or the imbalance of their stone arrows.
This is actually a topic which matters greatly to us too, and for that reason we are closely monitoring both the forums and the servers’ statistics. After each patch, our game designers are reviewing the servers’ game stats, not just overall win ratios, but also very specific situations: in 1v1 or any other combination ; any length, under 10mn or over 30mn ; each faction pitted against any other individual one ; players with positive ELO only ; …
Taking all those parameters into consideration, we can make a pretty accurate picture of the game’s balance from patch to patch. Presently, the US Army & Cartel are in a pretty good spot, with only a few delicate changes to make to try to reach perfect balance. Chimera is lagging a bit behind, and may require some more testosterone injections to catch up with the other two. But with every patch, the gap between it and them is narrowing a bit more …
We intend to keep monitoring those stats in the weeks and months to come, and release balance patches every time we see some imbalance taking roots between the factions.
Another criticism we have been reading about in the players’ feedbacks is bearing on the economy, and more especially the three-resource system.
It has always been our intent to give the economy an important part in Act of Aggression. We knew it was a sensitive decision, hence the reason why so many questions from the VIP Beta’s survey were directed at that aspect. But for the disconnected resources networks, which we have therefore removed, more than two third of beta testers validated for the economy system.
Yet, there are many among the newcomers who feel that the economy is too complex, especially when it comes to managing and stockpiling three resources simultaneously. Others are complaining about the resources fields being depleted too fast and hence the games not lasting as long as they would like to.
To address those feedbacks, we will change the present “Starting resources” option into one allowing player to set the duration of resources fields. They won’t be infinite, but one should be able to extend the length of a game a good deal that way.
Going along that change, we will also increase the storage capacity of dedicated buildings, such as HQ, LEM, Outpost, …
The readability of infantry units has also drawn some flak. We agree that this is a problem, one which we have tried to avoid at the time of the “zoom-level debate”: by unlocking the zoom, which was originally tailored to fit with the units’ size, we have rendered the smallest units much harder to see.
The solution, as suggested by some among the community, will be to use different icons over each type: anti-tank, anti-aircraft, medic, sniper, riflemen, grenadier & mortar.
Finally, another thing we are planning to do is to propose an alternative “Grid Hotkey” binding to the existing one. We are also considering granting the ability to completely overwrite the existing key bindings with custom ones, but this option should be restricted to seasoned users, for they won’t be a dedicated interface for this.
citylionOctober 1, 2015 at 10:29 pm
Will you guys be adding a 10 v 10 or 20 v 20 map?
NickOctober 2, 2015 at 4:41 am
A humble suggestion to fix the difficulty in viewing infantry units would be to make the camera angle fully able to slant at 90 degrees, in other words a horizon or 3rd person camera view. This way we could actually see from the perspective of the units, enjoy the action & appreciate the fine detailed work your artists did.
Currently that get all lost due to the camera view/angle or lack of it. – thanks
JoOctober 2, 2015 at 10:59 am
I would love to see something like a market.
We want to trade between allies!
AndrewOctober 3, 2015 at 1:08 am
Please please please put back the controller analog support. Controllers where never fully supported, but the left analog stick smoothly panned the camera just like in Wargame. Now all of the sudden it stopped working since the last patch I think. I don’t see why anyone would have removed that. I play with a mouse in my right hand and a controller in my left. It worked brilliantly until the left stick no longer panned the camera. Xpadder only has the ability to add simulated wasd keys on the stick and that is just flat out garbage. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE enable the analog support again, I think this just killed the game for me 🙁
TacticOctober 3, 2015 at 10:02 am
pls dont add a market, but if not already existing, the ability to send “harvesters” to the ally
(did you manage to allocate the whole hotkeys to a controller? you can nicely game fast?
JugeOctober 4, 2015 at 12:09 am
In my opinion, currently Chimera is in a better spot than US or Cartel balance-wise. If you think about the facts, that for example Terminators can counter almost every type of attack, Turrets have stealth detection ready out-of-the-box without need for an upgrade and Snipers can now shoot down all types of units… You would be crazy (no offence) to buff Chimera even further.
I hope you guys know what you are doing with your game, I’d appreciate it if you would at least take these things in consideration. You are the developers here after all, not me.
KalOctober 4, 2015 at 8:26 am
Indeed. i think Eugen has not any skill about balancing.
or, they interpret that with wrong way.
