Dawn of war 2: Why I hate windows live

[Xaryn Mar]

Lag is most often (in DoW II) caused by too high graphics settings and to a lesser degree sound. That is at least what I have found.

 

[sanzo]

Ok, I see some people throwing around wierd rumors they heard about the game. I'll attempt to clarify, since I've actually played it.

1. No, there's no base building worth mentioning. But no, you won't miss it much. You main base is essentially all the stuff you built in DoW1 rolled into one single structure. In all fairness, base building was just something to occupy you while you wait for stuff to happen, a filler mechanic. Build orders are still important, only it's unit build orders you're concerned with now, not urban planning. Also, this means that all your units come from the same building and you don't need to poke around your base to get all your production queued...

2. Unit upgrades aren't global, you buy them for every unit individually. Again, this works great. The only problem is learning all your commander upgrades, since each gets about 10 of them, can have 3 of them active and can switch them around. Kinda like the Necron Lord from DoW1.

3. There is no lack of stuff to do in the game. At best, you can buy yourself a few seconds of peace every now and then, but every time the shooting stops, there is likely something else you should be doing, like queuing more units, repositioning your forces, upgrading your power generators, decapping and capping points, harrassing or just going to find more stuff to kill.

4. Unit placement and micro wins the battle. Attack + move loses battles. DoW1 was a macro oriented game. DoW2 is the opposite. If you can outmaneuver your opponent, you can take out a force several times your size. I managed to turn a nearly complete defeats into victories by careful unit placement and proper use of special abilities.

DoW2 is an RTS game. It's not the first game to take the focus off base building, and if you define an RTS by base building, I am forced to disagree with your definition of the genre. Especially since such a definition means that Homeworld series, World in Conflict, Myth series, Kohan series and Ground Control series are not RTS games. Are you saying that those games are not RTS games?

Geez, some people and their security blankets...

P.S. When I say "take the focus off base building" I mean exactly that. Some of the games I mentioned do away with bases altogether, others just streamline the entire thing (DoW2 is in this category).

Someone had to say it, and by the gods sir you have said it well. Hats off to you

 

[theultimateend]

It's like when people talk about Super Mario Bros and Super Mario Bros 2.

You mean Super Mario Bros and Doki Doki Panic, right?

Dawn of War II is a nice game for what it is, but its not an RTS, I don't know what it should be called. But if you are going to strip out everything but units from it its probably not an RTS game anymore (at least in the conventional sense).

I find it interesting that you define "RTS" by it's simcity elements, not by any of the key elements of the thing it is actually trying to represent (combat).

Maybe it's your definition of RTS that needs work.

I define it (and I said in the conventional sense good job ignoring that) as a combination of base building, defense, offense, and unit construction (and a few other things I don't have going on in my head).

Without extra dynamics it just seems to be very bland and basic to me. There really is no fear of your base being overrun (maybe that'll change when they do some patches) and most battles I was in became pretty drawn out and bland (much moreso than I ever experienced in the first game). Most of the time if they tried to go for my base I'd just ignore them and take over a few of their nodes them do a retreat to quickly get back and kill whatever was left (and I do mean whatever was left since usually not much was).

Also. I'm looking at my copy of Super Mario 2 and it indeed says Super Mario 2. I realize it was a different game they just pasted mario characters onto it. But it still stands as a point, when you change everything but the characters and the barest barest barest similarities (things die in both games) you should really change the name.

Geez, some people and their security blankets...

P.S. When I say "take the focus off base building" I mean exactly that. Some of the games I mentioned do away with bases altogether, others just streamline the entire thing (DoW2 is in this category).

While I adore the likening anyone who doesn't like the changes with thumb sucking children. It does create an odd situation where the pot is calling the kettle black. ANYWHO.

I just don't feel it should have been called Dawn of War II. Because whenever you hear X title name followed by Y number you expect there to be very many similarities with some nice updates.

Basically most of the people I know and myself included are left out in the rain now (I know whaaa whaa I get it) and have to wait for an actual sequel to Dawn of War.

I'm just hoping Starcraft II isn't as streamlined. "We felt that base building was too complicated...plus resources were a little too complicated...plus frankly 3 races was too complicated...in fact I feel the game would be much faster if we just place you and an opponent in a tiny room within attack range of each other. So that's what we did."

