So for most players it's an action game where you get orders from above, but for one player it's an RTS where the units don't do what you tell them too?
Just saw a gone-gold press release for this game on bluesnews:
After reading up I bit, I think to myself: "gee, this sounds sorta like Allegiance + Warcraft". Then right there in the blue's comments thread I see one of the coders mentioning allegiance.
The basic idea sounds quite a bit like Allegiance to me: 1 player on each side has a commander role, and views the action from a isometric RTS type view, making strategic decisions and giving order. The rest of the players play the game from a FPS perspective.
Anyone hear anything about this game?
So for most players it's an action game where you get orders from above, but for one player it's an RTS where the units don't do what you tell them too?
I understand what you're saying, but did you play allegiance? It worked brilliantly there.Originally Posted by Moore
The boring jobs were handled by AI (the miners, in particular), and the same seems to be true here. So the orders you're getting are generally just plans of attack and defense, and help the team play of the game. In the case of Allegiance at least, this made even regular old pick-up games far more tactically complex and team-like then you get in, say, BF1942.
Obviously, as with any team-based multiplayer game, people can screw it up if they want to. Youre bound to get people bitching about the leadership, or not following orders or whatever, but the only way to prevent those people 100% of the time is to keep your game as pure deathmatch.
But does it have bots?Originally Posted by malphigian
Played it. In the beta. Haven't played in a few months because it gets old quickly.
I could get into detail, but I can't because of the NDA.
Is the NDA up yet?
Otherwise I would give my two cents in.
IMHO, Allegiance got it right.
I just got a beta invite for this today, so I'm guessing this is more of a short term demo than a true beta phase for bug fixing purposes. This looked kinda neat to me, so I'm downloading it now.
Agreed. Allegiance was absolutely the most fun MMO I ever played. Way ahead of its time.Originally Posted by malphigian
The player had limited information and you co-operated not just for the sake of your team, but just to see some sort of action. It worked great, maybe because the community was small and dedicated, or maybe because of design - it's hard to say.
Allegiance is still my pick for best game of all time, but I'm really liking the Savage beta so far. The problem is that, like planetside, I have serious doubts about the long-term playability. At least the lack of a monthly charge makes it a bit easier to deal with that.
Errr...BloodKnight, the NDA was lifted about a month ago.
As far as I am concerned, the game is just excellent, and I can't wait for the strategies and team play to develop. S2Games are a great independent start-up company, who should go onto great things if this game is any standard by which to mark them. The main problem I see is that in being a multiplayer only game, it needs a lot of players involved for it to succeed, and without the backing of giants like Microsoft or EA, it may struggle to get that. From what I've seen, though, the word of mouth system on the internet seems to be spreading the news of the game pretty fast, and should accelerate once the demo is released.
As far as gameplay is concerned, it is probably most like Natural Selection. It does have many advantages over NS, however, like it's own brand-new proprietary game engine, and a RTS system that is a lot more in-depth.
I agree, it is like NS (since they are pretty much the same genre). I expect a lot of people will rave about it in the same way. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the RTS-FPS, mostly because I believe in a preponderance of stupidity in online games, and I prefer not to play in games where a single player's stupidity/inexperience is given a big chance to lose the game for 20 players on one side. Voting is no panacea, and I'm not personally into clans and such.
Over about the 3 months I participated in beta, I found Savage to be a middle-to-fair game that has clunky melee combat, an exciting learning curve that lets you do a number of things, a few interesting features like scoreboard rankings, a pretty engine with somewhat empty maps, and a lot of repetitive gameplay. I think the reaction to the game will be somewhat similar to Planetside - a lot of positive (even glowing) praise, a lot of temporarily addicted gamers, and a lot of Savage cds growing dusty on shelves after about 2 months. Just IMO.
Overall I think it's pretty fun, but I have a few big issues with it. Melee combat is extremely luck-based. there are some serious issues with the network code that keep skill from being a real factor in it. I have been stationary, right next to a stationary opponent who was hacking away at a building. I launch 5-6 melee attacks at him at this range where i could not possibly miss, and do no damage. the guy turns and whacks me in two hits. stuff like that really pisses me off. Rune handled melee combat much much better.
I think catapults need to be toned down. As it stands right now they often one hit buildings.
