AchromicWhite

Not really my point. I do mod, but it's maps that I'm more concerned about. Mostly because of a lack of C&C1 mods anyway, and mods are almost impossible to police anyway. It's more about protecting published work. Having a cloud area where people can store official maps would be a great way to do that. Imagine someone wrote a book and published it, but gave it away for free. Because it was free, someone else decided to change the message and then publish the changed version. It's a destruction of the original intent of the work. And even if the new version of it was more popular, it's NOT the point. Not only is it considered rude, but in many cases, even if the original is free, it's considered stealing. On the not of conserving the original game: Letting newbies understand that checking all the boxes doesn't give the best experience is also important, so that they're not thrown in the deep end on entry to the game; because then we just lose our players.

Conserving the game: CnCnet has provided a great place for people to come and experience a classic game, though in some cases allows modifications to be set on the game (which were not intended to be part of the game by WW, such as more then 9999 credits). There is, of course, a list of mods that you can turn on in the setup of games and even custom maps could be considered part of this. I think it's fine that these options exist, but I think that there should be a clear difference between what you CAN do and what was intended. Perhaps some sort of check box which says "mod game" or something. This is something that the more I'm here the more I think it's important. I know that it's something Nyerguds felt was important when patching the game. Arguably, we could claim that lines have already been crossed by speeding the cargo plane and not having any sort of check box on that, but obviously it's not game breaking, and ultimately I think it's been a healthy change. Frequently, I find new players who have turned the money up to 9999999999 and checked all of the boxes (they simply don't understand and just wanted the full experience, I guess). And that's where I kinda have the issue. They wanted the 'full experience' thinking that it was the 'full game'. But those extra features often end up taking from the game, rather than adding to it. For example, the undeploy MCV actually means that you cannot sell your MCV. The big thing about these sort of features is that they strait up make the game random and often harder to play. But you wont know that unless you've played the game for a long time and played in different modes. This means that for newcomers, they get swamped by things that should not have been in the game, simply because they wanted to play the full game. A check box which unlocks extra features and also explains to the player that these are community added features might help that along. Publishing Assets: Not for the first time and not for the last, another of my maps has been edited and is now being circulated. I suspect with my name still attacked to it. It mostly annoys me because my intentions of such maps is to create certain meta games off of them; and those who edit them don't understand this and change it because their way of playing simply doesn't fit what the map is meant to do. But they thought it looked pretty and so they edit it. Let me be clear. I'm not against people making whatever maps they want to make, but I think it's rude to take and edit people's stuff. Especially without asking. I'm not asking for people to police such behaviour, that's just crazy, but if we could have some way to publish our work, and put it somewhere where it was clear which one was the original; editable only by the owner of the work. I think it'd be really healthy for map makers. For example. When you are using CnCnet, there is a categories for maps, which list any that you've placed into a respective folder with the name. This, of course, is just saved onto your own PC and once you play another person, it's copies onto their PC. -Could we have an online version of these folders, that anyone can access when playing across CnCnet, which is password protected? This would mean that there would be an official area for individuals to make maps, but maybe even a place for community collections and even an area for the original WW maps (which I think is also important to have separated in a clear way, even if just for the sake of respect). To conclude; I don't really care that I currently have my maps (or, not my maps, as they are now), circulating; at least not enough to ask the CnCnet team to police it. But I am asking for a place to publish my work, so that people know what IS my own work, and what is not (I'm also pretty sure I wont be the last person to care about their own work being edited in a way that is not intended). I also would like to make sure that the original game is preserved while CnCnet reaches (and rightfully so) into the future of keeping these classics alive and creating a variety of experiences for people.

There is a point to be made on that note, though. Which is being careful of hacking the exe, to the point that community projects (especially large ones... and as the community grows, we may well have more) are no longer compatible. Though, it's a pretty obvious point, but still.

This is actually an excellent point.

Yeah, I'd love to see the new tiles too. But really I'd like to see them in an editor for community use, and obviously, that's a lot of work. But heck, I'd love a LOT of things for this game that will quite possibly never happen haha. -Larger maps -rules.ini editing -Selectable start positions (and true randomised start positions, too) I could go on, but you get the idea, haha. Anyway, I've learned to just let patch developers just do their thing. After all, just look at how much more this game has gotten since the community (OK mostly Nyer) started patching it.