Just enjoyed the days where you had to think. I can't recall one match I've had yet where I thought more deeply than "Man I wish I had a subway sandwich" or something like that.

But to each their own. I voiced my opinion and at no point told others they couldn't voice theirs, so I think at the very least people could stop doing the whole "If you don't like it you are a 4 year old" thing.

PS. I won't argue that homeworld (and even Homeworld 2) were amazing games. However I felt even those were a different genre. There was something about the three dimensional dynamic that brought you into an entirely different dynamic.

Likewise Homeworld 2 wasn't a sequal in name and environment alone, they had many many many of the same basic features as Homeworld 1. Which is why I didn't write a post about them, or command and conquer, or red alert, or heck even Warcraft (albeit they did remove most ships for rather childish reasons from 3 it was still basically the same idea with some small new changes).

 

[Abedeus]

Base building wasn't complicated.

1. Build zomg a lot of power sources around you.
2. Build buildings for good units.
3. Capture some nearby points for a good start.
4. Bunker yourself so hard enemy can't possibly penetrate your defense.
5. After they get bored, zerg them to death.

Also, I don't find "building" the base fun. It's a relic of old days, like the life system or bosses with 10k health.

And it's just boring. Maybe you like watching resources fill in, then click few times in the base window how the progress bar moves, then you can finally get to the Game part of the game. Maybe, because then you don't have resources for units.

Are we having fun yet?

Right now, DoW is everything an RTS game should be - fast paced strategy game, where you win with your tactic and quick decisions, not by numbers and hoarding your precious zerg.

The only thing I don't like in Beta is constant crashes after 3-4 games. It really makes me mad and I lose the will to play.

Lag is most often (in DoW II) caused by too high graphics settings and to a lesser degree sound. That is at least what I have found.

No, it's caused by idiots with 400+ ping that ruin it for the rest of us. Especially for their team, since when they get kicked, they are replaced by dumbshit stupid AI that likes to rush alone using only the commander and ignoring everything on it's way.

 

[Syphonz]

DoW II gets away from what the original DoW and most other RTS' have. RUSHING! And that is a great thing. Also, the fact that the tide of battle can turn at any moment is a awesome. It annoyed the hell out of me that if I couldn't gain map control through the fight was practically over.

 

[PersianLlama]

Hold on a sec... Dow2 is going "Games for Windows Live"?

1 - Does that mean it's going to require Vista?
2 - Does that mean I have to have a Live account?
3 - If yes to #2, does such an account cost money?
4 - If yest to any above, are they trying to drive away potential buyers, or were they just beaned in the head with the eTard stick?

1. No, just another user name and password to go on the pile.
2. Yes, even if for offline play.
3. No, there is no subscription fee for a PC LIVE account (that I'm aware of.)
4. Microsoft wants to be your all-in-one, your one-stop-shop, your wallet's best buddy. This mandatory bundling is the "Hard Sell."

"I will make them an offer they cannot refuse." "Put a horse's head under their bedsheets?" "Or Windows LIVE in their favoured new releases, do we have enough horse heads?" "Not enough for projected sales, sir." "Drat! Oh well, Windows LIVE it is..."

That's why I'm not buying the game, I didn't even bother to make a LIVE account for the beta.

 

[Pheel0]

Well, duuh, Windows LIVE creates many reasons to be hated. It's the gayest ...I dunno... programme(?) ever. I mean, for the PC. I dunno how it is when it comes to the XBOX, but it still makes life harder for PC users.
Why can't every game be like Blizzard games, or like any other games that are PERFECT, perfect, or at least close to perfection ( or PERFECTION). Instead we get games with this Live stuff that makes our lifes suck more.
I mean, take Diablo II or StarCraft - you just install the game, turn it on and play. And if you want to play multiplayer, well, no problem there - just quickly create an account and download patches, all not even leaving the game once, it restarts itself and it's back on.
Or COD 4 - same here, easy, cool, you can play multiplayer in no-time.

 

[Pheel0]

Especially for their team, since when they get kicked, they are replaced by dumbshit stupid AI that likes to rush alone using only the commander and ignoring everything on it's way.