I also have issues with random freezeups, for no reason that I can figure out except that I've been playing the game for a couple hours. This really sucks as commander because someone can really screw up your team before you get back.
I will say though that all of these complaints are things that generally get worked out in a beta, so I have faith. My biggest concern is the longevity of the game. Like Planetside, I can't see myself playing the same game for a year, but it is fun for right now. Overall I like commanding much better than playing a grunt. I think my commanding record is something like 7-3 so far, and the 3 losses were my first 3 command games.
I hope that there is an offline command tutorial that is decent. It's unfortunate that for one person to have a learning experience, 20+ others have to suffer through a crappy game. If they fix the melee combat issues, I'll probably buy it.
Personally I don't think melee combat is based much on luck at all. I must admit I used to think that when I sucked, but as I got used to it, I realised that it was all about timing. It is ping dependent, though, and having greater than 150 ping hurts, but it is still playable even then. The fact is that I love close combat in action games, and eschew the ranged weapons to play as melee enhanced beasts. With purely melee fighting I have always tended to get kill ratios that reflect my ability (getting reasonably good now), which leads me to suspect that it is skill and not luck that is the biggest factor in winning melee fights.
well, thank you for saying that I suck in so many words, but I still thing there are serious issues with the system. On my screen I am right up against someone, unable to move forward because the enemy is blocking me. I swing my sword/axe/claws or whatever and I'm not even guaranteed a hit because the system is so screwy. I really WANT to dig the melee system, but if I have to do something stupid like learn how to "lag shoot" a la mechwarrior 2, I won't deal with it. I get frustrated when I visually see my character hitting the enemy, but I don't get the audio feedback of the hit and my enemy doesn't fall.
As far as ranged weapons go, what are everyone's favorites? I really dig the magnetic line most. Scattergun is decent for close encounters, repeater is awesome if you can get it as early as possible. Coil rifle is just overall great, especially with an ammo pack. when I command, I almost always go magnetic until I have legionaires, then pick up chem to upgrade to mortar towers, and only get electric if I have the extra stone.
I think it's a little bit of both luck and skill; there are definite tricks that people use in melee like using a medkit in the middle, shift-running at diagonals to try to get an opponent's back, or blocking when the lag is ok and not bothering when it's bad. But I agree that Rune's melee (and even saber combat in JK2) seemed a lot less floaty than what Savage is offering.
I don't care for many of the distance weapon upgrades until you get to Flux or the launcher or so. I usually just stick with the crossbow which can be surprisingly effective, and using mortars and mines where appropriate.
No need to be so sensitive, Lokust, I gave only my reason for why I thought melee combat sucked initially, I didn't suggest that your reasons were the same. I'm sure you are a very good player :D.
Most of the real problems I have experienced with melee fighting seem to be the result of lag. I still get frustrated slashing at players who are right in my face, only to not get a hit, because in actuality they are 100ms further away from me. This can make playing at pings of over 150ms annoying, but not unplayable. Still, as I said before, timing is the key, and if you get the first hit in at the right time, you can kill your opponent pretty quickly. I find the beasts are the best for melee, as they are meant to be, and a well timed leap from a beast, will land you face to face with your opponent and allow you to wipe him out with a flurry of claws. I've gone 20+ kills in a row, without dying myself, several times with beasts, using only melee and low order classes, and it would be difficult to argue that you can do that mostly through luck.
My favourite ranged weapon is probably the Flux or the Repeater, because they carry so much ammo and don't cost too much, which is great when you have to return to the base for recharging. If I am defending a base, however, I like the Balista. Wedging one of these babies behind a garrison and tower defence, means you have devastating long-range one-hit kill power on incoming grunts, while safely ensconced behind friendly defences. You can also reload without ever having to move. The marksmen's bow, or n00bsman's bow as I refer to it, is also good for getting your kill count up, but little use for anything else. The beast's ranged weapons aren't all that hot, and as I said, I prefer their melee.
My personal favourite combination, though, has to be a Predator, with Carnivore to regain health while I tear the flesh off my enemies, and Shroud to sneak me into the base. If anyone has seen Forbidden Planet, the Shrouded Predators look just like the Monsters from the ID, as they range around the Human base plucking unsuspecting victims from the ground and throwing them down dead. It's a disturbing sight.
