PAX 2011 EoN Report (long)

[Cyber]

So I had the opportunity to hang out with the EoN team at their PAX booth most of the PAX weekend, and as a result not only did I get to play the game a lot, I also talked with a lot of people who were trying the game. The devs were interested in hearing some feedback based both on my thoughts and feedback from the players I talked to, so, here it is...

Disclaimer: Bear in mind that the game is still in or near the alpha stage and many aspects are still in flux. Everything that follows is purely based on my observations of the game, discussions with the devs, and my own opinion. It is safe to assume that much of what I talk about below will change, in some cases significantly, by the time EoN reaches beta.

Oh, and I should mention that my photos didn't turn out, so I had to crib photos from one of the YouTube videos from Gamescom


General Thoughts

I had a lot of fun playing EoN, and from everything I saw the game is shaping up really well. The devs have constantly stated that they have endeavoured to produce a high-quality RTS game first before adding in the appropriate MMO elements, and in my opinion they are succeeding thus far. The game played very smoothly and responsively, looked great visually, and had relatively few noticeable bugs. The EoN matches at PAX involved a single PvP map, with an 8v8 match going on constantly (not two 4v4 matches as I mistakenly first thought, due to the fact that you only ever see three teammates listed in your party in the current game build). The gameplay reminded me of DoW II, and I think any RTS player will feel right at home in the game.

By the way, much of what I will say has already been covered in the reports from Gamescon a week ago. I apologize for any redundancy, but I am going to give my thoughts in full.


The Battle and Global Maps

The global map really wasn’t available for players to try out, but I did get a decent look at it. It isn’t really much different from the pictures of the map posted previously on the EoN Junkies site. One thing to note is that the map has two settings, one for viewing the available battles for PvE, and one for PvP. I don’t really have any suggestions for the global map since we didn’t use it during the weekend.

We only had access to only a single PvP map for the weekend, located in Western Australia. This battle map comprised a series of winding paths along a narrow map, with about 10-12 control points of different types (see below) spread throughout. The map reminded me of many of the DoW II maps, which have multiple paths to objectives and lots of choke points. There wasn’t much in the way of open space for maneuvering in this particular map, but some of the videos show maps that appear to have much more open space which means the tactics will change map to map.


Suggestion

• It would be nice to have a wide variety of battle map types with different landscapes, but I think this is already the plan.

Control Points

In the matches we played, there were three types of control points that could be captured: resource, respawn, and super weapon (I can’t recall the actual in game names). The resource points provided an increased rate of income for whichever team controlled it, and I believe there were four of them on the map, two near each team’s HQ. In addition, each HQ had one nearby respawn control point that could be captured for forward respawing (this is in addition to the two respawn points inside each HQ). Capturing the respawn point at the far end of the map provided a huge tactical advantage by allowing a team to easily invade the enemy’s HQ after respawing.

The superweapon control point in the center of the map was where much of the fighting took place since capturing it did provide a huge advantage. However, what I noticed was that players would often rush the superweapon and ignore the resource and respawn points, usually to their team’s detriment. The superweapon takes a long time to capture, and early on each team will benefit more from taking resource points for the extra cash. I should mention that this captured superweapon is different than the superweapon abilities that players can launch manually (see below). Capturing this particular superweapon control point spawned a number of NPC aircraft that continually bombed the enemy team, which was often quite devastating.

One thing to note about the control points is the time it takes to capture and “de-capture” a control point. In the current build, it takes the same amount of time to revert an enemy held point to neutral as it does to then convert the point to your team. The devs mentioned at PAX that they are thinking about tweaking this in some way, perhaps to make the “de-capture” time shorter than the capture time. I myself am ambivalent about this. Having a shorter de-capture time mean that it is quite easy to undo an enemy capture. That will make it easy to prevent capturing and harder to capture it yourself. It may work fine, or it may make things frustrating. Since I don’t have a solid opinion, I can’t make a firm suggestion about this.

Suggestion

• The “de-capture” and capture times need to make sense, but it sounds like the devs are already thinking about this.

