Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:19 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What I dislike in Massive Assault
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:43 pm 
First of all I DON'T hate this game, not at all. It just doesn't offer very much variety.

-Only 2 Players?!? ---- I liked playing Battle Isle 3 with lots 6+ players, with my brother against insane numbers of A.I opponents. Im not asking for 6+ different countries, but more than 2 players per game.

-Too few units ---- What is it now again 13?!?, with identical copies for the other team (just different graphics)

As I see it the only thing the full version really offers over the demo is multiplayer and a few additional maps, not one single added unit or added features. Oh boy... that would get boring fast.

I've probably played the demo world war maps (by changing the map file names) close to 10 times and it's starting to get dull.

Hopefully Massive Assault 2 (if/when that is released) will have more units, more players (atleast 4+) in each game. A few additional "features" would also be nice.

Like:

-Anti-Air (why did they all of a sudden stop building fighters and anti-air guns in the future?)
-Subs maybe?
-Unit experience (but not like some games where an "elite" squad of footmen can wipe out heavy tanks in one attack eh... :roll:

Anyway this game just doesn't offer enough variety, I would only buy it if it was priced lower than other games. (I haven't actually checked what it costs)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:53 pm 
btw... I didn't mean this as an attack on the game or developers, just constructive criticism. Others might feel the way I do.

I like turn based games (more than RTS ones), but I want more out of games that I buy. Hopefully the next "version" will be more to my liking.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why I wont buy this game :/
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:35 pm 
Divvy wrote:
-Too few units ---- What is it now again 13?!?, with identical copies for the other team (just different graphics)

As I see it the only thing the full version really offers over the demo is multiplayer and a few additional maps, not one single added unit or added features. Oh boy... that would get boring fast.


Heh; Chess has only 6 different units, identical for both sides, only one map, without terrain, and one scenario, and, boy, did it get old fast!! :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject: MA just a copy of chess then ??
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 6:59 pm 
Quote:
Heh; Chess has only 6 different units, identical for both sides, only one map, without terrain, and one scenario, and, boy, did it get old fast!!


Even thatґs it....why building just another kind of Chess (name it chess with terrain) ?? There are enough on market...

Everybody have told about the very new gameplay and handling of MA, but often the same ones compare MA with chess...i donґt understand that kind of logic...

Iґm also donґt want to attack the game or developers/publishers of the game, but for me 2 there is not enough sense in it for buying too...


Top
  
 
 Post subject: More units???
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:51 pm 
Offline
Conscript

Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:36 pm
Posts: 14
Karma: 0
Aren't there enough games with many different units - so many that you just end up being confused. I like the simple but deep gameplay of MA. Other games are so complicated it's like working at a job that is a bit over your head. I' dont like work, complexity, details. There is too much of that in daily life. When I play a game I just want a simple but interesting game with depth. MA has all of this in spades.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: MA just a copy of chess then ??
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:27 pm 
Guest too wrote:
Quote:
Heh; Chess has only 6 different units, identical for both sides, only one map, without terrain, and one scenario, and, boy, did it get old fast!!


Even thatґs it....why building just another kind of Chess (name it chess with terrain) ?? There are enough on market..../quote]


Itґs inspired by Chess, but not just a Chess variant.

Rather a geo-strategic game. Like the boardgame Axis&Allies, but with 6 worlds instead of one, starting positions reshuffled each game, and tactics instead of dice. Those who think itґs too simple, just challenge the Captains and above in MP. :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:24 pm 
Actually, the game offers alot more than just a few additional maps. The full version offers over 2 dozen interesting scenarios of varying lengths and difficulty levels, 4 different campaigns, and world wars on 6 very different planets. When you can master all of those, then come back here and tell us how "limited" this game is. This game has alot of depth, and I doubt if you have even come close to mastering it in the demo.

Grifman


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:56 am 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
well
i think you underrestimating this game Divvy
first - a LOT of good wargames have just TWO players - for example Panzer General 1-2-3 or Steel Panthers 1-2-3-4.And they are brilliant games.Thats due to fact that in modern wars there usually 2 sides fighting.I do not know a war where THREE or more sides were fighting against EACH OTHER.This may be in some medieval feudal skirmishes (or fantasy which simulates it)...
So the presence of two sides only is not a minus...just a feature.
Units - yes MA will be more interesting when extra units will be added but even atm there are ALOT of different tactical situations featuring currently available 13 units/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:21 pm 
Well after thinking about it a bit more, this game might not be suitable for more than 2 teams. However it could still allow for 2, 4 or maybe 6 players on two different teams?