Please, you mistake sarcasm for sensitivity! I really like that same predator carnivorous combo myself. It keeps you going for a long time,a nd if you get low on health you can wander over to some npc's for a quick 'feeding' I'm getting pretty good at dodging with lateral hops and closing the distance quickly with three quick forward hops. I get most kills in most of the games I play. The problem is I often get the most deaths as well :shock:
This game looks pretty awesome. Comes out tomorrow, I think, I'm excited to get my hands on it. Frys better have it in stock.
I will probably get around to picking this up, but not right now... AO shadowlands is going to go live shortly and I can't wait to check that out.
Anybody have any first Impressions?
Does it have bots? (i.e. can a team fo players go against the computer?)
Played it for a couple nights, so I'm hardly an expert, but here are my impressions so far:Originally Posted by Ron Talbot
The game lacks a lot of polish (e.g. you do everything by attacking), and it seems mildly buggy, but it's holding my attention pretty well.
The first 3-4 hours I played combat felt totally arbitrary (and I sorted hated the game), but the more I've gotten used to it, the cooler the melee combat seems to me. Each side has specialities and "moves" that help in melee combat (humans can block, beast have this nasty leap attack), but mostly the combat is just about timing.
I haven't ventured to play the commander role yet, too much pressure :D.
It's got a lot of layers, and I don't think I've uncovered them all yet, but if you pressed me I'd say it's not a must-buy, but worth picking it up if you like this particular genre-meld.
Oh, no bots, btw. You gotta learn by doing.
Yeah, if you come to this game without expectations, you should be very pleasantly surprised. If you come with a checklist of what should be included in a game like you *think* it is, you will likely end up overlooking all the aspects of the game that make it fun. For an independent release it has been surprisingly successful, with 500 concurrent users recorded the other night, just two days after its release. For an independent developer, with an unheard of publisher, that's pretty good going, especially when you consider that due to distribution difficulties, only two stores in the US had the game on the shelves two days after release. The "word from the street" seems to be that this game rocks, even if it is a little scruffy around the edges. That's probably why the player reviews are outscoring the game site reviews on every site right now. I think it might be an idea to make sure whoever reviews this game loves their multiplayer action, because the single player aficionados, with their bots and scenarios, just aren't going to get it.
Played for a few hours this afternoon, and I'm definitely enjoying it. So far it plays like an interesting combination of BF1942 and the MP mode from C&C Renegade. It definitely adds a lot to have the whole resource / experience / tech economy. Like BF1942 the worst problems in gameplay tend to be when sides are lopsided, unfortunately.
My biggest concern so far is that there's not a ton of depth, but we'll see if that proves to be true or not.
Anyone here got a favorite server? I'd be interested in trying out more of the teamwork oriented aspects of this. Hm, same for the new 1942 expansion, for that matter...
Played this tonight and enjoyed it. One match was superb, with everyone voting to extend it. It went back and forth for over an hour and eventually both sides had full tech available. Another match wasn't so good though because our commander was lame.
It was also kind of funny doing some mining and playing exactly like I was a Warcraft peon.
Savage is unique for how heavily the gameplay experience depends on the respective commanders. Which is, ironically, both a strength and a weakness.One match was superb, with everyone voting to extend it. It went back and forth for over an hour and eventually both sides had full tech available. Another match wasn't so good though because our commander was lame.
I don't know if I would call it unique, but certainly rare. Allegiance was very similar in this regard quite a while ago, and Natural Selection is also like this when playing as a marine.
I haven't gotten around to picking Savage up yet, mostly due to too many games out that I want and too little disposable income to snag them, but I definitely look forward to getting my hands on it.
The long-term viability of the game is in question, too. Last night there were three or four servers with nicely populated games, but that was it. The community of players needs to grow for the game to survive.
About the commander, yeah, you need good ones for the game to really be fun. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that it's all that difficult to learn. It's just that it's rough learning on the fly during a live game.
Regarding the low server populations, it seems to me that a multiplayer game needs a demo now to really reach out to people. I don't think BF1942 would have ever gotten off the ground as well as it did without the Wake demo (which of course was fantastic). Any word of a savage demo?