AchromicWhite

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.

Interestingly, that gif does highlight the concrete part around the main structure, being different.

Armour type, Crusher yes/no, I think we can make units stealth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DAMN, there's a name I haven't seen in a while!!! -White

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.

I broke the rules but no one cared that I broke the rules, why am I banned? Because you broke the rules.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

I'm not 100% sure what you were doubting, is my main issue. You're saying that 33% extra HP does not mean 33% extra overall power? We've been testing buggies vs hummers in all sorts of situations. That testing is continuing. Feel free to fire the test up with someone and test them based off of build speed ratio or cost ratio or even just put the cash up high on an average map and play pure hummer vs pure buggy. The buggies still seem to own, from what we're seeing... just not quite as much. We want it to be a zoning tool, not an equal to the buggy. So that's somewhat good, but we need to decide on exactly how strong it should feel.

+33% health does not mean +33% time. (until it does during a fight?)It depends on the opponents damage. Which results in the number of shots needed.Which also need "first strike" to be subtracted. We know. No one said that it's 33% stronger. It still loses to buggies, but, while it was sometimes a soft counter to bikes, it can now fill that role a bit better. It means that hummers are not outright the worst light vehicle, in the case where we're talking pure light vehicle fights. But it has less use later on, than say the recon bike. It also doesn't scale as well. We were choosing to look at hummer vs bikes and buggies as it's their most important role (unless we maybe count sniping flamer troops). Hummers already die to their flat counters... Even buggies die to light tanks, the hummer is still a worse version of the buggy, just not to the same extent.

Just to reply to the philosophy of the patch (but maybe we can open a whole thread for that to keep it all clean)... As Ferret points out, this patch is optional. We'd like to get it to a point where it can be used competitively, but as it stands, it's pretty much just an experiment. We're not assuming that these current changes will fix everything, no one's claiming that. This is the first wave of ideas to get an understanding of what the game might be like with the most overused and underused tech units tweaked. Some changes may well be chucked out, that's why we're testing. The most obvious culprits; -Apaches were too strong. (Their gun was too good among a variety of targets, and it was placed on a unit with the very best mobility) -APC's fast crushing overshadows other anti infantry weapons, BUT APCs have their own role that isn't anti-infantry. (Wasn't designed to BE a fast crusher, but instead an infantry transport) -WF too weak. -Chem and MLRS too high tech. Most of the changes are based around that. And I think most people will agree that those statements are true. If you simply think back on previous matches, it's pretty obvious to see that people often forget all other tech units than flyers and APCs. Even in GDI v GDI, most people will opt to use their own orca, rather than try to make AA to counter. If too many changes are made at once, it actually becomes hard to balance down the track. So please test what's there instead of making assumption about the power changes. That's far more helpful for everyone. If you're not interested in this patch, then I see little purpose of you posting in this thread. "This thread should be called 'Private Balance Mod' instead of 'Community Balance Patch'. I can elaborate on why, but it seems pretty obvious to me." Actually a pretty good point. I think the name was just copied from the YR patch. But if the community is at least on board with having a patch of some sort, which is why this thread exists, then I guess it's not the worst name given. "Flame tank is underused because its not so great, perhaps it could also get a buff for this patch? Armour/speed increase? Its such an enjoyable unit like the MRLS but rarely has a place. Make it the fearsome unit its meant to be?" It is underused, but it's hard to know how powerful it is, because it's overshadowed by the APC. Without a unit overshadowing other anti-infantry units, we can get an idea of the current strength of it and other anti-infantry units in the nod arsenal. Also, no one knows what it's like to have flame tanks backed with chem warriors, light tanks and beefy rocket soldiers. (this is why too many changes cannot be made at once) "Since GDI get enhanced bazookas and mrls how about nod apaches stay the same power re their ammo?" Rocket troopers, despite what some people think, are owned by both teams, and are useful vs medium tanks. They're frequently used in GDI v GDI. Regarding their use as AA vs Apaches, the HP of the rocket soldier is not the biggest barrier to using them as AA. Mostly it's cost and speed. This just means that if you make a bunch and put them together, that the apaches don't just kill them and then go to town elsewhere. It means that rocket soldiers can, in good number, zone the apaches from an area. The apache ammo is chosen the way that it is to be good against specific targets, outlined in the apache changes. This is the reason for a very specific HP for the WF. It's to help to keep the apache useful. The apache is still lowest tech and produces extremely fast. The same cannot be said for the MLRS. I'm happy to debate the balance here, but I will not respond to personal attacks (especially ones that are based on flat lies) or hysteria. "nuclear can no longer destroy a weapons factory but an Ion cannon is given more damage to deliberately still allow them to destroy" Supers are often used alongside flyers. The splash from the nuke can well wipe out rocket soldiers around it, and even shut down power to AGTs. Having a Nuke that doesn't kill the WF, in particular, doesn't hurt the overall power of the nuke by that much, for that reason. Currently the splash from a nuke almost wipes it out, and fire on the factory often finishes it off. The WF is a hard change; the obvious thing to do was to just buff it's HP, but by doing that, it'd mean that it'd no longer be susceptible to attacks it's meant to remain susceptible to (like the Ion). This change at least makes the two super weapons somewhat different in what you get out of them, rather than the nuke feeling more like an ion with splash. "MLRS taken away from Nod despite they are the ones that doesn't have an AGT" Both the APC and MLRS are GDI vehicles that are given to both teams in multiplayer. Even though Nod has a similar vehicle in the form of the SSM. This change is to help both teams remain asymmetrical in the game. I'm still unconvinced that the MLRS will be the moving AGT people believe it'll be (far less HP and about 50% the damage output). "why are stealth tanks cheaper than flame tanks?" There are plans to buff the flame tank, but it's hard to know where to put it when there are so many other changes happening. See the above reply ""Flame tank is underused because its not so great, perhaps it could also get a buff for this patch? Armour/speed increase? Its such an enjoyable unit like the MRLS but rarely has a place. Make it the fearsome unit its meant to be?"" There's also some dispute as it if it should be speed or HP that it gains.

