First, some background.
I do some work as a game reviewer and editor, but these comments are intended for the devs and the community here.
1. Performance issues. Obviously, this is still beta software and the game is still pretty rough. Performance, even on an awesome gaming rig sporting 64GB RAM is quite bad. No surprise there.
2. Weak unit design. For those that are old enough to remember, one of the main criticisms of Total Annihilation and, to some extent, its spiritual successor, Supreme Commander, was that the units generally lacked character. While the the unit abilities were well known to grognards and that was enough for them, for the average player it was far too easy to get them all confused. In short, the units all looked the same - like generic, boring robots with slight variations in theme. Bottom line: units with very different abilities should look and feel different, and right now AOTS suffers in that regard.
3. Outdated game fundamentals. In the early days of RTS games, the technology simply wasn't there to do many of the things that are possible today, so some fairly onerous compromises had to be made. Rather than open-world, sandbox-type battles like those offered in a game like, say, Supreme Commander, those older titles relied on simplistic strategy fundamentals such as control points.
So I was quite surprised to see this outmoded design rear its ugly head in what is being billed as the next generation of big, bad, "uber RTS." There's a reason you rarely see those control points used nowadays: they suck. Sorry, but they do. Instead of big battlefields where you can really get some strategy going as well as basic tactics (like a modern, open-world RTS should), the control point design sabotages the whole thing and has the unfortunate effect of turning every match into an interminable grind. In its current form, AOTS suffers badly in this regard. So badly, in fact, that like the original version of Sins of a Solar Empire, it feels like a glorified game of whack-a-mole meets capture the flag.Yikes!
Fortunately, there is still time to overhaul that aspect of the game and go with something that feels dynamic, open, and fluid. And fighting for control points feels anything but dynamic, open, and fluid!
4. Interface needs a lot of polish. This is a beta and I'm sure the devs still have much to do, but it's still worth mentioning. Yet at the risk of sounding redundant, in an RTS game the human player is at a tremendous natural disadvantage because the player has to labor to tediously move around the map, hindered by only being able to give one order at at time. Unlike the computer that "sees" everywhere at once and can simultaneously control all its units, we only have one mouse, one monitor, etc. And so it's critical that the human player have access to the most advanced, streamlined, and powerful interface that game can offer. That means lots of options (window in window, tactical icons when zoomed out, etc.) to help the player compensate for his/her natural disadvantages. In its current state, the AOTS interface is too limited for a big, pure, combat-oriented RTS.
5. Weak AI. Again, it's a beta. But right now the AI is difficult to beat, not because it's particularly clever (it's not), but because it's relentless and can successfully overwhelm the player. Again, this goes back to the inherent problems with the whole whack-a-mole control point design. Get rid of that and then we can see what the AI is really capable of.
6. Airpower is useless. In its current form, the airpower available in AOTS serves no real purpose. The AI doesn't even make use of its own airpower capabilities, so there's barely any reason to even waste resources on it. Plus it's fairly ineffective anyway, so it just feels like an afterthought. That said, given the game's current whack-a-mole design deficiencies, an aggressive AI with capable airpower would likely be unbeatable unless the devs crippled it behind the scenes. It would just attack everywhere at once and the player would be easily overwhelmed and frustrated.
7. Only one faction. I understand there is at least one more planned. How different will it be? Fundamentally different, or just more of the same with a couple unique units thrown in? If that's what it's going to be, gamers have seen all that before and may quickly tire of robots vs. robots vs. some other robots with different colors...
8. Overall design lacks character. Yes, it's a beta. And yet there's probably enough here to see where the game is headed. And right now it's not all good news. Take a look at the truly classic RTS games and you'll note each of them had something that set it apart and made it unique. Starcraft had very different factions and a top-notch backstory. Homeworld was the first game to really offer big, tactical space battles in an RTS format. Supreme Commander offered gigantic 81x81km maps with massive unit selection, uber units, and a cutting edge (for its time) interface.
What, exactly, is it that AOTS is going to offer in order to set it apart from competitors such as Planetary Annihilation: Titans or Total War: Warhammer? It doesn't look as if it's a game that going to be driven by its backstory like Starcraft, and the battles seem fairly limited and small compared to Supreme Commander.
9. No "special" units. Yes, there are some tech 2 units, but there's nothing equivalent to the massive starships in the latest version of Sins of a Solar Empire or SupCom's soul-crushing experimentals. Too, there's no type of up-gradable commander unit. This was something that helped even the odds against the AI in SupCom as it allowed the human player to micromanage one unit that could have a big effect on gameplay, rather than just relying on the tedious design of older RTS games which required spawning hordes of lesser units everywhere at once.
Conclusion
If all of this sounds harsh, that because it's meant to. None of us needs to come here and recount all the things that work, as that stuff is generally obvious to the devs. What IS of value to the devs is hard, cold, thoughtful feedback. In short, what isn't working and how it can be improved. I love big, combat-oriented RTS games, and I thought from watching the dev videos that AOTS might be a worthy successor to seize the crown Supreme Commander inherited from Total Annihilation. But while there does seem to be some real potential here, I question a few of the basic design choices that were made early on. IMHO, ATOS doesn't just need more polish and some performance tweaks, the devs need to take a hard look at the game's core fundamentals because some significant changes may be warranted to get this to be the game they want it to be.