I realise that all the "hidden allies" would make the game very confusing, maybe even a complete mess if there were 4 different teams fighting each other with land areas spread around every where.

I still find that it has too few units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thing also bothers me, the opening phase of the game is highly unfair in my oppinion.

If you disclose an ally and line up your units along a border, and the 2nd player afterwards discloses an ally along your other unprotected border. Well basically you're screwed.

Why? Cause they are allowed to attack you the same time they disclose their ally. Of course I don't own this game so could someone answer me one question? In a two player game does the 2nd player see the 1st players units when he discloses his first hidden ally?

I believe the developers claimed that the AI doesn't know where you're countries are during their first turn... that's not true though. If a computer country is surrounded by neutral countries, they usually don't invade the first turn.

However if one of YOUR disclosed allies happen to be next to them they'll immidiately invade you during their first turn (which clearly shows that they DO know that the territory is yours).
If you were unlucky enough to line up your troops along the opposite border, it's game over before the game really got started. Cause if they managed to invade your country with 4+ units (well your border happened to be undefended) there is no way you can drive them out. Which results in you being unable to draft any additional troops until you drive them out (which you can't) and they'll continue buying more troops cause you have no troops in their territory.

I find the opening phase of the game EXTREMLY unfair atleast against A.I opponents (donno about 2 player games). The AI isn't that hard to beat unless the above situation takes place, if it does you're basically screwed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/\
Another reason Im not too keen on buying it, too much luck involved in the opening phase of a game. Not to mention playing against the AI sucks cause it seems to use the same tactics every game. And it doesn't use transports (atleast in the demo) wich is a hugh disadvantage, and makes it way too easy to beat.

An easy and simple fix don't let anyone move units inside a country they have disclosed the same turn, unless there are enemy units inside their country... so simple that I can't understand why they didn't make it that way to begin with?!? Must be something I haven't tought of?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:13 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Divvy wrote:
I still find that it has too few units.


Well, the key point about units in Massive Assault is their combination.
Usually, you don't rely on this or that unit - you are supposed to combine them...


Last edited by Vic on Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:20 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
this subject was discussed like hundreds of times in other topics and that's so boring
all whiney n00bs play for FNU and they endlessly cry and complain about that Phantom League enemy attacks them first and they get owned.
Well this is a RULE that red side gets first just like in chess whites make a first move but if you think that's disbalance you VERY wrong.After all try playing Phantom league and you will be allowed to make first attack and you will learn that is NOT easy. Yes you may destroy a few units by first attack but you dont know what enemy will be deploying and where are his allies.So if you make mistakes during first deployment they may prove FATAL so sometimes its actually more difficult to play Phantom League.
But actually "right of first turn" can matter alot only on small maps where troops often clash instantly after first disclosure.
On Large maps enemies usually find each other separated by huge open spaces so there it doesnt matter at all who gets first turn.
and once again - ANY judgements about this game based on play against AI are POINTLESS because REAL fun of this game is in playing online against strong opponent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mrakobes has said it first ;-)
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:14 pm 
And at last here it is now, the "n00b-scream"... :roll:

Well, who the heck could say anythig against this argument...??
If i donґt know any real reasons, all other are n00bs for me too now....

And again, nobody want to compare MA with chess, but here again youґre doing...and the metaphor does not work, iґll explain you...

i think it is to fall into oblivion that the AI makes a game real good, in MP the game just give the rules & rink...
...and because of this all chessgames for PC, PS2, Xbox, Gcube,....., are using always the same units, rules and border, the only real differences are in the graphik an the AI.

And your other great reason, named more fun in multiplaying, is just a real one for you, maybe. could you fancy that others donґt want or couldnґt play online? apparently not, it seems, and this after all...

Think about it, plz

:P :P :P


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:00 pm 
I just realized I was wrong about the unfair start "theory". I was a bit confused I tought that FNU made the first turn. Cause the other teams units are actually invisible when you make your first turn as FNU.

