Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
SkollUlfr

what is this RTS CV thing you people talk about?

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
581 posts
5,199 battles

what is this RTS CV thing you people talk about? as somebody who played C&C, SC, oTA, wz2100, SoaSE  and a whole hose of other actual RTS games, i dont remember seeing any rts in WoWs cv play. ever.

 

what a saw was a battle card game where you stacked adjacent buffs to your attack cards to weigh the dice in your favour, and used a manual attack gimmick to try and tie it into a shooting game.

 

was it rts bacause you could move things around via a map?

was it rts bacause you had remote spotting for a team that rarely got used?

was it rts because you could spawn mobs?

was it rts because you like using that term to describe what you where doing when focussed more on micromanaging tb drops and the only "strategic" action you could take was spotting and hoping your team took advantage?

  • Boring 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,155 posts
245 battles

Because you controlled units could spawn them and direct their attacks similar to most rts games just in a more tactical sense.

 

Not sure where you got card games from since you dont control units in such a free manner.

 

Also whats the point of this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
581 posts
5,199 battles

that the original carrier gameplay was too stilted to be called rts.

if C&C came out and the gameplay consisted of "heres 4 or 5 infantry, this is an rts" nobody would have called that gameplay rts.

 

as it was, it was more like deploying monster cards to a field and moving them around for the best result.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

A bit late to start argueing semantics on what people chose to call the previous gameplay iteration.

 

For the previous CV gameplay RTT would be more accurate yes, but there's a whole lot less people that would recognize what that means compared to those who have at least heard the abbreviation RTS instead and in the end the only important aspect of what you call it is to make it more readily distinguishable from the current style of gameplay.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMFY]
Players
793 posts
2,029 battles

Well both share a top down view, and have a “home/base” of some sort, in cv case it is movable. They also have units in the form of a group similar to control groups in RTS games, and the “base” can spawn units, in cvs case it is similar to where you have a limited amount of resources to build your units in other rts games. Both also need some degree of multitasking and micromanagement, although in the CV’s case I can agree that it is hampered by the buggy UI and the fact that “move base location” is on “1” key, not “home” key like homeworld does(the only other RTS that I played recently) that being said, there can be some RNG elements been in homeworld, a good example is the fighter AI, the time to kill another fighter squad seems to vary greatly, and victory ratio if 1:1 is 50/50 ish, with advantage going to whoever gets the first hits in, but always biased towards human players.

 

so in my eye, old cv system is RTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
581 posts
5,199 battles
11 minutes ago, howardxu_23 said:

not “home” key like homeworld does(the only other RTS that I played recently) that being said, there can be some RNG elements been in homeworld,

see, it they had used homeworld as inspiration , using formations and postures here as is done in homeworld, it might have moved closer to something that could be called rts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×