We don’t have a single screenshot or footage,yet.But i want to start some discussion on the possibilities this game has.This is purely speculation.
We know that it’s a 10v10 game.Each player controls 3 units.(I’ve read from an article its 500 man per unit,so lets go from there.) 1500 man per person. 30000 man in a battlefield.Sounds pretty cool.
We know there will battlefield roles so,I am assuming there will be different unit types like vanguards,light infantry etc.I wonder if there will be medics ( far off tho).
There is a “Massive Progression Wrapper”,Upgrades basically. I can think of 2 ways CA can spin this of.
•Having upgrades like in sc2.Upgrading your units through resources gathered from the battlefield,whether it would be from kills or other sort of income. This to me is very intriguing.
•Upgrading units after a match,like in Tom Clancy’s EndWar (the only game i can think of which has this type of mechanic).Upgrading them with points from matches or you can buy points(oh god i hope not!)
From the GDC presentation there making maps “Tightly designed”. Maps is the keyword.Very torn on what to think of this.
Having one balanced map like in dota sounds logical for a team game. Interested on how CA will do this.
Can’t think of anything else to add right now. Share some of your ideas.
im pretty excited. Its nothing like dota or lol but yet a multiplayer online battle arena by definition. I think its good for the genre to have some diversity.
Basically it is the Total War multiplayer but instead of 1 guy controlling 20 units you have 10 guys controlling 3 units each in a team. You dont have lanes or towers or magic spells, you have a natural terrain and you would have to fight in formation. with 10 players... thats pretty crazy. The total war battles are really immersive so i like that you probably have to shout at your team mates, hold formation! dont storm forward alone :D its gonna be messy :D
Ofc u need much more micro management in the game than in the usual total war games if you only control 3 units. Its pretty weird because you really dont have non stop action. Its very positional in the beginning because you just march and the fighting can be over really fast if you get surrounded because your units will route soo fast.
So i dunno i think its really hard to coordinate with so many players and to have a good balance if you dont resort to fantasy game mechanics. Controls are pretty bad in total war games on top of that. It feels very clumsy. Its really hard to make a good game out of it but it has a lot of potential. especially because there is nothing really comparable to it.
and free2play doesnt have to be bad per se. Ofc if its pay2win its stupid but i think you can find a good balance.
but in total war, once you engage, you are deadlocked with the enemy until someone gets flanked and flees. They need to be careful or this will be not very fun at all.
I mean as a multiplayer game mode in a traditional Total War game this sounds like a small bit of fun for a few hours. But having this as its whole own game seems kinda empty.....i dont see how anyone would play this longer than 2-3 hours. There is ofc not much info released so its not the time to yell "this sucks!!" yet and its f2p too. I guess we will have to wait and see ...... but im not too excited.
3 units does not sound like you'll have a lot to do unless they radically alter how combat works. Being the line infantry player would literally be: click in the general direction of the enemy, go get coffee, check if dudes all died.
It might be okay if they can resist making it grindy and then selling upgrades, but I'm not holding my breath.
Also if the actual mobas are any guide, teams will be super toxic.
you have to use your unit and commander abilities if you want to get anywhere. I also saw a lot of tactics about forests being good hideing spots plus giveing bonus to light infantry over heavy infantry but calv beating heavy infantry except for spear infantry.