Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

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

AchromicWhite

Members
  • Content Count

    1,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AchromicWhite

  1. I'd have actually put harvesters on if there was more than 1 type, just to compare them.
  2. Oh, arty have won me games, but I've also won games with flame tanks (and been beaten by these units). Unsure on MLRS. The tech and production barrier would stop it being a full replacement for grens, ever. Better than Chem Warrior, but so is the Stealth Tank. I've never been beaten by any D tier units.
  3. These things are all the rage right now, yeah? This is MY pick for units, though I took some time moving them around, I'm not 100% sure it'd really be my final choice, and people may be able to change my mind on some. Still, I'm pretty happy with it and can describe why each one falls where it does. It's important to note that what might bring one unit into a certain tier may not be the same reason another makes it. The choices are based off of high level play, so not what makes it easy for a newbie to use, but if it can fulfil it's role with less APM, then that's obviously a bonus. S Tier: The bread and butter of both teams, and the units that have no clear counter that simply wipes them out. The Apache is probably the outlier as it's technically a tech unit. However it's so good vs GDI, that a single 1 can often create an overcompensation that can win the game outright, counters it's own counters. The very sight of it completely changing how someone plays... even vs the high amounts of AA Nod has, it's still used. A Tier: Complements to S Tier units, but not quite on par with them. Clearly they're all amazing anti-infantry, but all 3 of these bad boys also have their own roles outside of that use, and are solid at those roles. All require the opponent to change how they play and compensate accordingly, else take terrible terrible damage. B Tier: Units that are attempting to counter S tier units and are doing a reasonably poor job at it. Many of them can be massed and are fine if you just have loads of them... but they have S tier counterparts that are more or less just better versions of the same thing. The Orca is the outlier, great unit against GDI, can open with it or transition into it, probably A or even S vs GDI, but far too poor vs Nod to get a higher ranking... however, it does have some units against Nod, so it makes it up to B. Also Engineers and Chinooks are pretty top notch, as they win plenty of games. C Tier: These units do have uses, but when you use it and get damage done with it, you go "yay!" because it's so rare. If your opponent sees the units, they have clear counters and can be shut down pretty damn easily in most situations. One could make an argument that the artillery is more useful, but with the poor movement AND turn speed coupled with hilariously low HP, it's simply not B tier. D Tier: "Please make me, I want to be in the game." You almost never see them, and if you do it's mostly for the memes. On a more serious note, the most major thing that sets them back is the price of tech. Hopefully this link lets you also have access to making your own Tier list. https://tiermaker.com/create/candc95-units-80479?presentationMode=true
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. Interestingly, that gif does highlight the concrete part around the main structure, being different.
  8. Armour type, Crusher yes/no, I think we can make units stealth
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. DAMN, there's a name I haven't seen in a while!!! -White
  15. 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.
  16. I broke the rules but no one cared that I broke the rules, why am I banned? Because you broke the rules.
  17. 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.
  18. Has anyone played this and had any interesting experiences to report? A good amount of people decided it's probably unfair... but did they play it? This thread is supposed to be for feedback about matches first and foremost (though obviously other feedback is welcome also).
  19. Honestly, having that as a check box in cncnet is something that a LOT of people have wanted for a long time. So, if you have any power to get that done, it'd be MUCH appreciated. Also, good to see you man.
  20. Something like that could be good. I will say, not all of the changes are stand alone. A good example of that is that we purposefully didn't directly over nerf the apache, but instead just made some of it's targets (like the con yard/WF) more tanky. This obviously also makes them less vulnerable to other attacks, but these changes still need to be looked at as a whole. It'd be nice to see more feedback from people actually playing the maps. Then, when that happens, we should then use the poll. Then it'd actually be interesting. Hard to know how good a change is without playing with it... changes shouldn't really happen just using theory crafting, which is the purpose of this thread and having the test patch open to people. You are right, though; the community, like many other RTS communities, is split between those who play the money maps and those who don't. The difference is that our community is so small that it's hard to build players for your game if you completely separate yourselves into two. Bit of a pain, really.
  21. Yeah, the name was brought up earlier by Cn2. Understandable that note everyone in the community is a fan, but it's still a community patch, as opposed to an official patch. Could be right, though, the name could be changed (I think the RA2:YR patch used the same name, and it was just adopted here)
  22. Yeah, MLRS, but not MSAM, right? (SSM not "rocket launcher") mmm, this is not so much a post on general balance, this is about the patch. It is important info to keep in mind, for sure. But we did already know about it.... it is nice to see the exact calculation, though.
  23. Be really good to put this under the other thread that I stared on unit/structure build times, rather than cluttering this one up. That's really interesting, but I also know that all build times are locked off into large time intervals. Those being the full length of the shortest production times; all walls, silos, minigunner, grenadier, flamer (I think that's all...). So it also rounds the build times. Maybe to 150 credit intervals? Unsure. Yes, I don't think that there's ultimately a production time cap for multiple production facilities... Little confused on exactly what you're saying about the frames.
  24. That is incorrect, but not TOO far from the truth. Take a look at this thread where I looked at this anomaly in full, at least as it stands in the vanilla game. https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/8015-production-speeds-for-structuresunits/?tab=comments#comment-62160 Interestingly, the TI automatically changes when the cost of units are changed. And there is NO actual recorded build time in the unit's stats (like I'd started to suspect). I suggest that perhaps it's a % decrease, that's also somehow rounded. I'd like to continue research on it, but obviously am currently working on this patch/mod. To speak a little how this plays into the balance, it means that nod can deploy vehicles faster, which also means that they spend faster. This leaves GDI with less vehicles nearer the start, but with more money kicking around to plug into infantry. Which is OK, due to GDI infantry, at least in the early game, being better than Nods and melding well with their tanks in the mid game.
×
×
  • Create New...