That's why it seems as if those "shadow something..." guys are allowed to attack the same turn as they place their units on the map. What I didn't know is that they placed those units on the map the previous turn, you just aren't allowed to see them until they make their 2nd turn.

If one team indeed was allowed to attack the same turn as it placed the units on the map that would have been highly unfair indeed, that's what I tought they did.

Of course it was too hard to explain that mrakobes, wasn't it? Well I guess it's easier to insult people (or more fun) than to try and help them by explaining why they are wrong?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:05 pm 
I still think it sucks though that the AI can't use transports, pretty much removes any point of playing against the AI whatsoever.

And of course on water maps the AI is even less of a challenge, cause it doesn't use carriers either (atleast not in the demo).

So MA is more of a multiplayer only game... or you can just keep on playing the first 5-10 turns or so against the AI... cause if you survive that long the AI doesn't pose any threat no more... the rest is just boredom.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:31 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
first i did not meant to insult you personally...i just a bit bored that people like you always start posting new threads without reading the forum.There were ALOT writted about the "first turn subject".And developers explained EVERYTHING what should be explained.
last discussion was there
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=265
Vic answered on same question.
if you are lazy to search the forum for answers why the heck i should be not lazy and type in the same answers for 255th time?
About challenge playing versus AI...well that we were also discussed many times...look here for example.
http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=193


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mrakobes has said it first ;-)
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:35 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Guest wrote:
And at last here it is now, the "n00b-scream"... :roll:

Well, who the heck could say anythig against this argument...??
If i donґt know any real reasons, all other are n00bs for me too now....

And again, nobody want to compare MA with chess, but here again youґre doing...and the metaphor does not work, iґll explain you...

i think it is to fall into oblivion that the AI makes a game real good, in MP the game just give the rules & rink...
...and because of this iu]all[/u] chessgames for PC, PS2, Xbox, Gcube,....., are using always the same units, rules and border, the only real differences are in the graphik an the AI.

And your other great reason, named more fun in multiplaying, is just a real one for you, maybe. could you fancy that others donґt want or couldnґt play online? apparently not, it seems, and this after all...

Think about it, plz

:P :P :P-/quote]


Well, believe it or not... but after 2 liters of beer I can't understand what this "guest" is talking about
:-)

dear Guest... could you, please, use more common terms about the games...

Do you like it or not?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mrakobes has said it first ;-)
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:50 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Guest wrote:
And at last here it is now, the "n00b-scream"... :roll:

Well, who the heck could say anythig against this argument...??
If i donґt know any real reasons, all other are n00bs for me too now....

And again, nobody want to compare MA with chess, but here again youґre doing...and the metaphor does not work, iґll explain you...

i think it is to fall into oblivion that the AI makes a game real good, in MP the game just give the rules & rink...
...and because of this iu]all[/u] chessgames for PC, PS2, Xbox, Gcube,....., are using always the same units, rules and border, the only real differences are in the graphik an the AI.

And your other great reason, named more fun in multiplaying, is just a real one for you, maybe. could you fancy that others donґt want or couldnґt play online? apparently not, it seems, and this after all...

Think about it, plz

:P :P :P-/quote]


Well, believe it or not... but after 2 liters of beer I can't understand what this "guest" is talking about
:-)

dear Guest... could you, please, use more common terms about the game...

Do you like it or not?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Mrakobes has said it first ;-)
PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:03 pm 
Offline
Conscript

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:01 pm
Posts: 18
Karma: 0
Vic wrote:
Well, believe it or not... but after 2 liters of beer I can't understand what this "guest" is talking about
:-)

Well, 2 liters roughly translates into a sixpack. That's really weak, Vic; I guess you need more training ;)

_________________
-NetDanzr-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:42 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 277
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.Net
Quote:
Well, 2 liters roughly translates into a sixpack. That's really weak, Vic; I guess you need more training


Vic means that he drinks beer which contains an alcohol :wink:


Quote:
Divvy Posted: 23 Dec 2003 01:05
I still think it sucks though that the AI can't use transports, pretty much removes any point of playing against the AI whatsoever.

You can do not use transports too :-). But of course, this problem with AI will fixed very soon...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: whats he talking about?
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2004 7:38 pm 
LOL vic is right - i don't understand what the guy is talking about.
can somebody translate?!?!
...maybe its because i'm german :D [/quote]


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y