It'd be hard to do double remap for a single SHP though, no? As the game would just read all of the remap and convert it to the true colour.

sigh.... to have rules.ini for TD I commander can dream.

Chemical Warrior from C&C95. It's not that it's unusable, but it's pretty much just an insanely high teched expensive flamer infantry. And the flame infantry comes from naked infantry production. I think it's the only unit that we haven't ever used and said "well, that unit actually worked out really well". I just see no real point of playing so much more for something which is already around, and requires higher tech.

Yes, I heli rush when people start with lots of cash. And if they lower the tech I just play all in. With a LOT of barracks as well.

No, it's a load of Tiberium everywhere, bases in little boxes, free tech to capture. Nah, man, there's a bunch of us. Have we played? I feel like we need to gave a game

Depends on what you want from the game. The last time I played, someone got an engi into one of my structures. Not the biggest deal... except they had 2 cons so they just started spamming AGTs in my base. I just left. Not because I couldn't deal with it, but because I don't want to play a game like that. It just isn't C&C to me, it feels more like a mod of some sort, where the maker didn't understand what they were doing. Would I want to play a poorly thought out mod, or C&C95? Well, if I joined a C&C95 game, that probably answers the question. Honestly, it's hard to make GOOD popular maps. What makes makes balanced and competitive is not what most people consider fun. I guess it depends on what you want to accomplish with your maps. For me, I pretty much make things that I'd find fun to play. People can figure out the rest for themselves. I mean, I do have a youtube channel with a bunch of games that explain how to play the game, but even that isn't popular enough to get people to really learn... and in turn appreciate my maps for what they are designed to do.

Yeah. It is 'correct' from an art standpoint. It's the design where it kinda falls flat, both artistically and for game play.

At least PinWheel got some popularity. But even that's a map that I could have made better. Yeah. I've often wanted to test maps before releasing them, but there's no space to do that, as the system copies them to everyone else's computer automatically. There's no publishing, the system just does it all. As a mapper, this is actually frustrating. It also means that people can easily copy your map, edit it, and redistribute it. Heck, just editing it means that the redistributing happens automatically. Which is always a slap in the face to any sort or artist; modder, mapper, whatever.

Yes, I'm well aware. Don't take me original post too seriously. The map is crap, and it bugs the crap outta me. Obviously, that's pretty annoying when I'm trying to play the game. But it also bugs me that people don't get to experience this game the way that I got to. That's all it's saying, in seriousness. The rest is just a bitch fest. I laughed a lot while I wrote it.

Oh, I'm more than aware that I can't change this crap. And no, it's not a democracy, nor is it a dictatorship, or ANY government type. It's a bunch of people playing a game. It's my bitch post and I stick to what I say. It's shame we don't have a way to properly promote decent maps and share basic strategy information. It's this thought that makes me dream of a community ladder... but then I remember that C&C has cheeses for days. I would still like to see the start cash limited to 10,000 or 9999 as WW capped it at. I mean, the reason that 9999 became the norm was for the same reason that HJK6 is popular. It's like "of course we just want to play with the most $$$, why wouldn't we?". The answer to why we MIGHT not want to can be found above. However, it was still capped low enough, and it actually allows for different economic openings; which set the pacing for your economy for a significant amount of the game. So it actually is enough to create more diversity. It does, however, allow for some silly cheeses, like heli-rush and 2xstrip/WF all-in. With 99999999999999 start credits, the game outright breaks. Which leads to people looking for other solutions. Many newbies play on tech 6 so that flyers aren't in the game. In other words, because they didn't understand the econ (as I wouldn't expect them to), they blame the flyers. This means that they don't get to experience the downside to rushing flyers (running out of money), and learning to counter that. In other words, they just lose out on experiencing more of what the game has to offer. And I want to be clear. If I'D have had the option to do this earlier in my history of playing this game, I would have. And I probably would have looked to make the same solutions as these people. But as the people who understand the game, I feel that we have more of a responsibility to cradle what we KNOW makes this game better, and put to rest what damages it. Maybe we could create a 'competitive mode', which instantly selects the common start settings: Tech 7 $10,000 Tiberium on Bases on Crates off Separate Helipads off Capture the flag off MCV undeploy off And then work together as a community to select a bunch of maps that focus on the possibilities of the game. At least that's send a message to people that this game has something to offer that the newer plays don't yet understand, while not attacking what they already have. Look at me. Turning my whine post into something constructive.