[EUG]MadMatOctober 4, 2015 at 9:51 am
Chimera is definitively the one requiring buffs to be brought at the two others’ level. Victory ratio, whatever the parameters (lenght, oponent, …) chosen, speaks by themselves.
KalOctober 5, 2015 at 6:31 am
Could you present some numerical value?
only speaking, nobody belive that.
Daniel BartleOctober 6, 2015 at 8:22 am
Whose nobody? almost everyone on forum says otherwise…. and ingame chat was almost unanimous last time is logged on. Its not true that because chimera units can counter everything that the side is too strong, Terminators are easily countered and snipers while being able to shoot helicopters is nice you are unlikely to ever have enough to off-set the super poor rof, and pitty help you if they’re not garrisoned. Chimrea has the slowest start, and some of the most egregiously expensive stuff thats absolutely needed, and proper AA that can’t be built if you go offensive (sword). So yeah, they really do need a buf IMO.
FalchionOctober 4, 2015 at 8:10 am
I agree with Jo, a market or maybe just the function to allow you to share some of your credits/alu/re with your teammates. It would be of great help in team games when your teammate gets rushed and his base and economy is in shambles, while yours is flourishing, at least with this function your teammate has a chance to try and catch back up rather than be ineffective the rest of the game.
This would also encourage players to not leave the game so quickly, and force the remaining players on their team to control multiple bases.
MajorGloryOctober 12, 2015 at 11:41 pm
I agree with both of you.
The ability to trade ressources (and maybe units too) would increase teamplay and funfactor. However this option should not get abused so maybe some restrictions have to be made. Also bear in mind that the “Marked” feature should require just one marked building to send ressources (the second marked is likely destroyed).
An other approach could be a researchable technology (i.e. “withdrawal plan”) that allows you to build a second HQ by using a teammates HQ if you lost all your HQs and Outposts. The costs for that technology would be the costs of a HQ and it can be researched just once.
Firestar1212October 5, 2015 at 2:22 am
could we possibly get smother unit building? right now, the hotkeys for them are all over, and its a pain, if we could get something like QWERT or ASDFG, for unit building would be lovely
OompahOctober 7, 2015 at 1:31 pm
awesome job – this is the new standard in RTS; keep on this and keep moving forward.
GotchaOctober 7, 2015 at 6:10 pm
One thing I, personally, would like is the ability to set patrol routes or visible waypoint system.
JSmithOctober 11, 2015 at 4:02 pm
“the new standard in RTS” … well, that’s definitely an overstatement
An RTS with lacking many standard features of other “standard” RTS games is definitely not a “new standard”.
OmanRaOctober 14, 2015 at 4:08 am
Somewhat Relatively Old Man here. Been playing RTS games frequently since the original Command & Conquer… I liked the Homeworld/Total Annihilation/Tropico/Warhammer series too. I also enjoy playing chess/spades/crazy 8’s etc..
From playing strategy games a while, I’ve found the C&C General’s Mod ‘Shock-wave’ and more recently, ‘Rise of the Reds’ to be unmatched in terms of play-ability for the RTS field. Aside from a couple technicalities (an inherent software engine Lag & an inadequate outward camera zoom), They’re extremely brilliant.
Anyways.. I like your game a lot (own it, purchased it) and see it as an evolution from these titles in a few areas- particularly in graphics, scale, military realism by unit range/appearance, and the numerous upgrades available.. Effort has been put in, and it shows.
However, a lot of basic, parsimonious features are missing that could make your game a far better RTS. Perhaps a good look at those mods may help w/some issues… Just a thought.
Tri4lOctober 15, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Firts of all, thanks a lot for a very nice game!
Here comes some suggestions:
-Icones of soldiers in buildings are too small
-Send some helicopters (shadowhawk) to destroy a raffinery and they will blow up by the explosion of the building if too close. (solution: desactivate building explosion colateral
dammages to helicopters or make helicopter have a security distance before shooting)
-Icones over soldiers is a good point but shood we be able too see oponents icones? We should not in my point of view.
-Possibility to hide soldiers under trees? (like act of war, discovered when shooting or with detection unit. Will add strategic positions and strategic use of the map)
-Possibilty to create way points and patrulling
Hope this will help.
galesyooOctober 18, 2015 at 11:10 am
well i liked the part where if the refinery blew, choppers above it will get destroyed also. lets me remind that this is REAL time strategy. its realistic to some extent
Caddy UnliebOctober 17, 2015 at 7:15 pm
Thanks for the game ..but we want more maps please ?
