Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

AchromicWhite

Members
  • Content Count

    1,876
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

273 Excellent

4 Followers

About AchromicWhite

  • Rank
    Grenadier
  • Birthday 06/04/1987

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You're not wrong, but most of the reason behind that is that whenever I come on, everyone's just trying to play FFA maps, even if it's for 1v1 purposes and I'm just bored to all hell. I want to compete and improve, but the groundwork for it just isn't there. There's one person who's on this thread a few times just trying to bad mouth it, and I've had a couple of others too. I really CBF with names (though, the person on this thread is not too hard to pin point anyway), as I don't want to make it personal. I just want to try and make the best groundwork for competitive C&C95 as I can. It's been that way for years, for those that know me.
  2. Yeah, I think they still take damage from the tree... I'm pretty that even vehicles take damage from the tree, although, only very small amounts. Chem warriors don't die in packs and they do more damage. That's the big advantages. And yes, I'm on your guys side, I want to see it buffed. Probably HP buff. We wanted to move forward faster, but also thought people would want to give feedback. But, like most projects around here, if you want it done, you have to do it yourself. (The irony of that is that the very people that have decided they want this project to fail are doing exactly that, and then blaming the creators of it for that failure. And yet, if we took away their ability to give feedback, would throw the toys from the cot).
  3. I think what Grant is getting at, is that a comment just like this is better than the break down that people had earlier in this thread. As this at least outlines a specific issue you have with it, rather than earlier where you basically say that looking at it makes you nauseous... which shows you disagree with it, but is helpful to no one. It also makes those who come and look at the feedback more inclined to actually listen to it.
  4. Interestingly, that gif does highlight the concrete part around the main structure, being different.
  5. Armour type, Crusher yes/no, I think we can make units stealth
  6. Honestly, once you look at how big it'll actually appear on the screen, you wont even be able to see those tiny details... That said, it would be nice for it to look like a realistic building. The more "real warfare" feel of C&C1 is an aspect that I liked about the game. Though, obviously, some things (just the Nod stuff, really) is more cartoon like and reminds me of toys (obelisk, stealth tank, flame tank, recon bike). The con yard is kinda in the middle of the two, in that it's a little more real feeling as both a structure and a vehicle, but less so as it transforms. I liked the merging of the original structure as in the SHP and the details in the FMV. I think the combo of both is pretty good. Funny you said that about it looking more like a toy, though. It was a bit of a gripe that I had with the feel of RA2. Just TOO cartoony looking... even the crane on the allied con yard and service depo cranes looks more like a toy. C&C1 always had a more realistic and gritty feel. So I think your feedback is justified. But could be maybe written a bit nicer (don't have to attack the creator to attack the work). I'd rather it be more closer to the original than taking artistic licence to make it look realistic. Better to just update the quality, not the design.
  7. I will say; looking at that mock up, it's going to be hard to go back to playing C&C1 with the original graphics once we've played the remaster, haha.
  8. I think I didn't explain the situation properly; we can't actually edit the weapons, but if we DID find a way, then it'd effect all the weapons on those units. The idea of buffing it on things like the bike would do more than you'd think. It'd easily let bikes fire on grens without being shot, for example. They'd have MORE range than a tank at only +1 range. (same with rocket soldiers, obviously). I think the double rockets IS enough firepower on a stealth tank, but it's just making sure that you don't have to over pay for it, as it seems to be currently the case. The other big thing that I found useful with the new stealth tanks (when I used them) was that unlike bikes, they can crush. So structures with infantry around them are more vulnerable to their attacks, and by having less price for the stealth tanks, you can get more tanks and therefore flat out crush more guys. RoF (again, we don't know currently how to change this without deeper hacking), but it'd be a flat buff to their attack. Currently a rocket does the same damage as a med tank shot, but fires a little less often. So buffing this will basically bring it to the same effectiveness of a med tank. I think the main part here that I disagree with is buffing the recon bike; we didn't really want to touch the most basic parts of how the units interacted, but instead just bring in technical units that are underused and also give minor buffs to a couple of over used technical units that overshadowed other strategies.
  9. Maybe not.... SC:BW remaster is a bunch of graphics printed over the top of the original game that is basically running underneath. This could be similar. It's not a terrible rendition, but like the walls around the edge of main structure... the crane is quite different. It's meant to be pretty smooth, from what I can see in the cinematic. Makes me wonder why they chose to do it this way. I actually don't hate it, though. But it makes you wonder why you'd both to make a "remaster" if you're going to partially re-imagine the designs.
  10. Yeah, is probably pretty damn good against a bunch of bikes. In most of the games we'd played, it seemed more useful vs infantry/flyers. But this just shows that we really do have to keep an eye on it's effectiveness vs light vehicles. Yes, all the anti-armour rockets (rocket inf, bike, orca, stealth tank) are all the same weapon. If we COULD change one, it'd change all of these. But at it stands, the only way we could really change weapons is to swap one weapon out for another... which is obviously quite limiting. Frustrating, as I very much want to know much much better a light tank with infantry, is when it's weapon is the same range as other tanks.
  11. DAMN, there's a name I haven't seen in a while!!! -White
  12. Thanks for the feedback! I'd love to know more about how the units were actually interacting. Can I ask what the opposite army composition was? (that MLRS took down) Regarding stealth tank changes; I somewhat agree with what you're saying (pushing MORE for the glass cannon effect), but we simply don't have the tools to be able to make stealth tanks fire more than 2 rockets. We can't even make the rockets do more damage.
  13. I broke the rules but no one cared that I broke the rules, why am I banned? Because you broke the rules.
  14. Just letting people know, Eric Martin, the man who played Gen. Mark Shepard in TD has recently just passed away. Not too much more to really report, obviously, condolences to his family and friends.
×
×
  • Create New...