The RTS genre doesn't need a prettier version of whack-a-mole, it needs a bigger, BETTER version of games like Homeworld or Supreme Commander. AOTS is pretty far from that right now.
I made a lot of comparisons to other RTS games here, and that was intentional. Furthermore, I hope these comments and opinions are of some help to the devs and will be taken in the vein in which they are intended.
Agreed on every point, except for victory points (turinium is the resource name in the game I think). This is a design choice lifted from more recent Relic RTS games and it does serve a purpose and offers strategic choice. They are essentially another resource to fight over. They help prevent long drawn out stalemates and boring turtle-fests and get people fighting over map territory outside of their base area. The strategy comes from balancing how much to invest in capturing and defending them vs. capturing other resources that pay more immediate dividends. Do you capture them early on and hope that being behind then on other resources doesn't come back to bite you in the ass? Do you ignore them and hope that you can tech further and make a big push with advanced forces to gain them back in the end game? Plus, the option will be in the game to just turn them off if it isn't your thing. They're generally more important and interesting in PvP competitive play. They're also not that dissimilar to the concept of building Wonders in strategy games as a victory condition, except that you can't turtle up in your base with them - you can choose whether to invest in building static defenses around them though or to have a more mobile army.
I actually believe the capture points on the map remove strategy - it forces players to fight certain ways and in certain directions. It's basically a moba - constantly spawning units down a certain path to get to the other side. Supreme Commander had far more strategy in it, you could attack and build in any direction you want. Your buildings even slowly start to die if you build them away from the control points even a little - it's stupid. The creators are attempting to force players to play a certain way, instead of giving them a more sand box mode.
You have obviously spent some time writing this feedback but to be honest it comes across as someone who really really wants Supreme Commander 3 and the Devs have said it is not that.
Addressing your points.
1. Performance issues. Agreed, they can dip quite low (dx11, 970 user here) on major battles. As pointed out, not unexpected at this stage.
2. Weak unit design. "For those that are old enough to remember, one of the main criticisms of Total Annihilation...was that the units generally lacked character...the units all looked the same - like generic, boring robots with slight variations in theme." What?! At this point I don't think you have played that game. The units are easily told apart and oozed character, I really can't compute what you have written. As to your criticism of Ashes I am somewhat in agreement as I do think they look too similar to each other. The more I play the more I am noting the differences so in the long run it won't be the end of the world but it is not ideal. I am not expecting it to change at this point.
3. Outdated game fundamentals. I believe the Devs have said they will be adding a non-control point game type. I would play both as control point play can add an edge of urgency to proceedings which can be fun. It is certainly a subjective thing though so you cannot call control point game play outmoded - Company of Heroes games have sold a lot better than SupCom.
4. Interface needs a lot of polish. In agreement here, it needs a lot of polish.
5. Weak AI. I disagree, the AI provides a great challenge which is what it is there for, even with many months of development left. Yeah, it is not using air yet but of course it will by release.
6. Airpower is useless. It does need work, agreed. "an aggressive AI with capable airpower would likely be unbeatable unless the devs crippled it behind the scenes. It would just attack everywhere at once and the player would be easily overwhelmed and frustrated." That doesn't make any sense. The AI is not suddenly going to be all powerful simply because it is an AI. The human needs to observe and counter the AI just like a human.
7. Only one faction. You are quite the pessimist
8. Overall design lacks character. This is a more interesting one, the USP of the game. Big epic games on SupCom 1 brings a computer to it's knees, with the sim speed crashing - lots of first hand experience of this and it really takes the fun out of it. With this new tech that should not be the case (hopefully) and that is a huge thing. Though perhaps not a "sexy" thing to sell. Nice graphics are always good. I am looking forward to the veteran mechanics etc. hmmm, it will be interesting to see what the defining feature of this game will be, I am not sure.
9. No "special" units. Actually there are 3 tiers of unit, not 2. Also the Dreadnoughts will be getting upgrade mechanics. Your Supcom 3 desire is shining through again
"If all of this sounds harsh, that because it's meant to. None of us needs to come here and recount all the things that work, as that stuff is generally obvious to the devs. What IS of value to the devs is hard, cold, thoughtful feedback." To be honest your post reads like you have not done your research or played the game much, two things which would add a lot of value to feedback. What the devs need is considered, thoughtful and well reasoned feedback. It can even be really passionately against the Devs if it has all of those .
