Dawn of War 3 surrendering in first patch on Monday

Proper patches and updates for Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War 3 [official site] will start hitting the battlefield next week, developers Relic Entertainment have announced. They’ve released a few wee emergency hotfixes since the waaagh-roaring RTS launch last week but come Monday they’ll start with additions like a Surrender option, followed by server improvements and balance changes.

Relic explained their fix-o-update plans in a blog post overnight. They’ll get started on Monday with the first proper patch, of which they say:

“This will address some of the bugs and issues you’ve flagged with us (so long, invisible Bonesinger!) but will also include the addition of a Surrender option in Multiplayer. We give special props to those players who chase a comeback to the bitter end, but we certainly want to give you the option to concede. If you surrender, you’ll receive Skulls and experience as if you lost the match.”

The day after that, they’ll give the servers a good kicking:

“On Tuesday, we’re taking aim at some of the input lag being reported. Thanks for your patience on this, and for sending in your feedback. We have servers in multiple regions around the world, but we’ve found that some players aren’t connecting to the servers closest to them. On Tuesday, we’ll start to refine which servers specific regions connect to based on latency data from the first week of play. We’re going to keep an eye on this and tune it over time.”

Further ahead, and a bit vaguer, Relic are planning to release a rebalancing patch later this month:

“It’s too early to give specifics but right now we’re looking carefully at units that players are skipping over (looking at you, Tactical Marines…), abilities that seem harder to counter (ahem… Zapnoggin’s teleport), and the factors that affect whether you can come back from a loss in an early match skirmish (how escalation phases are working).”

Dawn of Warriors, how are you feeling about the game now you’ve actually got to play? Fraser Brown thought it’s pretty good but the campaign’s weak.

17 Comments

  1. Chann3l says:

    Personally don’t think matches last long enough for surrender to be a necessary option. The multiplayer is fun but I have barely touched the campaign. First level bored me. Not a fan of directly an elite around the map.

    • Xocrates says:

      I haven’t played proper multiplayer yet, but I did make a couple AI skirmishes, and the 3v3 one turned into a hour long stalemate meatgrinder, even though my side was clearly winning.
      I don’t know if this is common, but I can see it being common enough for a surrender option being reasonable.

      Heck, Heroes of the Storm matches last 20 minutes and I’ve wanted the surrender option there countless times.

      • Chann3l says:

        I’ve only done one ai skirmish. Me and my friend vs 2 ai opponents and compared to playing against real players the matches seem to drag. I had a similar experience where it went on for quite some time. The ai doesn’t seem as inclined to rush though. So we were playing kind of relaxed and ended up stuck fighting in the middle of the map. So far with actual players I haven’t had a match longer than half hour, it’s like we my team either steam rolls them, or we get steam rolled. Could just be chance and would obviously depend on the playstyle of both your teammates and your opponents. Either way I guess it doesn’t make a difference if surrender is an option if you simply choose not to use it.

    • QSpec says:

      In my admittedly limited experience, playing 2s with a friend, we’d find ourselves in a position in which we had clearly lost, but we are decent enough to really make it a slog for the other person to win.

      So we’d have to in chat tell them that we are falling back and to attack our core, and we’d have to wait while they decided whether or not they believed us, and then we’d have to wait while they took on the core.

      It is a welcome addition imo.

    • Agnosticus says:

      Having played about 10 hours of mp, I can savely say that I could have made use of a surrender button in ~ 1/3s of the matches I lost. Sometimes it’s just over early on, the other team is unable to kill the turret yet and the game keeps dragging on…

  2. Xocrates says:

    The game is clearly designed around the multiplayer, and in terms of mechanics this shows in the campaign, where it takes too long to build up a decent enough force, but you have very little pressure from the AI to rush – and can easily get your ass kicked if you do since everyone is really squishy.

    That said, I liked the campaign well enough. It’s not their best campaign for a country mile, but it’s decent enough stuff.

    The story itself suffers from forcing it into having all 3 races playable though, as only the Eldar have a story arc all the way through, while the Space Marines are only there because they have to, made slightly worse in that the Space Marine setup is very similar to the Eldar one (asshole guy in charge trying to do things he really shouldn’t), though I admit to find the contrast kind of amusing since the distribution of power in the two stories is completely reversed, with the Space Marines essentially playing along with the inquisitor mostly out of politeness – and still ignoring him most of the time – to not even bothering by the mid point of the campaign.

  3. bills6693 says:

    DOW3 coverage and comments (the lack of a good campaign) has made me reinstall DOW2 and start a campaign run through. Still good and the graphics hold up well but unhappy about the lack of ability to save and quit mid mission since sometimes IRL gets in the way. A good, story driven campaign and it’s been so many years I don’t remember the plot beyond “tyranids come to eat everyone’s faces”

    • Imperialist says:

      I would actually say DOW2 simply did a really solid telling of a rather average and barebones story. Thanks to the dialogues between missions, we are treated to a decent amount of character development. The game also never telegraphed any of its plot twists or surprises, so it was solid all the way through. And Chaos Rising was pretty decent as well, with its branching plot paths and whatnot. Retribution was meh all around though. Still, DOW2/CR takes the cake for best campaign IMO.

  4. MrSpanky says:

    They’re gonna have to add in Ranking and soon or else the game is gonna die out in a couple of months.

  5. WMain00 says:

    The game is an unmitigated disaster. If you have no interest in playing a very watered down version of a cross between an RTS and a very poor MOBA, there’s basically no game to play. The single player campaign is boring, the only thing carrying it being the Orks, and the skirmish AI is so utterly basic that you either get stuck in grindfests, or can trounce it easily.

