Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

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

AchromicWhite

Members
  • Content Count

    1,916
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AchromicWhite

  1. RA2 is a more popular game, but clearly they're just doing the originals, at least first. Honestly, I suspect that TS and RA2 remaster will come after. I don't think that their choice to do TD and RA1 remasters first was anything to do with the public's preference of game.
  2. You don't think that packeting should show if a game has naked ladies in the game, simulated gambling or is actually a learning game for kids? I'm all for letting the consumer know what's in a product. Not all regulation is a blight on the land.
  3. I only meant from legal stand points... There are actually laws surrounding stuff like this.
  4. Messiah, I didn't know you made YR stuff. This is very cool, well done man!
  5. Thanks for taking the time to get this. Thanks to Funky, too, for letting us test all of this over cncnet. I'm really interested to see how this stuff plays out as a more focused patch. I think the last one, while it had good ideas, were probably too much to really gauge the individual issues, because there was so much going on.
  6. Yeah, looks really good. Great QoL change, as you don't have to reload missions and such to play the alternate missions. The only thing that this may have an issue with is that some missions allow funds to carry over form previous missions... it was already an issue that you lost those extra funds if you hit "restart mission", so I'd like to know how they're going to deal with that feature in particular, or at least bring it to their attention that it could be an issue to look at. Other than that, it looks really nice. It's something that SCII and SCI both had, and I think it's a great addition. It doesn't really take anything out of the game and just lets people get in there and play ALL the missions without having to save near the end of missions or replay missions.
  7. Yes, we often use this resource to check values, so thanks for uploading this stuff... even if the website is literally just a bunch of folders xD (hey, if it works, right?) Part of the issue was that neither of the people directly working on the patch have hacking ability, and are relying on editors or begging other hackers to get in there and change the values. If you're offering a hand, we'd much appreciate it. Heck, I wouldn't mind chatting to you about it anyway. I know you might not be up with the current meta of play, but you've obviously got a lot of knowledge about the game in any case.
  8. Oh, no no. I love my same Kane time... I just don't think you'll get a better briefing scene from having new videos. My bet is that they'll maybe up the sound quality, and maybe use some modern tech to smooth some stuff out... but then, as I said, BW didn't even seem to take that route, regarding cinematics. Seriously though, he's getting greyer, haha https://scontent.fchc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/50248135_10155979228403730_5017122225271078912_n.jpg I don't think they could have the flame tank actually burning people in a cut scene, without raising the rating on the game. Could be wrong, though.
  9. I doubt they'll remake the briefing videos. It'd be a mess, old man Kane, haha. They MIGHT remake the cut scenes with the battles. Even SC:BW Remastered, with everything they got in that game, didn't have remastered cut scenes.
  10. So I just have to watch a deleted video. OK, cool. Again, it really doesn't matter, that's off topic anyway, as I was saying. Anyway, for your question... that's not really a community question, you need to get in touch with the mods over that. Being public with it only serves to bring out the public judges.
  11. That has nothing to do with this situation and is another situation which you're upset about. 1. I don't know the ins and outs of such a situation, and am not willing to take your word for it. 2. I'm not the judge/mod, I'm just adding my 2c of philosophy to the situation. (if you read my other comment, you'll see that it wasn't a personal attack against anyone, and stayed on the topic of the thread and question at hand). 3. If you have an issue with someone's behaviour, you should bundle the evidence and bring it to another mod and get that sorted, or learn to just live with the fact that it happened, and just move on. Else this just goes on forever, with no purpose.
  12. I don't think that people wanting to play against anyone should mean that they get less punishment for breaking rules. Popularity should not come into it. That's the only fair way to have rules. Maybe he should just ACTUALLY learn his lesson and stop doing things that get you banned. It's not actually that hard.
  13. Well done. I should take the time to bash through this. If I can get my video software working properly again, I'll make upload the plays!
  14. I actually agree that too many of the settings are variable, and have asked for years that we have a tighter standard of play. But it's usually thrown out. So, we're actually somewhat on the same page there. I think, if we could be successful in making a well rounded change that enhanced competitive play, we could make the option lock in other features like 10,000 starting cash, bases on etc. Just to give that solid standard of competitive play. Let people know what to practice. At the moment, people just play whatever... but then when they want a competitive match, a random opponent will simply have another idea of what it means to play competitive C&C, and so that two cannot really play one another without one person having to play in a way that they haven't practised.
  15. The patch is not really to balance the teams as much as it's to balance units and allow for more compositions. But I understand the philosophy of conserving the game, none the less.
  16. The speeds have a % multiplier depending on if they're on foot, wheeled, or tracked. However, in TD, there are not different terrain types (like road). Areas are simply passable, or not.
  17. Useless is a pretty strong word for a completely untested change, that didn't even have a number applied to it. Honestly, it can become hard to take people seriously if they're heavily bias. Be careful with that.
  18. That's an interesting idea. The main issue with the crushing is the lack of counter micro. Every other crusher allows for a dance of micro between the two players, and for the person choosing forward to crush, as if they miss, they will often end up with their vehicle surrounded by infantry, and taking a lot of damage. The APC, on the other hand, took a lot less damage, mainly due to it's speed. This mostly eliminates that interaction. Speed reduction would be one way to help to bring that back into the game. Worth discussing, at least; it's a change that I hadn't considered.
  19. Pretty cool looking... but isn't the really iconic unit of RA1 the heavy tank? tehe Nah, this looks good, though. I'll be interested to see how these sort of units look when they're scaled right down to just tiny units on the screen, in game.
  20. Exactly, Ore Truck. FFA you can just do that. And it's not rule breaking to do it, nor to take revenge by 3v1 someone... because it's FFA.
  21. Yeah, there's no rules in FFA. You just made that up because you felt that it was unfair. FFA has no rules. As I was saying, how would you police it; by getting people to spit their attacking force evenly between other players?.... Then you just drew a line and said that it's the rule, that it's rule breaking if they choose to not attack someone from the start... well what about the other extreme; if you put a lot of your resources into knocking out a particular player (what's the difference between not attacking one player or attacking ONLY one other player?). You're a bit of a cheeser, you must have done this, no? FFA has no rules, because it's impossible to police it. It's not a competitive mode of play.
  22. What's with the funny look... it's FFA, anything goes. How would you make it "fair" and "by the rules"? Have everyone split their armies evenly between all players and only let them use those units against those opponents? People can just attack whom they like, so even if there's no alliance, there's always going to be tactical decisions to choose who you attack.
  23. lol... FFA is a free for all. You can always make shaky alliances. Even without speaking. This is what I've said about FFA for years; it's more political than skill/strategy/tactically based. It can still be fun, but it's not competitive.
  24. I think the depth of the game comes more from it's tactics than it's strategies, to be honest. Strategically, the game mostly leans towards bike/buggy and Med/Grens.
×
×
  • Create New...