(continued below)

[Cyber]

Superweapon Abilities

Ah yes, the superweapon abilities. There are quite a number of different superweapon abilities available, and they are unlocked via the tech trees (see below). This means that each commander class will have different superweapons available. These abilities weren’t always what I expected, but all of them were significant in their effects. These abilities include the tactical nuke we have talked about, missile barrages, carpet bombing runs, and other such damaging abilities. They also include buffing and debuffing AoE abilities. For example, some abilities would heal units in an area over time or increase their damage resistance, while others would prevent the enemy from repairing or would decrease their damage resistances. There were plenty of abilities and in most matches I felt that I had more of them than I needed. I am sure every player will find a few they like to stick with.

By the way, friendly fire was turned off for all abilities. I was one of the proponents of FF being turned on for superweapons, but after playing the game I have changed my mind. The nuke in its current form is actually pretty difficult to land (enemies have a decent amount of warning and can usually dodge it). In addition, if FF is turned on for the damaging abilities, then by the same token the buffing superweapons should affect enemies in the area, and I think that would makes things too complicated. In any case, not having FF for superweapons didn’t seem like such a big deal once I played the game.

Oh, and by the way, the superweapon abilities not only have a significant cooldown, but also cost money to launch, so they need to be used wisely lest they be wasted and drain your resources.

Suggestion

• Nothing at this time.

Tech Trees

In the matches we played the tech trees were all maxed out and we didn’t really need to worry about them. Nonetheless, I had a look at them during several matches. The trees are divided into three branches (the names of which, I think, differ based on commander class, but don’t quote me). From what I saw, the tech trees allow players to unlock three things: units, superweapon abilities, and tactical structures (see below). According to the devs at PAX, players won’t be able to max out the trees and will have to pick and choose what to unlock. Don’t worry though, players will be able to respec at any time.

One thing I noted was that the tech trees didn’t have many items into which to put points. The devs at PAX mentioned that the trees are still a work in progress and are not complete. However, they aren’t planning on having large tech trees because it would make the game much more complicated to balance. The MMO player in me was saddened by this, because I felt like there should be more things to put points into. However, during the matches I felt I had access to way more things than I needed or could use, so it may not be a big deal.

Suggestion

• Some more items in the tech trees might be nice, but I understand that balancing becomes an issue as more slots are added.

Tactical Structures

At any given time, players could build up to six tactical structures on the battle field, all of which cost money to set up. These mostly included various forms of turrets, although some provided buffs or repairs, and at least one of them was a bomb that exploded after a short period of time. Strangely enough, it seemed that very few of the turrets actually had any anti-air capabilities. Given the power and predominance of air attacks during the matches, this seemed odd to me, but then again perhaps I just didn’t read all of the descriptions carefully enough and there were actually more AA capable structures than I realized.

One other thing that stood out to me was that the structures available to the different commander types seemed unbalanced. Some commander classes had access (via their tech trees) to repair structures and anti-air turrets, while other didn’t, and the ones without these types of structures seemed to be at a disadvantage. Again, perhaps I used the structures incorrectly or misread them, so this might not actually be an issue.

Finally, it should be noted that the build times of the turrets is extremely short, which turned out to be annoying at times. While I was trying to take some control points, enemy players were able to remotely spam turrets in the area, making it very difficult to capture the point while the enemy players risked very little (except losing money) to defend it. This also meant it was easy to advance one’s units while “turret hopping” (i.e. giving your units plenty of cover by build a chain of turrets). Tactical structures could be easily torn down if you wanted to build a new one somewhere else (I forgot to look to see if any money was refunded).

Suggestion

• Balance out the selection of structures for the different commander classes, and increase their set up time somewhat, or increase their cooldown.

(continued below)

[Cyber]

Units

I should mention right away that both the Liberation Front and the Shadow Revolution teams in the PAX matches used Liberation Front units. The Shadow Revolution units are still being developed and the devs didn’t want to showcase them prematurely. As a result I can’t really make any comments on the SR units, their stealth abilities, or how they measure up against the LF units. Please bear that in mind when reading the following section.