EliOctober 19, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Awesome job so far, good to know the developers are listening to the feedbacks.
Another important issue is the maps.
You should definitely add more maps, in this rate of playing the same maps over and over again, the game will become obsolete very soon.
JonOctober 19, 2015 at 10:16 pm
Do you guys plannig any fraction DLC ? (China or Russia could be cool)
[EUG]MadMatOctober 19, 2015 at 10:58 pm
No, we have no such plan.
SpymanNovember 1, 2015 at 10:38 am
More maps will be very nice, you clean the multiplayer maps content too fast.
A maps editor will be the best !
Community know what community want.
Let them create maps, and, choose the best maps to put them in the ranked system.
It will allow you to concentrate your ressource on balance, new units/factions, etc.
VectorNovember 4, 2015 at 5:17 am
I think the camera isnt far away/ big enough to see all the fancy stuff. There is a satellite view but that looks not so good like compared to Wargame.
GijsNovember 10, 2015 at 2:43 pm
First of all let me compliment you guys with this game! It has been a while after Command and conquer Generals that I really enjoyed a new RTS game. The graphics are amazing and I like the factions.
Here are a few things that I would like to see in the game:
– More maps, this is really an important thing for playing this game more and more. (the current maps look amazing though! keep it up)
– Three factions is enough, but I would love to see different specialities within each fraction.. Think about ccg zero hour and how they created three parties within each faction. This makes it a lot more fun to play and people will play and enjoy this game much longer.
– When your HQ is destroyed, the possibility to build another. This can be done by paying a big amount of resources or create builders that are able to build all the buildings.
– Good idea to put icons on the infantry!
– Resources are depleted to fast.. just as you guys said. I love the idea of three different resources. If it is to hard/difficult for some people, then they are not made for playing strategic games!
– Maybe an idea to always get the two most needed resources from the HQ? So that you will always get the oppurtunity to create enough for upgrades/building ect.
– Market seems like a nice idea aswell, but how about instead of a market just the possibility too send a certain amount of resources/units or even a building to your allie every 2/3/5/10 minutes after some kind of upgrade?
– Airfields with airplanes instead of just an icon?
– Somebody already said it, but the soldiers icon in building is really too small. please make this larger.
Well, these a the most things I was thinking about. Hope it helps you on your way to make the game even better and more exciting. I am going back playing the game 🙂 again, many thanks for making a new amazing RTS game!!
FTADecember 20, 2015 at 7:27 am
are there any maps, map packs or SOMETHING, planned for that game except tech updates?
[EUG]MadMatDecember 21, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Yes, we are presently working on major improvements for the game.
RaMMarch 12, 2016 at 9:09 am
Well this is a totally personal view of things:
I’ve been playing C&C Generals since Zero Hour came out (2003) and from gameplay and tactics it unreached. It’s a shame that EA drops support of a game too fast and Bugs still remain unfixed. So a big compliment to Eugen you do it different!
I’ve tried Supreme Commander and other flavours it’s fun but not the same.
So I’m wondering why (compared to AOA)?
– Less complex ecosystem – you can concentrate on the fights and tactics
– I love that right mouse button scrolling – for guys who are not aware of that: Press and hold the right mous button and scroll smoothely over the map. ok the formation of units is also nice. It would be nice if this can be set up in the options…
– Less useless units. I prefer to keep my units use them efficient instead of creating plenty of units and send them to the enemy.
– Simpler and better to understand upgrades. Please think about less complexity and more well ordered menus
– The camera. Seeing units on the field an knowing what to do with them or against the enemies is much clearer. What I learned in AOA: Using the satellite view is the most efficient way to play, but is the most ugly one compared to the beauty of you units and maps
– A super Unit like Colonel Burton, Jarmen Kell or the beauty Black Lotus brings so much tactics inside the games.
– Stealth is more efficient and provides deeper tactics
– The different Generals that have a great balance (beside Super Weapon)
So this should not be an ode to Generals but should show why guys like me (I am not the only one) still play a 13 year old game.
I am telling this here, because AOA or a maybe some later add on could follow in generals footsteps.
Please go forward wth RTS like this. EA sucks with every attempt to build another great game since 2003. (This is the price if you fire great teams)
RaMMarch 12, 2016 at 9:11 am
Ahh and please to a Mac Version 😉
Based on Metal?