Have fun, Competitive RTS is dead and buried.
What we don't need is another stress fest that only people with no job may play.

Theres plenty of tower defense games for people who just want relaxing casual time.

I reject your false dichotomy that a game can't cater to both competitive and casual players. You don't have to play lots to be good at a game. I play only casually (at most 2 hours a day), but I am very competitive when I do.

but that's just you.
Gaming would be least of my worries if the entire world is populated by angry zealots.

Play "no items" games, if you don't like how it's implemented..
People will follow you, if you're correct about it being a bad thing for gameplay..
Also GPG will quickly see if this was a crap idea in beta, when random item drops makes the receiving player win every time, and remove it if it's THAT crap..

I like the idea of items for the single player campaign, but I don't like them for multiplayer because it adds an unnecessary layer of unpredictability and chance like many others have said. I don't want to have to scrutinize my enemy's king while playing a fast paced game to see if he has the Herculean Boots that give a 20% damage buff or the Robin Hood Gloves which allow his archers to have a longer range, etc.

Ooooo, epi leather would make a great item!

Hell no. You're not making leather out of me.

_Cyan leather?

A distaste for randomness in strategy games misunderstands two things, mainly:
1. That any strategy game, regardless of miss chances, item drops, weather effects etc, will have random elements. "random" implies that we are dealing with an uncertain outcome; if there is fog of war, there will be a lot of uncertainty, and that's just for starters.

2. The mathematics of probability. If a weapon misses one of two shots, and fires only once every 50 seconds, it will seem very random. But if it fires once every 1/50 of a second, it will probably seem to be hitting almost exactly 1/2 of the time. So random chance can give you certain outcomes in some situations.


In fact, you do not have the time or the ability to say with certainty what your opponent's next action will be, even in a "non random" RTS like SC2, and so any decision you make will be an (intuitive) probabilistic evaluation.

Number two comes down to variance and std. deviation - which you want as low as possible if you're going to have randomness.

A random item drop that happens maybe 4 or 5 times in the whole match max and there is hardly any way to keep randomness down. That's why many players think it's a bad idea.
Let's say you play in a tourney and you get the siege weapons +10% cloak and your opponent the infantry damage +10% helmet. Guess who's going to win every early game engagement and wins the battle for map control.

Unless you have it so that set creeps give set items.. and there's only 1 then it becomes an interesting battle for control over what is essentially a resource point that still kicks you in the dick if you get too close.

You mean like the wreckage on Isis in FA? That would work better but I would still prefer a point on the map that you have to control like a flag in Demigod.

If you have an item you can pick up, it will grant the player who gets there first an advantage for the whole game. There's nothing the opponent can do about it later on and he will be fighting an uphill battle for the rest of the match. IMO it's better to at least leave the chance to get even on the table.

If it is a lair, crypt or ruin it can be destroyed, neutralized for a time or even captured back. It also makes controlling that spot on the map important during the whole match and not just in the first minutes.

No matter how you look at it:
Lairs and dungeons >> creeps and items

I was actually arguing against the general notion that randomness is bad news for strategy games.

If it's essentially a lottery as you describe where both players take the same risk, succeed, and get completely random outcomes that are as significant as you describe, then there is a problem.

But as others have pointed out, this is in fact a question of balancing the item system or creep system; there is nothing intrinsically flawed about either.

Unless of course you make it so that to secure an item it takes uninterrupted alone time with your monarch.

When you put it like that it sounds dirty...

You could have a capture or reclaim downtime for the monarch and the clock is reset if he is hit. Still it doesn't help with the problem that once the monarch is in possession of the item the opponent can't capture it back. I like a flag-like building like in Demigod better.

I must agree with the colonel.

Unless Col. means something else.

Nope, your guess was spot on.

I would really not like to see an item system or a shop in this game. if it was just a sup-com with fantasy units it would be ok, but there is always room for creativity, just not items. like in team fortress 2 there are way to many items and equipment to worry about. it might have worked out for a fps but i don't think it should be used in a rts.

there i think i made my opinion clear.