The EoN PAX game clients were set up with pre-determined unit load-outs, and so to try each of the different types we had to jump from computer to computer. Luckily, with the exception of artillery units, I still got a chance to try out of the unit types. There was one type of artillery unit in the game but it was only used on one or two of the machines, and so I can’t really comment on them (other than they died really quickly). The devs at PAX pointed out that they are still working hard to balance the artillery units and so they didn’t want to use many of them at PAX.

Before I talk further about the types of units, let me give some general info about them. Each unit type has a single ability that costs nothing to use but has a cooldown timer. These abilities provide a variety of functions, such as dropping mines, firing EMP bursts, shielding units, launching missile barrages, providing damage buffs, and so on. As we already know, the selection of units brought into the match depends on a point cap system. Each battle map has a set number of points that players can use to select which units to bring into the match, up to a maximum of twenty units. Units have different point values, and players can mix and match units from their armory based on the point cap. As I mentioned, the game clients at PAX used preset units loadouts so we didn’t get any chance to experiment with this.

Both the strike and the tank units felt great to me and seemed about right in terms of balance and abilities. The tanks were slow and ponderous; they hit really hard and take a real beating. The down side to the tanks is that they can’t attack aircraft (at least, the ones I tried couldn’t), so dropping anti-air turrets nearby is a good idea. On the other hand, the strike units, while fairly fragile, are quick, nimble, and at least some of them are capable of hitting both air and ground units.

The problems started showing up with the aircraft and infantry. The aircraft units are quite powerful, so much so that if their current form makes it into the final game they will be very popular and over-used. The Harpy choppers are quick, have decent damage, and can attack everything. Additionally, the air units seemed to have a little too much range. One air unit, the Ragnarok, is probably the most powerful unit around. It is essentially a flying tank, dealing huge damage to ground units even at long range (I saw some player controlled Ragnaroks taking out AA turrets without ever getting in range of the counter-attack), and they can harass tanks at great distance (making retreat essentially pointless for tanks). The only downside to this unit is that it can’t attack other aircraft. All in all the aircraft seemed a little too good and need some rebalancing. However, I should mention one important fact...aircraft units cannot capture control points.

If the aircraft were too good, then the infantry were at the other end of the scale. Almost every player I talked to had the same complaint about infantry dying way too quickly in any battle. The current infantry units seem designed to run behind enemy lines and capture control points, and many players tried to play that way. Unfortunately, in the time it takes to cap a point, enemy units have usually shown up and wiped out the infantry. If the infantry are truly designed for this role, then I would suggest giving them a significant bonus to capping speed so that they can fulfill this role easily. It wasn’t all bad with the infantry though. Infantry have the one repair unit that I saw in the game (the Chiron), and the Guardians have a very nice lockdown ability that anchors them (rendering them immobile) and grants them extra damage and range, so in certain situations they were very effective. Unfortunately those situations seemed few and far between.

One thing that became abundantly clear is that the composition of a player’s army is really important. Not only do players need to think about the rock/paper/scissors mechanic of the units, but they must also choose units that synergize with each other. Some of the pre-set load-outs used in the matches at PAX were not optimal and the units didn’t mesh well together. This isn’t something that needs improving within the game, but rather something that players will need to be aware of when they put together an army for matches. Finding the perfect composition of units for a given match will probably be one of the more important aspects of the game for players to learn.

Suggestions

• Aircraft units need some balancing in terms of range, damage, and health.

• Infantry need some kind of bonuses for capping points or damage against specific units in order to increase their utility.

Unit Collision

In the EoN build shown at PAX, there did seem to be a certain amount of unit collision in place. Units could still pass through each other, but whenever they could they did seem to try to go around each other. Additionally, they were unable to stop on top of each other. However, the situation previously described by Jaridan (strike units passing through enemy units while dropping mines on top them) is still possible. I understand the reason for having friendly units pass through each other, but I would like to see more restrictions on this happening between units of the opposite teams. Being able to bar passage to enemy units would make map choke points all the more meaningful, and would add some strategic depth.