We don't really know what they've got in mind for the remaster. They haven't released TOO much, but given that they specifically asked if they should be changing even the harvester pathing, it sounds like the core game will still be there. SC:BW used well rendered 2D models running over the top of the old engine... but that doesn't meant that C&C will be the same.

This is a copy of another topic in the community section, but I thought it'd be god to have it here, too. So that those particularly interested in Tiberian Dawn can come and have a listen. In the anticipation of the up and coming release for the Remaster, a few of the top tier C&C95 players, modders and mappers have come together to bring you a new C&C show, much like a podcast that you can chill out and have a listen to. We're mostly focused on C&C95 (Tiberian Dawn) and it's remaster, but we're open to discussing other C&C games, too. First episode, we discuss; -Jim Vessella's questions to the community -UI and extra additions to be added to the remaster -New ideas for game modes -The up and coming community (beta) balance test patch for Tiberian Dawn, which will be available through CnCNet Feel free to ask questions below, and if you have any topics you'd like to see discussed, feel free to post them below! Hope you enjoy the show! GLHF! We may yet change how we deliver the show, if we have it as a podcast, etc. So stick around and I'll keep you informed. https://youtu.be/lN-Ocy3g1po

In the anticipation of the up and coming release for the Remaster, a few of the top tier C&C95 players, modders and mappers have come together to bring you a new C&C show, much like a podcast that you can chill out and have a listen to. We're mostly focused on C&C95 (Tiberian Dawn) and it's remaster, but we're open to discussing other C&C games, too. First episode, we discuss; -Jim Vessella's questions to the community -UI and extra additions to be added to the remaster -New ideas for game modes -The up and coming community (beta) balance test patch for Tiberian Dawn, which will be available through CnCNet Feel free to ask questions below, and if you have any topics you'd like to see discussed, feel free to post them below! Hope you enjoy the show! GLHF! We may yet change how we deliver the show, if we have it as a podcast, etc. So stick around and I'll keep you informed. https://youtu.be/lN-Ocy3g1po