Leave the AI alone! LEAVE IT ALONE ! It does what it caaan, okaay ?? (turns off the camera still crying and being a whore).
LOL just felt I had to do it.

 

[Abedeus]

Hold on a sec... Dow2 is going "Games for Windows Live"?

1 - Does that mean it's going to require Vista?
2 - Does that mean I have to have a Live account?
3 - If yes to #2, does such an account cost money?
4 - If yest to any above, are they trying to drive away potential buyers, or were they just beaned in the head with the eTard stick?

1. No, just another user name and password to go on the pile.
2. Yes, even if for offline play.
3. No, there is no subscription fee for a PC LIVE account (that I'm aware of.)
4. Microsoft wants to be your all-in-one, your one-stop-shop, your wallet's best buddy. This mandatory bundling is the "Hard Sell."

"I will make them an offer they cannot refuse." "Put a horse's head under their bedsheets?" "Or Windows LIVE in their favoured new releases, do we have enough horse heads?" "Not enough for projected sales, sir." "Drat! Oh well, Windows LIVE it is..."

That's why I'm not buying the game, I didn't even bother to make a LIVE account for the beta.

Well... once you are through creating the account, you can enjoy some world-class fights.

I so love Orks. Turrets, control point lockage, mines... And another good thing - if you are an offensive character, you can capture points and push enemy, but you can't defend it for long time. As a defensive character, you can hold position and capture point, but you can't push. And as a support character, you can't push, your capture is worse (as you don't have many abilities to use in combat), but you are twice as good at defending them as other characters.

I have yet to try Space Marines, as I've heard they have mines and turrets, just like Orks. But I can't say no to Orkish language.

 

[Jandau]

While I adore the likening anyone who doesn't like the changes with thumb sucking children. It does create an odd situation where the pot is calling the kettle black. ANYWHO.

What I adore is how you ignored my previous paragraph about other RTS games that eschewed base building. Also, I'm not equating anyone to thumb-sucking children, but rather refferencing how people are afraid of any change.

You are more than welcome to not like the game, but saying it's not a real RTS game just because it doesn't feature your pet mechanic isn't exactly fair. It's real time? Yes it is. Actually, the only remotely fair reclassification of the game would be to RTT or Real Time Tactics, since the game focuses more on that than on the macro strategic elements (such as your beloved bases).

I will grant you one point. Calling the game "Dawn of War 2" implies it's a direct sequel, so I agree that it's natural for people to expect more or less an improved version of the previous game. They wanted to maintain the franchise, but could have made it a spinoff or something ("Dawn of War: Insert cool name) so people don't get confused. You know how easily people get confused.

 

[Abedeus]

While I adore the likening anyone who doesn't like the changes with thumb sucking children. It does create an odd situation where the pot is calling the kettle black. ANYWHO.

I will grant you one point. Calling the game "Dawn of War 2" implies it's a direct sequel, so I agree that it's natural for people to expect more or less an improved version of the previous game. They wanted to maintain the franchise, but could have made it a spinoff or something ("Dawn of War: Insert cool name) so people don't get confused. You know how easily people get confused.

Actually, it's more than less an improved version.

They removed the annoying elements and there are improved things from previous one.

 

[starcomusa30273]

Ok first off, you seem to have Windows Live and Games for Windows-LIVE confused. Second, the Games for Windows-LIVE service is only accessible in the countries it supports (currently this does not include Poland.) Yes you do have to create a profile but it is free, and you have full access to multiplayer. And last, it is not mandatory! Microsoft has yet to force this down the throat of any developers, it's there choice.

 

[theultimateend]

What I adore is how you ignored my previous paragraph about other RTS games that eschewed base building. Also, I'm not equating anyone to thumb-sucking children, but rather refferencing how people are afraid of any change.

You are more than welcome to not like the game, but saying it's not a real RTS game just because it doesn't feature your pet mechanic isn't exactly fair. It's real time? Yes it is. Actually, the only remotely fair reclassification of the game would be to RTT or Real Time Tactics, since the game focuses more on that than on the macro strategic elements (such as your beloved bases).

I will grant you one point. Calling the game "Dawn of War 2" implies it's a direct sequel, so I agree that it's natural for people to expect more or less an improved version of the previous game. They wanted to maintain the franchise, but could have made it a spinoff or something ("Dawn of War: Insert cool name) so people don't get confused. You know how easily people get confused.

