AchromicWhite

Yeah, I don't know about that. I haven't researched that at all. I suspect that someone else probably already has. I'd be surprised if Nyer doesn't know.

What are the build speed bonuses for the airfields and how does that affect the standard build speeds? There is no bonus for producing anything via the airstrip. The only difference is that it flies in via plane. Is there a limit on build speed bonus from multiple air fields/weapons factories? No idea. I've never researched it... but given how fast you can make infantry build when you create like 99 barracks, I can at least say that the limit (if there is one) is much higher than the RA1 limit. What happens to units that are already fast to build like buggies when you have multiple airfields? They build faster. That is the extent of my knowledge xD

Hi guys! This is a follow up on my thread about build times, which can be found here: https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/7945-25-faster-nod-vehicle-build-speed-wow/ I've been doing more research. I was incorrect about my last statements, (there is no "25% increase") but the time taken for items to build is very strange. So, I used to believe that when you built an item, it would take a stock amount of time based on it's price. So, for example, that a flame tank (800) would take twice the amount of time to build, than a humvee (400) and four times as long as a flamer (200) etc. Basically, we thought that there was a "credit time", or, a stock amount of time that could be calculated as credits/time (C/T). There is no "credit time". Instead, there is a minimum time increment (I'll call this TI) for certain items, and then all other items are multiples of that increment. Note that TI cannot be calculated as an actual length of time, because it'll vary due to the game speed setting, online/offline play etc. Stranger than the fact that everything is rounded to a number of TI, is that many units do not even have the same TI as other units of the same price. I have no idea why that would be. I've taken the time to write up a spreadsheet to show the TI for each structure and unit. I'm over 90% sure that these numbers are correct, but please note that I got them by using a stop watch as part of the process. So some of the highest ones could be off (but I honestly don't think they are). Even though there is no true C/T, I've placed two columns showing what the price of each unit/structure would be if TI=100 and TI=150 to help compare units and structure build times regarding game balance. The results are pretty interesting. In the example where TI = 100, that would make the TI "correct" for: minigunners and concrete walls In the example where TI = 150, that would make the TI "correct" for: Silo, (almost the Grenadier at 160), barracks, hand of nod, rocket inf, chem inf, buggy, artillery, light tank, SSM and stealth tank. The higher the number under C-TI, the more of a bonus is given in production speed, compared to it's price. I've also added columns to show the cost/build time ratio as a %, where TI is 100 and 150. Lastly, I've added columns to show the build time/cost ratio as a %, as well, showing TI as both 100 and 150. Here is the table: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSmM_ipJSaJqQPdsGZPl1REnJlnH2HsjtPf56jH4zasjS9DGnpbwyjyWnNMci21NMOBRXPeliC8H0qM/pubhtml _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Edit: Added 4 new columns, these show the TI, Cost-TI, Cost/TI and TI/Cost where TI = 114.3 114.3 is the number calculated to show 800 cost = 7 TI (Med tank/MLRS). Have a look at the % of all the GDI vehicles. It's amazing how close most of them are to 100%... only the humvee is out by a good amount. Even the defences are pretty damn close. I've also highlighted them so that you can quickly scroll left and right to see what you're looking at. Many of the other structures are also very close to this, so maybe don't read too much into it.

Sounds like an interesting topic. Feel free to open a thread on it. I've been doing more testing. My numbers were wrong... stay tuned.

Happy new year dude! Also, I miss Myg We haven't played in a long LONG time.

Well, I think that with the case of AoE the design was to just put it MORE in front of people. You may very well find that you, X3M, are not your average user. And that you care more about the depth and quality of games, more than most.

LOL I've actually seen this video before xD

Thanks for that. Game design is one of my side hobbies

I'd love to hear what they had to say about resolution. Especially because they actually changed the res between the dos and gold versions.

Well.. I like to think they got it... but then I look at RA1 and wonder if it was all just luck. Because the balance is TERRIBLE in RA.

Oh, I did think that, but eh... We all know where it's from, and you're crediting me in your main mod. But thanks anyway. Yeah, I figured I'd tell you about the silo in case you want to use it in your main mod.

Yes, you can get them. They files called .shp, which contains a string of pictures (basically). In your cnc95 folder there should be a folder called XCC, which contains programs to help extract those files. XCC mixer.exe will let you extract the files. There's a bit more to it all if you're looking to edit, and if someone knows where there's a write up on how to do that, a link would be much appreciated... as it takes a while to write it all down. (It's also been a little while since I've edited, so I'd need to do some recalling first).

The balance is the same as it's always been. I'd honestly say that WW didn't really know what they were doing... this game was about the 3rd RTS ever released, and the first with asymmetric balance. To my understanding, they just got mixes of units and pitched them against each other in head on battles. And that was the basis for their balance. Which could explain why fast units are maybe a bit under priced and especially why both flyers are particularly good vs structures (never tested vs structures). It might also explain why the speed of units seems to not come into price perhaps as much as it should, a buggy seem awesome for 300 while a rocket troop is awful for 300... but if you position rocket men well, they're good, and buggies are mostly great due to their speed (they feel more fair as they engage in big battles).