(EDIT: Not meant to imply that your feedback was not considered/thoughtful! I agreed on a fair few of them. I guess I replied as I really felt you wanted them to make SupCom 3 so that bias was effecting many of your points. Cheers)
I have too much time on my hands, this might be the longest forum post I have ever written. I think I am going to really enjoy the game. My biggest concern is if the game is not a big success will the developers keep patching and adding content for several years to come, their current plan I believe. If they really do that then I think it really can be polished and enriched to meet most peoples wishes. I also want genuinely good mod support so people can make their SupComs 3, I'll play both
On the control point issue, yes I'm well aware Relic made a design choice to start incorporating those into their later designs. To their eternal detriment, in my opinion. But as pointed out above, it's a subjective design decision. I personally detest control points as I have never seen a big RTS yet where the inclusion of these didn't turn the game into whack-a-mole. Some people seem to like them, but I submit they dumb a game down and generally tend to appeal to the more casual RTS player. They force the player to fight a certain way and dramatically limit the strategic options available. You cannot force your opponent to fight where and how you want, on ground of your own choosing. And that's the heart of all military strategy.
It's probably obvious by now my comments come from the perspective of the more hardcore, grognard-type gamer. I make no apologies for that. Hardcore RTS gamers don't get much love these days, so any chance I have to potentially influence the devs and make the game bigger, bolder, and more tactically dynamic, I'm going to represent that point of view.
But yes, you're probably right that's not the vision the devs are shooting for as there's always more money in catering to more casual gamers with fare like Dawn of War II. But what can you do.
Someone above said what people like me really seem to want is SupCom 3. Probably a fair point. And yet I make no apologies for representing that segment of the RTS community. AOTS is close enough in overall concept that it will surely attract the attention of SupCom fans, so comparisons to that game are inevitable.
Regardless of whether you feel the criticism of Total Annihilation's units as being boring and generic (I loved that game, but it WAS a common criticism) was warranted, those in AOTS really are way too similar. And if I feel that way as a hardcore gamer, it's a safe bet many casual players are going to say they all seem to be REALLY similar. Admitedly, it can be a serious challenge to differentiate units in a game with a robot theme and make them unique and interesting. But they will just have to keep polishing and tweaking to get this part right, because even compared to the robotic designs in Planetary Annihilation, those in AOTS seem like repetitions of the same unit in different sizes.
in this game and the scale they are going for..all thou at this point it doesn't seem grand scale yet but i think it will be more massive...so you cant avoid fighting..it will happen lol unless you want a game with point a and point b..and both points just turtles with defend for hours until ready to attack? how boring... how you engage those points will make a difference..exploiting weaknesses ..and the whole game of guacamole.. even in real life wars..one country captures a city..other countries try to push back lol ..and regarding the ai . not to sound like a complete asshole but i welcome smart ai..i enjoy getting pwned by the ai to be honest..just so much fun...i can see the issue with it being smart doing multiple things at once..you should really just stick with turn based..you get all the time in the world to think and form strategies.
I agree with some of the points, and especially point no.8 about the design lacking character. Most of the classic RTS games not only had great gameplay, but they also had a certain character and personality to them. AOK had the medieval setting, Starcraft had a huge backstory and unique artwork for each unit, C&C had the cold war setting with interesting personalities, Homeworld's units, music and backgrounds really captured that feeling of space combat and Dawn of War had the WH40k universe. Supcom did not have that strong a personality but its scale and unit variety made up for it.
So far at least, AOTS does not have much of a personality. Maybe the campaign will change that with an interesting backstory. Maybe the 2nd faction will be unique and very different from the 'generic future floating tank army' that the PHC currently is. Maybe the unit artwork will be adjusted so that units do not look so similar. I don't want to jump to final conclusions before the game is finished, but this is definitely a point that I hope the devs are spending a lot of time on.
I played only one single game do far against easy AI (and lost), so perhaps my opinion may change, but at this point i would have to agree with most of what the OP wrote. Especially the part about weak unit design, the air power and like Palladin123 above about the overall lack of character. Clearly the game is unfinished and god knows what else is missing other than the second faction, but seems like the main selling point of this game is its state of the art technical back-end, rather than something related to gameplay...
Some general thoughts, since that seems to be where this thread is focused (my background is TA, SupCom:FA, SoaSE, Kohan:AG, Kohan II, and the forgettable SupCom II):
What's noteworthy is that some of what you said is in. Perhaps it's not obvious to those just starting out:
To make a battle group hit 'V'. There is also a button to form battle groups in the UI.
Shift click works for units, but not for pathing from factories. I assume eventually it will apply to both
Battle Group "V" key works quite nicely, now that I know it exists I can't comment to the formation's structure; I'll take a closer look in a sandbox style game. I still think an ability to place battle groups in relative positions would work very nicely, but that's going to ultimately depend upon the flow and field of battle. In Kohan formations of various companies was extremely powerful, but it might not be appropriate on this scale. Answering those kind of questions are the purpose of the alpha
Now that I'm using the battle groups with "V", the SoaSE influences are much more obvious, though I should have seen it earlier. I still think the unit symbols need to be more distinct.
I would like pathing from factories, if the devs can do it.
I'd like to know how you plan to make a sandbox style game. I have some tests of my own and no idea how to make those tests happen.
The idea of different groups coordinating their relative formations is intriguing. I need to take another look at Kohan in this regard.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