Oh, and the masses of tib messes with the low IQ of harvester drivers

Honestly, the original was bad, but the new version where you start with another con yard in your base and a comm centre is just a butchering of not only the ability for people to play multiple styles, as you simply cannot move out with anything other than mammoth sized armies or light vehicles, but also a butchering of build orders and early macro. It also means that people can gain extra con yards and do mass defence structure strategies as offensive builds. Someone which is possible in RA1, but not in C&C95. There, I said it, I'm sticking with it and I hate it. Not only on a game play level where I am actually in there on the map, but also from a 'game love' perspective where I see so much potential for this game be flushed away. I also feel it shits on the original creators of the game, as they clearly intended extra structures to be for single player maps. I never would have played this game for as long as I have if the strategies were that limited. I think it's damaging to the game play and eventually the community. I know it's popular, but it's popular because it gives you everything you think you want. However, starting with everything you want in an RTS only destroys the pacing of the game. I've said before; what makes each team in C&C95 interesting is not what they CAN do, but what they CAN'T do. It's this "can't do" which allows new strategies to be formed, as people start to pick apart builds and control to find the weakness of their opponent, and gain advantage. If you start with all the money you need, the ability to make everything, and the ability to make it all really fast, and tiberium all over the battlefield, then you lose: -Team advantages/disadvantages -Pacing of the early/mid/late game -Unit compositions/counters builds If you want a game about speed and less strategy, go play RA1. And that IS a thing. Someone people want that. But having our new players learning on this map, SUCKS. I will not swear about it; brace yourselves. Fuck HJK6 and all it's limiting bullshit.

Isn't the "ragdoll" effect when infantry is killed by AP? I think maybe it works a little differently in C&C95 (death sequence attached to the weapon or something), but that is the correct animation, isn't it? Launched through the air.

Actually tempted to Email him and invite him to come play play. Would be awesome exposure, for sure. I'm away over Easter, though. Remind me when I come back xD (in about a week)

He's doing a play through of C&C95!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpY8jBrcV9s I'm hoping beyond all hoping that he pops onto CnCnet, but I think I'm dreaming a bit much if that's the case.

I've actually been trying 3 ref into 2 strips. It's kinda interesting... You run a bit out of cash, but not before bolstering your forces. You use that moment to get the 4th ref down and continue to spike. Still, maybe 2 refs is better in NodvNod. You're right about holding against 1 ref. The rush hits hard and fast; and they can outright win by targeting your army, if you're not careful with your units. You have to kinda poke around and gather time to get at least a turret down to push them off of you.

Interesting. So you think more econ in Nov v Nod and more tech in Nod v GDI? Would that mean a greedier opening vs Nod and less vs GDI. Like 3 ref strip in Nod vs Nod, into 4th ref and then 2nd strip. And then in Nod v GDI; 2 ref strip 3rd ref, comm, 4-5th ref and then 2nd strip?

Well, it puts you behind on initial unit count. And if you can seamlessly transition into 2 strip at the same time (not stopping structure production) off of 2 ref opening, is it worth it? I'd like to play this greedy, but don't understand how to pump out enough stuff to spend that $$$ I've already lost games while banking 8000, lol. And am like "hm... if that was units".

I've just picked up on playing more Nod lately. I enjoy opening 3 ref before strip in all MUs. But I find myself with piles of cash... Now I could just make apaches, but honestly, I feel like I'm cheating, and they don't make for interesting games. So let's pretend they don't exist for now. I usually spend my excess $$$ by producing multiple barracks, when I play as GDI. But mass troops as Nod is just not so viable. I need to make more airstrips, faster. Beyond the opening, what sort of build order should I look at? Let's assume that my opponent attacks me early, because I play greedy (common). PP, Hand, Ref, Ref, Ref, Strip, PP, Turret (to hold rush) Now, from here am I ready for a strip, do to waiting for the turret to complete, or should I go for the 4th Ref before my second strip. After that, I get pretty confused. If I make anther 2 refs, my $$$ are just over flowing. IDK how to spend this stuff! Given that I can usually hold rushes, and enjoy econ games, I think I'll stick with 3 ref openings (as a standard play). Or is that actually just stupid, because Nod works off of using less production structures, and I pretty much get no advantage from it? Thoughts?

Alright, sounds like I might just have to test it then. All good. Thanks for the feedback guys!