    Really the game is a disappointment through and through. I reinstalled dawn of war 1 and I’m having more fun in the last hour or so of being beaten by a standard difficulty AI, than any fun I had playing DoW3

    • Asurmen says:

      Don’t see how it’s watered down, or hardly anything to do with a MOBA.

      • Banks says:

        It’s like an automated response at this point. The game has plenty of flaws but for some reason they keep repeating the same points over and over again, even if they are not remotely true.

        It’s not watered down, it’s actually way deeper and it has a richer learning curve, the AI is also 100 times better than before and no, not even remotely a MOBA either.

        You can instead point to some actual shortcomings, like the UI and menus being horrible and buggy, the game not being fun at all when you’re losing or when you are a beginner, the laughable lack of content, the mediocre campaign, matches taking way too long, big armies are a total mess to micromanage and battles tend to be a clusterfuck where you can’t track your soldiers, the balance leaves a lot to be desired, relic does not have the best post launch track record, the unlock system is garbage, some elites are op as fuck, the playerbase will die in a couple of weeks, DLC is most certainly going to be abusive… wheh, i’m out of breath now.

        But see, plenty of actual problems.

        • Agnosticus says:

          You are absolutely right, all valid points! I think they just cut off most of the edges DoW had.

          Ad “losing is not fun”: I think the main problem is that you are practically unable to make a comeback (if the enemy is not stupid enough to get eaten early by the turret)
          – Power now is at the same positions as requisition –> you can’t protect the generators and tech while you’re turtling to gain an advantage.
          – Turtling is only possible so some extent because of the turret early game, no actual defensive structures to potentially crush the enemy in a last stand.

        • Agnosticus says:

          One thing is disagree with: the AI is hot, HOT garbage! Even in the campaign. Often standing around doing nothing and attacking single file. Also pathfinding and chosing an important target after an attack move….total blunder!

        • Revoran says:

          Banks – I agree about the UI (buggy, unintuitive etc).

          I also agree with Agnosticus that the AI isn’t very good.

          The campaign is fun, but certainly not groundbreaking in any way. Definitely one of the weakest DOW campaigns.

          “Matches taking way too long” is not a real issue. Some people are complaining matches are too short and snowbally, some (like you) complain they take too long. Some (like me) are fine with match length. They LITERALLY JUST ADDED A SURRENDER BUTTON as per the article.

          I don’t agree that big armies are a mess to micromanage. This game is just a micro-heavy game and people need to get used to that.

          The unlock system is OK. Generally you get skulls fairly quickly. I am happy with or without the progression system.

          The playerbase will not die in a couple of weeks lol. No one will take you seriously with baseless doomsaying like that.

          As for content: the game has just as much content as DOW1 or DoW2 did on release. A full singleplayer campaign, multiplayer, ai skirmish, army painter, more units with more abilities than either of the previous games, tons of doctrines etc.

          Yes some stuff is unbalanced. The game JUST RELEASED. That’s why there is a balance patch coming later this month.

          Your cries about DLC are totally unfounded. The devs said they want to do big expansions just like the previous games had. The only DLC so far is cosmetic skins that don’t affect gameplay at all. And there’s nothing wrong with good, fairly priced DLC.

      • Archonsod says:

        The problem is it lacks the basic ‘rock-paper-scissors’ style of a traditional RTS when it comes to basic units, and instead focuses on the abilities of the elites or characters, hence the comparisons to a MOBA (the current multiplayer mode dividing the map into pretty clear lanes doesn’t help there). The lack of cover (those shield bunker thingies are too easy to avoid) and the like doesn’t help – you end up with deterministic combat with the only variable being the abilities rather than the units themselves.
        It’s kinda why they have issues needing the surrender button. Since basic unit X will always beat basic unit Y unless you trigger some buff or the like to them, and since you get a refund for all destroyed basic units, it means it’s impossible for one side to hold a strength advantage for any length of time (all things being equal in terms of player strategy at least). Essentially, if I can rebuild all my lost units in the time it takes the abilities which wiped them out in the first place to come off cooldown we have a near stalemate; most likely the match will devolve into a two hour grindfest where we each try and kill the opposing units and get through to deal what damage we can to the base before getting overwhelmed. That said the biggest brainfart on the part of the developers is that if you do manage to destroy a target and trigger the next phase of combat, your unit refund is reduced, making it pretty likely that your opponent is going to be able to reciprocate shortly after (and triggering the same exchange for the next target).
        The problem really is the design – they went a little too heavy handed in trying to ensure the players are evenly balanced as much as possible outside of army/unit selection. The end result is a bit like everyone is playing a chess match where they’re only allowed one type of piece with the combat largely being determined by how powerful a piece they happened to pick.

        • Nightey says:

          I Think you are right with your first paragraph. But I strongly Disagree with the last part. It’s true that when you are new to the game a lot of the games tend to go stalemate, thats why there is a surrender button now, which is good.
          However the more and more I play the faster the games get. I solely speak about 2vs2 and 3vs3 here. Don’t have much experience in 1on1. The last 3 games we played we won in just 15-20 minutes.
          in those matches it’s so critical that you use your abilities wisely and communicate with your teammates that if you do that correctly you win games really fast. We actually had one where our opponents left after 8mins into the game, cause we already finished 2 shield gens.
          I really like the game, just the lack of content is hilarious, no maps, no real single player, no customizable buttons and jesus christ how can you put out an rts without a laddersystem?!?! That’s sooo bad and I think if they don’t incluse that asap a lot of players are going to leave, before the game even sets off.
          I think we have a hell of a potential of a game here, but it just feels rushed.