Suggestion

• Considering increasing the unit collision rules between units on opposite teams.

(continued below)

[Cyber]

The Armory

Because all of the unit load-outs were pre-set on the computers at the EoN PAX booth, we didn’t really need to use the armory in any way. However, I did get a tour of it, and it looks pretty impressive so far. Any units owned by a commander can be customized with a variety of paints and skins (many of which will be available through the cash shop). For example, some of the units I saw were painted with a Star Spangled Banner skin, while others had a camouflage skin applied to them. A large variety of colours can be applied to the different parts of the units, allowing players to create their own unique look (although, from what I understand, all units in your army will have a consistent look and can't be individually customized). In addition, units can be fitted with a variety of mods (I didn’t see any examples) that will change the properties of units in the matches and allow players to tailor unit characteristics to their own play style.

Suggestion

• Nothing at this time.

PvP vs. PvE

There were no PvE missions available at PAX, so I can’t really comment on how PvE works or how fun it is. However, there is one aspect I would like to mention. The devs stated that as of yet the outcome of PvE battles no bearing on the PvP metagame, but they are considering implementing that. I for one hope they do, because I really think it would go along way to making the PvE players feel like they are contributing in some way. The trick is to ensure that the PvP players do not feel dependent on the PvE players, and so I admit that this wouldn’t be an easy feature to balance. From my point of view, however, it would be a nice addition.

Suggestion

• Considering implementing a mechanic that allows PvE players to contribute to the metagame without adversely affecting the progress of the PvP players (good luck!).

(continued below)

[Cyber]

User Interface

Most of the suggestions that I have revolve around the UI, so bear with me in this section. However, before I dive in let me say that unless stated otherwise, my suggestions take the form of adding options, not changing the current state of the game. The current UI is quite streamlined and I think RTS players will find it comfortable. The thing is that many MMO players (such as me) love to be able to customize the UI to suit our play style, and so adding options that allow players to change the UI would go a long way to making MMO players feel at home. Having said that, I realize that adding a bevy of optional commands and customizations can be complex for game designers to implement, so perhaps these will have to remain as pipe dreams.

The first thing that seemed absent was the ability to assign key binds to many of the functions/buttons. Sure, many keyboard short-cuts existed already (such as Ctrl + 1, 2 ,3... to assign groups, Ctrl+A to select all units, shortcuts for superweapon abilities, etc.), but many players will want to define these short-cuts themselves. As the devs mentioned to me, such features are considered polish and are added later in development, so I am not too worried. Nonetheless, I thought I would mention it.

The ability to rearrange the UI also seemed absent (at least, I couldn’t find a way to do it). This isn’t a typical feature for RTS games, but it is almost considered standard in the MMO world. Mostly I would have liked to have rearranged my unit bars at the bottom of my screen and my superweapon and structure abilities on the right hand side. In their current form, they are double or triple stacked, and it would have been nice to be able to create single bars along the bottom and side to hold the icons. One of the devs mentioned that the current UI was made with smaller monitors in mind (too small to fit single strip bars). I understand that, but having the option to use single strip quick bars would be a nice way to streamline the UI further for those of us with higher resolution monitors.

One thing that many of the players complained about to me when trying EoN for the first time was how difficult it was to locate their units if they weren’t on the screen (this situation often arises when your units respawn elsewhere on the map). Currently you can press spacebar to center the screen on your units, but it takes the average of all unit locations, meaning that if they are spread out, the screen may center on a spot somewhere in between all of your units. The devs know about this and are working on it. A couple of ways to fix this would be to include a button or keyboard shortcut that centers the screen on your currently assigned respawn point. Another way would be to have a button/shortcut that “pings” all units on the mini-map so that they can be easily located. I should mention that there is already a function in the game to ping a location on the map (although it wasn't active in the PAX sessions) so adding the ability to ping all of one's own units shouldn't be a stretch.

