Definitely agree here, although the balance of the teams is supposed to nullify that out, it's more or less one big DD/Camp session. Not cool. Not cool at all.

Ignore the campers, the strategy is stupid anyway.

 

 

 

What you have to do is be aggressive and be the first to attack. You always catch the campers off guard, who think that everyone in the game will camp as well. You go in and do a lot of damage, and die really fast. Even though you lose, you still get great reward credits (because you killed a lot of squads) and get 1 rank up, and all that happens in 5 minutes. Compare that to camping, which drags on games for over 10 minutes, meaning even if you win you would get less rank ups per hour and less reward credits per hour.

 

 

 

I've been using the aggression strategy and its worked fine.

 

 

 

The balancing in this game is actually perfect. You just have to think outside of the box from the majority (campers).

 

 

 

PS: The deathdot strategy is extremely dumb too, don't know why people do it. All you have to do is spam chin them and they're half dead in a few seconds.

The special spot is what is leading people to camp. There should be a far lesser number away from the base, if they must remain at all.

Better do your purposeful dying soon, you know it's going to be nerfed.

Has anyone tried out the other game modes? If so, do they require more strategy?

I don't think all the blame is on the players here. Come on, a 1vs1vs1vs1 last man standing is always mostly luck anyways. Just charge whoever you think you can kill easiest and go from there and don't worry about it.

Has anyone tried out the other game modes? If so, do they require more strategy?

 

They're broken at the moment.

Has anyone tried out the other game modes? If so, do they require more strategy?

 

They're broken at the moment.

Ah, OK, then I don't see what everyone is worrying about then. To me, the conflict mode seems like an introduction to all the other more complicated modes...

i heard the only reason to win is for bragging rights, you get faster xp if you don't try to be strategic, and instead just rush right away, taking out as many as you can...Jagex's game seems pretty linear, there is always a best and worst way...

For the death dotters, I just drop 4 cannons in their faces. Works like a charm. :twisted:

 

 

 

Has anyone here ever won a game without a single troop casualty against a death dotter and two slow attackers? I did. Easy win, too.

For the death dotters, I just drop 4 cannons in their faces. Works like a charm. :twisted:

 

 

 

Has anyone here ever won a game without a single troop casualty against a death dotter and two slow attackers? I did. Easy win, too.

 

 

 

Yea. I made 2 death dots (On the special terrein on the sides of my start zone), and sat there. The other 3 teams just piles each other (In that time I used 5 cannons placed hitting a good 10 - 20 enemies at once (Yea, all 3 just piled each other). In the end, one person had 2 things left at half health, and it was simple from there... ;)

 

 

 

But yea, like the title shows, i just camped there, it needs some kind of fix. Hell me and runecid were in a game where one person with all lights ganged him (He lost 1 troop to kill all of them), and the 3 of us left sat there till there was like 7 mins left. one guy quit, and me and rune we fighting each other till it ran out of time...

Once the hype dies off, the campers will leave (I would hope.... :pray: ; I have yet to actually go and play mostly because the hype tends to bring in a bunch of losers to things like these).

 

 

 

In the meantime, have fun rushing.

 

 

 

Also, hopefully we'll see some more diversity in the units so more strategy can come into play (Can any of them used ranged/magic attacks (from a distance) or is it all just melee? If it's all melee, that's the first thing that needs to change).

Its a tactic. The chompas are there to counteract it, ever drop a few on a death dot? I don't see it as too much of a problem, its not like they're cheating.

 

 

 

Yeah, I usually use the Distraction special unit on them when they're that close, then I unleash all my chompas on them and maybe a kamikaze. It teaches them not to get so close together, lol. :P

 

 

 

For my strategy, I just send all units exploring at the beginning of the game so one of those death dots can't gang up on all my units at once. When things start dying down, or they start ganging up on me, I send all my dwarves (heavy units) to kill the weakest enemy units. I might have a few elves (light) roam around some more until I need them desperately. I also might use my specials on the enemies to help kill the weak ones. Sometimes, one team might be left (other than me) and they might camp their few remaining units at their base, and I'll do the same. It's kind of like a game of cat and mouse; I love to screw with their heads. If they make a move, I immediately call all remaining forces to attack the weakest unit. I don't care if I die because I always get about the same amount of creds if whether I win or lose. I also invest 10K points into every game. Runes are a very cheap and fast way to get a lot of investment points...

Has anyone tried out the other game modes? If so, do they require more strategy?

 

They're broken at the moment.

 

 

 

Managed to play two siege games yesterday.

 

 

 

Those ppl that fougth against me really didnt read the secondary objective: Eliminate your enemies and attacked the castles with and without catapults, suffering great losses. (I attacked with two heavy units and retreated once i saw how bad the idea was). Then we all began building catapults, including me. But tehy didnt stop their attacks on the castle, thus lost even more squads. Then i shot 2 shots into the walls and thought:

 

 

 

what the heck, ill just go for the secondary objective...

 

 

 

Then I rushed them with all my squads and won.

 

 

 

Second game:

 

 

 

I grouped my squads into two groups and waited will they started attacking the castle, and suffered great losses as usual.

 

 

 

Then I attacked their "free" squads and crushed them via combat triangle (and a spec spot near their base). They tried to defend with all their powers (castle attackers) to kill me, and even they three teamed on me, I still won.

 

 

 

Conclusion: Its not really worth attacking the castle, doing so will only take alot of timr and lessen your chances of survival.

Has anyone tried out the other game modes? If so, do they require more strategy?

 

They're broken at the moment.

 

 

 

Managed to play two siege games yesterday.