Again I said its not an RTS in the conventional sense. But that wasn't my major complaint.

My major complaint was that it is called Dawn of War II which implies it is a direct sequal (which you seem to agree with).

So since we both adore each other and you have at least agreed with my initial and primary complaint. I'm done here .

I tend to get stuck in these cyclical arguments that are because of some minor point I make while discussing my major complaint.

Actually, it's more than less an improved version.

They removed the annoying elements and there are improved things from previous one.

Well that's purely subjective of course . Like I said earlier (I think >_>) I can name far more people than are even in this discussion that really detest the fact that this is more a spiritual sequal to the first game than an actual one.

Mainly because they were told that tyranids would never grace DoWI, so they bring out a new game with tyranids and its missing the rest of the damn game basically .

"So you have two choices, either no tyranids, or no game." Where game is the original playstyle.

On the up side its given me more people to play the original game with because it reminded them about it . So I guess not all bad (in my opinion of course) things have purely bad results .

 

[Xaryn Mar]

No, it's caused by idiots with 400+ ping that ruin it for the rest of us. Especially for their team, since when they get kicked, they are replaced by dumbshit stupid AI that likes to rush alone using only the commander and ignoring everything on it's way.

Their high ping is often caused by them having way too high graphics and sound settings. At least that was my problem originally (the game kept telling me that my graphics settings was too high) and when I lowered them everything ran much smoother (big surprise there). Of course some high ping might be because of a slow connection or them running somesort of p2p but most likely it is people wanting to run the game on highest settings in multiplayer when their machines can't handle it.

 

[rebus_forever]

i

 

[theultimateend]

the only reason i got DOW1 was when winter assault came out as i am an IG user (stayed with them in the following 2 expantions. unless an expantion comes out for 2 with IG in it i wont get it.
as for the live service, i got Fallout 3. and live wodn't let me play it. And i'm in the UK

Yeah IG and Necrons were my favorite teams.

Since neither of those are going to be around for another 60-80 dollars (2 expansions at 30-40 bucks a pop) I found myself even more disheartened

 

[magicmuffinman]

Whats funny is the beta actually made me rethink buying the game. I've played for two days straight. It feels like a company of heroes match, with the occasional walker and some melee squads. And a LOT less buildings to hide in.

 

[Abedeus]

Whats funny is the beta actually made me rethink buying the game. I've played for two days straight. It feels like a company of heroes match, with the occasional walker and some melee squads. And a LOT less buildings to hide in.

Same. As soon as they fix the constant crashes, I'm pre-ordering it.

 

[mooncalf]

That's why I'm not buying the game, I didn't even bother to make a LIVE account for the beta.

If you're interested in the game, why not get the beta, tolerate the throwaway live account in order to credibly send THQ beta feedback in which you say "The live account creation and login process felt awkward and superfluous to my requirements." thus getting the message across in a constructive fashion?

The rusty hinge gets the oil.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

So, steam is offering a free go at the DoW2 beta. Awsome.
Just downloaded it, somewhat hyped as this is a game I had every intention of buying, even though I'd heard it was using "games for windows live", I'd also heard it had been fixed and would let me play lan games or host my own online games with friends. Based on the BETA, I was wrong.

There is no option for a skirmish or a lan game, however it is a beta so it's unfair to ***** about that too much if they intend to include it in the full realese.

However, it requires me to log in with my windows live ID. Shouldn't be an issue, right?
I have one coupled with my Xbox live silver membership, I've never really used it, but it is there. Apparently microsoft have decided to brick wall the game to Australians, as windows live, even though it instantly detects my password when I input my email, is unable to sign in. It suggests that windows live is not avaliable yet in my country....

Is anyone else having this issue, and if so, does anyone know how to fix it?

I'll be back with an edit if I get it working.
*edit* apparently windows live refuses to work with xfire, issue resolved (although it is gay).

Even when you sign on you will hate it. It's useless in this case. The voice codec on all XBL services BLOW so I can never have clear and clean chat. The whole service is pointless unless you can connct with people on the 360 and own their face, considering the game isn't even coming out on the 360 it just makes it pointless.