This leads me into another aspect of the UI that I would love to see improved upon: the mini-map and the map system. Continuing on with the problem of locating units, the mini-map is quite cluttered with control points, friendly units, enemy units, and team-mate names. Some of these can be disabled, but it can still be hard to locate one's own units on the mini-map among all of the friendly units. The pinging idea mentioned above would be one way to fix that. The mini-map can be expanded into a larger map that is much easier to read, but takes up a bigger portion of the screen and so may not be convenient to use for extended periods of time (although players with much larger monitors may not have a problem leaving the expanded map open for longer periods of time).

Another option I would love to see implemented for the mini-map is the option to have the mini-map rotate with the player camera (perhaps there is already an option for this in-game, but I couldn't find it). The current build of EoN uses the standard convention of a shaded cone on the mini-map indicated the direction that the camera is facing. Moving or rotating the camera around causes the mini-map cone marker to move or rotate in the appropriate direction while the mini-map orientation is fixed. This means the moving forward with the camera could actually move the mini-map marker to the south or east/west depending on which way you are looking. RTS players are used to this, but other players are not, and I saw a lot of confused people struggling to get their bearings with the mini-map.

To fix this, the game could include the option to have the mini-map orientation rotate and move with the screen camera while the view cone on the mini-map remains fixed in the center and pointing north. When the player camera moves forward, the mini-map would shift accordingly (i.e. moving forward on the screen moves causes the mini-map to slide south, making the fixed marker on the mini-map to appear moving north). This would not need to apply to the expanded map, since the entire map is shown and the player marker can be shown at its correct location and with its proper orientation. Again, such an option may not be used by many RTS players, but new players or those familiar with MMO games (which often use this optional mini-map system) would probably appreciate it and find it very useful.

Suggestions

• Include the option to rearrange the UI, especially the unit, superweapons, and tactical structure ability bars.

• Implement buttons or keyboard commands that allow players to easily locate their units, such as a button to center the screen on their respawn point, and the ability to ping all of their own units on the mini-map (and perhaps have temporary screen arrows pointing towards the units).

• Include an option to have the mini-map rotate/move with the screen camera while keeping the player orientation on the mini-map fixed at center and pointing “north”.

OK, that is my report. Sorry for the length, but I had a lot of thoughts after playing the game at PAX. Like I stated at the beginning of the report, I had a great time playing EoN, and I think the game is shaping up nicely. At the rate it appears to be going, It should be in quite an impressive state by beta.

Please feel free to comment on my suggestions, and if you have any questions or would like clarification on anything I mentioned, please let me know!

[Myll Erik]

Nicely done. Good job with paint too.

[Leo Ryell]

Sorry for the length,

The length was great. Very informative. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Excellent job. Thank you so much for posting this.

Do you think a slightly transparent minimap overlay (like in diablo2) would work better? An overlay would allow the minimap to become larger on the screen to reduce clutter, and it could still turn with the screen if that is what the Devs decide to do.

[Pasty]

Awesome, thanks a lot. I like all your UI suggestions. It's probably too early for balance suggestions, especially if people weren't even allowed to reinforce units of their own choice.

[Cyber]

It's probably too early for balance suggestions, especially if people weren't even allowed to reinforce units of their own choice.

Perhaps, although even the devs at PAX were thinking the Ragnarok is probably too powerful in its current form, so chances are it will be adjusted before beta.

Do you think a slightly transparent minimap overlay (like in diablo2) would work better? An overlay would allow the minimap to become larger on the screen to reduce clutter, and it could still turn with the screen if that is what the Devs decide to do.

I hadn't really thought of the Diablo 2 style overlay. I might work, although it may seem seem a bit much with everything going on in the game. Then again, Diablo 2 often had a lot going on

[otomotopia1]

Excellent report, Cyber.

On the issue of balancing the re-capping times, I would highly suggest that infantry get a bonus while capping, adding a slight increase in cap speed per unit/2 units on the point. You said that the fact that the cap was equal for un-cap to re-cap was unbalanced, right? I would also suggest that the time to un-cap be longer then the time to cap. This way, if a team dedicates a large number of units to capping a base, they should cap faster, but also give the defenders the ability to counter-attack (and therefore defend) effectively. Would this situation help or hinder the build you played?