 

 

 

Those ppl that fougth against me really didnt read the secondary objective: Eliminate your enemies and attacked the castles with and without catapults, suffering great losses. (I attacked with two heavy units and retreated once i saw how bad the idea was). Then we all began building catapults, including me. But tehy didnt stop their attacks on the castle, thus lost even more squads. Then i shot 2 shots into the walls and thought:

 

 

 

what the heck, ill just go for the secondary objective...

 

 

 

Then I rushed them with all my squads and won.

 

 

 

Second game:

 

 

 

I grouped my squads into two groups and waited will they started attacking the castle, and suffered great losses as usual.

 

 

 

Then I attacked their "free" squads and crushed them via combat triangle (and a spec spot near their base). They tried to defend with all their powers (castle attackers) to kill me, and even they three teamed on me, I still won.

 

 

 

Conclusion: Its not really worth attacking the castle, doing so will only take alot of timr and lessen your chances of survival.

 

 

 

I won by being the first to destroy the castle... I was also the first to figure out how to make a catapult lol. I just kept ordering all 10 units to gather rocks while everyone else kept getting killed by the castle.

In run-time strategy games, there is usually some highly simplistic strategy that is the most successful, be it camping, racing to get certain resources first, or other strategies that are in no way comparable to the in-depth strategies found in turn-based strategy games games such as chess, go or stratego.

 

 

 

Well, if you camp your rewards won't be very big. You have to kill others to get reward points don't you? So they're missing out on the rewards by camping. And as said, chinchompas are good against them.

 

I think the strategy element shoiuld be inherent to the game, not to the way the rewards are calculated.

Jagex screwed up. I wonder if they had any playtesters on this game. It's obvious that camping is the best strategy to win the game - why lose your squads when you can just wait for other people to lose their squads? But, then, camping leads to inaction. If everyone camps, there's no game.

 

 

 

So, why can't they change up the format a little bit? Force the players to go out and fight. Decrease the time limit. Make it a 1v1 game, or even a 2v2 game. I haven't tried siege, that sounds like a better format. Too bad I can't play on siege.

 

 

 

 

 

In run-time strategy games, there is usually some highly simplistic strategy that is the most successful, be it camping, racing to get certain resources first, or other strategies that are in no way comparable to the in-depth strategies found in turn-based strategy games games such as chess, go or stratego.

 

 

 

Well, if you camp your rewards won't be very big. You have to kill others to get reward points don't you? So they're missing out on the rewards by camping. And as said, chinchompas are good against them.

 

I think the strategy element shoiuld be inherent to the game, not to the way the rewards are calculated.

 

 

 

In any decent RTS, simplistic strategies always have a counterstrategy. Successful strategies don't last long before someone figures out a counter. In mobilising armies, you can rush or turtle. But you can't boom. Turtle beats rush beats boom beats turtle. Take boom out of the triangle. Now you have turtle beats rush.

 

 

 

There is a metagame - how do I get higher rankings? You see this in every game. In online RTS games (especially command and conquer) you see people rushing all the time. It's not because rushing is most likely to get you a win. It's because rushing leads to faster games, which means that players can get higher rankings quicker, if they're good enough to win often enough.

Is it true this game gives defence exp? :thumbdown:

Is it true this game gives defence exp? :thumbdown:

 

 

 

no

It's true that people do camp, but you need to get a strategy down on how to combat this. That is the aim of the game. ;)

Is it true this game gives defence exp? :thumbdown:

 

 

 

no

 

 

 

Does the game even give exp?

Is it true this game gives defence exp? :thumbdown:

 

 

 

no

 

 

 

Does the game even give exp?

 

No, but the locators could increase xp/hr of skilling. Although they help more so with gp/hr from what I can tell (rune ore, herblore secondaries, etc.).

 

In any decent RTS, simplistic strategies always have a counterstrategy. Successful strategies don't last long before someone figures out a counter. In mobilising armies, you can rush or turtle. But you can't boom. Turtle beats rush beats boom beats turtle. Take boom out of the triangle. Now you have turtle beats rush.

 

 

 

There is a metagame - how do I get higher rankings? You see this in every game. In online RTS games (especially command and conquer) you see people rushing all the time. It's not because rushing is most likely to get you a win. It's because rushing leads to faster games, which means that players can get higher rankings quicker, if they're good enough to win often enough.

 

 

 

Rushing usually is played because it usually does make you win if you pull it off successfully. People don't rush in competitive starcraft because they lose or can win quickly, they rush because it gives their strategy a better chance. Any other RTS game is meh, SC is the best imo for competitive play. In fact there is only one end goal in competitive Starcraft, and that IS winning. They don't care about rank especially when prizes start coming into the equation.

 

 

 

Anyway I hate how each race is inherently better then another race when fighting. Reminds me of rock paper scissors. They should have made each race the same statistically but gave them some sort of ability. Also as it stands conflict is just 4 people all for themselves with just fighting. I bet Hoard would be a much better gameplay mode since that looks like it would require some micro management and may actually bring a use to light squads (as it stands, light squads are fast at moving but have lower combat stats. And exploring really isn't stellar so there really is no point to having them in conflict).

 

 

 

I have no problem with not being able to mass select squads since there is not a lot of squads in the first place. Anyway I do not play RTS that often so I bet someone can come up with better arguments, not only that but this discussion has been already done a bunch load of times by competitive gamers who seemingly always have better game design ideas as far as game balancing goes.

it's runescape. the intelligent strategists are greatly outnumbered by the huge pile of noobs wanting shiny rewards

 

 

 

False, with good strategie you can stil obliterate them.

 

i average about 20 kills per game and 1-4 killed, sometimes better sometimes worse of course.

 

Just use your specials and squads in the right way and timing and you will defeat a team of 10 with 5 squads without losing a single unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And sometimes you just dont make it >.<

Something here smells like the thread: "Have you tried the new skill, Pouch crafting?"