Played it, laughed a lot xD Even found you a bug... the silo damaged frames are unedited, so they suddenly become brimming with tiberium before exploding! Anyway. Cool stuff. I like the airstrip in it, actually. It simple but really nice. And use of those unused animations from RA1.

Hilarious! Thanks for the upload! I'll have to check this one out xD

There's a bit where it just says "ready" for about a second, and you cannot make another unit until it goes back to normal. To my knowledge, in the case of the airstrip, unless you've made 2 units really fast and hit the 'ready' bug, it just flickers, meaning you can start your next unit quicker.

It was done to fix a bug. The bug can still sometimes happen, but it's a lot rarer. Yes, but you can start building another unit while the plane flies in (only the 'ready' bug was an issue... now that's mostly be resolved). I think you'll find that there's a good second that GDI cannot start making another vehicle when one finishes. So, other than the initial drop time for not, you might actually find GDI has the disadvantage. The drop from the plane doesn't add to the build time, as you can start another vehicle while one's being dropped off. The biggest issue, as you point out, is multiple drop locations. This issue CAN also happen with War factories if you have enough of them. In fact, even the 'ready' bug can occur, to my knowledge. And, it's 25%, not 33%. From what I can see. Both Lovehandles and Ferret seemed to agree that it looked like 25%, too.

That's a REALLY good point. That's far more likely to be the reason behind it. Good thinking. If they're in the west, then I guess they do. It's better than it being slower. Personally, I think it was a good fix. My only reasoning I ever had against it was that; "if we're willing to change this, where do we stop?" And there have been some posts asking about changing balance... that type of things should be left to mods. The CnCNet project was always about bringing old school C&C back. In saying that, technically, we have a different game, with things like customisable hotkeys and higher resolution (see more on the screen), but it's whatever at this point.

I agree. GDI has few advantages. This isn't really a balance thread, though; this is something that I literally noticed and was like; "is that stuff building faster?" And then I tested it, and yes. I was right... and somehow we just didn't know for 20 years. It doesn't change the game that we know, it just gives us some info about perhaps 'why', in some cases... However, it once again blows me away that the buggy, one of the units considered to be the most powerful, DOESN'T have this buff. Yet, Artillery, Light Tank, Flame Tank, Stealth Tank, which are all considered somewhat average, DO in fact have this buff. The only one that this seems to apply to as a potential balance issue is the Recon Bike. Even the SSM, which is considered a good unit, it really barely applies to, as they're usually produced in a time where the game is starting to turtle up.

We know this for a fact? Ultimately, it doesn't make sense, as you can start building the next vehicle while one's being dropped off, so you can stack the 25% increase, while the drop time of the plan doesn't stack up; it just offsets when the first vehicle, and therefor all vehicles actually drop in.

I also just spent some time trying to see if I could match the findings to any "unknown" variables: http://nyerguds.arsaneus-design.com/cnc95upd/inirules/units.ini No such luck. There doesn't seem to be any that match the pattern of; Nod only ground vehicles, excluding bggy.

EDIT!!! This information is incorrect. For the full info, please visit my new thread: https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/8015-build-speeds-for-structuresunits/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, I've never heard anyone say this, and I'd love for Nyerguds to chime in here if he knew anything... Let's get to the juicy stuff: Almost all nod vehicles build 25% faster than all other units/structures, relative to their cost. Vehicles that build 25% faster: -Bike -Light Tank -Artillery -Flame Tank -Stealth Tank -SSM That is to say, a flame tank, being 25% faster, builds at the same speed as a turret, etc. All infantry, flyers, and shared vehicles, such as the Harvester and APC are normal production speed, and just for inconsistency, the buggy is also normal production speed. I personally suspect it was to do with WW trying to balance the fact that Nod vehicles take time to drop off, but I could be wrong. How did we NOT know this? Did anyone know? My mind is blown... Keep cool and have fun kiddos.

Hadn't seen this guy back in a while... Assuming that you needed a virtual 3D model to base the print off of, did you ever consider contacting these guys, for that "authentic" look? http://www.moddb.com/mods/tiberian-dawn

No, that looks awesome. It looks dirty and amazing...

Yeah, they do at point say things that are worth having... but yes it's obviously troll territory.| Yes, I agree 100% The two solutions I have here are; a. In regard to dealing with balance; create an archetype system so that maps are categorised. Forget trying to balance them 100% (it's impossible, as you point at) but let people know the flavour of maps they're going to play on. In the case of tournaments, make people play against each opponent on a variety of archetypes, to showcase their skill. b. In regard to 'banning' maps; Play styles would not be banned from being used online. All that people can do now, they'll still be able to do. The idea is that there'd be another button they could push that would create a 'competitive match', it'd auto setup part of the options (bases on, 10,000 credits etc) and open the list of competitive maps, for them to choose through. Funky also shows the idea of players being able to veto maps, so that they wouldn't end up having to play on some of them, if they personally couldn't make a map work for themselves. This would give a standard to competitive play that would be universally understood, while still letting people setup crazy matches and big FFAs and everything else that players obviously enjoy.