Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

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

cn2mc

Members
  • Content Count

    716
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

180 Excellent

4 Followers

About cn2mc

  • Rank
    Grenadier

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The forum doesn't let me vote because I don't 'largely agree' with any of the changes. Neutral on CY and MCV sight increase, possibly also on MLRS being GDI only.
  2. Is it really possible though, that the majority of players of 20+year-old games are actually younger than the games themselves? I always saw it the other way around and assumed that most players here are simply past the age, in which they feel the need to make new friends and find new social circles, let alone on the internet.
  3. So... you really think what you're doing is not crying? Your entire post is a whine, Pence. A true VP would be asking how to improve, not why he's not succeeding. Go get 'em, tiger!
  4. Eh, I don't know and I don't really care. Probably not many times. As already demonstrated, and as you already actually agreed in one of your previous posts, tech steps > 0. Or do you mean just engineers walking on foot? Don't make me laugh. I don't presume anything, you obviously ARE dumb. Here's the proof: you asked why the GT is on tier 1 and the obelisk on 2. If you meant the AGT, I put that on tier 2 with the obelisk, which means you're still dumb, because you didn't see that and asked a stupid question. You are also dumb because, realistically, you have no say on what should be where in my system, you clearly can't even understand it.
  5. You should read more carefully. I clearly defined "accessibility" as: A) The tech steps (in buildings) that are required to make the unit, so 0, 1 or 2 prerequisite buildings; B) The ease of use/cost-effectiveness/level of specialization of the unit. I bumped engineers up to tier 2 precisely because they're overspecialized. Sure, they can win you a game or give you an advantage over your opponent but they can't really save you in a fight and aren't useful for anything else but capturing buildings. They are completely useless in battle, while most of the other base tier units (save perhaps for rocket men and artillery) are generally very well-rounded in combat. I think you are confusing the regular guard tower that has a machine gun for the advanced guard tower, which I put next to the obelisk at tier 2, where it belongs. You might have a point about the stealth tank, that it should be at tier 3, but I put it at 2 because I believe it's also quite a versatile unit. Good for scouting, good for harassment, good for precision strikes on buildings, good as a force multiplier because of its high damage output... Its use is rarely viable in 1v1, but it's a great unit in team games and FFA.
  6. Yet another sidestep away from the original. As I said in the dedicated thread, I doubt having tabs will make building stuff easier than using the scroll-wheel to navigate the regular sidebar. Better have a customizable one.
  7. I'd use the game's tech tree and what I shall dub "accessibility" as a measuring stick, make it only 3 tiers, but also include defensive buildings and superweapons. "Accessibility" would be defined primarily by: A) The tech steps (in buildings) that are required to make the unit, so 0, 1 or 2 prerequisite buildings; B) The ease of use/cost-effectiveness/level of specialization of the unit. Tier 1 -- these are the units you get right off the bat with the respective production building: Barracks/HoN: minigunners, grenadiers, flamethrowers, rocket men. Strip/WF: humvee, bike, buggy, m. tank, l. tank, arty, harv. Helipad: orca, apache. Might be considered tier two just because of the cost and hassle of reloading, but are available so early that I'll put them here. CY: guard tower, turret. Tier 2 -- those units requiring one additional tech building after prod. facility + tier 1 units that are too specialized or hard to use: Barracks/HoN: engineers, they are both pricey and have just one single purpose, so that's why I think they belong here. Strip/WF: flame tank, stealth tank, mammoth tank, APC (not only does the APC require a barracks/HoN to build, but also it suffers from manual loading). Helipad: chinook, because of ease of use issues. CY: AGT, obelisk. Tier 3: Barracks/HoN: commando, chem. warrior. Strip/WF: MLRS, MCV, SSM. Ion cannon, nuke. EDIT: shit, I forgot the SAM site. Tier 1.
  8. Mainly because it's a concept the game predates by possibly decades. It is also an exercise in oversimplification of unit relationships that are actually more complex. For example: C&C already has an inbuilt 7-tier tech tree complete with intricate prerequisites for hi-tech units and some pretty telling signs of what's supposed to counter what, or at least what general dynamics the developers originally intended. At the same time, having 5 different tiers for a game with roughly 20 units you can build seems to me like overkill. Lastly, the frequency of use of a unit should not be confused with its actual usefulness in particular circumstances. I never had to hide in a bomb shelter but it's nice to know there is one nearby.
  9. Pence just S-tiers the only units that he (sometimes, with luck) manages to use properly. Otherwise, this whole tier affair is quite pointless as it doesn't really apply to TD at all.
  10. EatMyCar, the thread is clearly about discussing art, not gameplay. chem, WW themselves have stated many times that they went for a modern warfare look during development in order to be more realistic and garner broader appeal. C&C was initially supposed to be a wizards and warriors game. Here's some good reading material: http://web.archive.org/web/20080215002613/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=49038 https://funambulism.com/2014/08/15/a-metric-ton-of-my-old-command-conquer-interviews/ https://www.bennet.org/features/tiberian-origins/
  11. I still see no inner contradiction in my argument. If anything, I'm contradicting your subjective opinion on TD's original art and I stand by mine, but this is not a philosophical debate on the nature of perception.
  12. Yes, there is comical architecture in the original C&C, but this is more comical, there are toy-like units and buildings in C&C, but this is much, much more toy-like. Instead of using the new hardware possibilities to make it look more gritty and realistic, which was what the original obviously tried to do with the pixels it had to work with, they are now going for a more toy-like look. This my main point. My secondary, subjective argument, since we all know that appreciation of art is a subjective matter, is that I believe this to be a wrong artistic choice that unnecessarily deviates from the original. Many people seem to like it and I hardly mind that. What I do mind is people saying we should basically accept whatever EA throws out at us without criticism. And I'm not debating people's taste. I'm repeating this (and my entire bloody argument) for the third and final time, specifically for chem, who either can't or refuses to read my previous posts in this thread. Where do I contradict myself in any of this, chem? Also, if you really believe what you're saying, about C&C being meant for kids, you might want to check some statistics, like what the average age of gamers was in the mid 90's and what it is today, who owned the majority of PCs back then, how much home computers did people have across the world, what demographic used to spend and still spends the biggest amount of money on games, etc. Sure. Kids can play C&C, I was 9 when it came out and I first played the DOS version at a friends house. But in reality it is a family game, broadly targeted at both kids and their parents, who do the actual spending. And this is also obvious by the fact that they took a whole lot of time to make the setting, story and graphics convincing enough. This is not convincing at all. Neither is your argument, so just drop it. In the end, this is a piece of arguably bad promotional eye-candy and, in reality, how the game would play and feel and what changes will be made under the hood is much more important than art. Unfortunately we're not hearing anything about that. I hope the effort on that front is closer to the original and more concentrated than in the artistic department.
  13. If you actually take time to read the threads you post in, you'd find many of the answers to the redundant questions you keep asking. I'm not your secretary or personal aide, do some reading. And some growing up. As I already said, you are completely entitled to have poor taste and I don't intend to debate this with you.
  14. chem, I wasn't debating this with you, but I acknowledge your opinion and I fully understand why something with the aesthetics of a child's toy appeals to you.
  15. Still, I believe this to be a misguided effort, even if the intentions behind it are good. No real testing has been done beforehand, no statistical data has been gathered to pinpoint what exactly should be changed, changes are too much and all at once, making it impossible to gauge their individual effect. It's a mod done on a whim basis, because a few people decided "the game should be like this". Trust me, I know that feeling. I used to mod RA 15 years ago, thinking I can make it a better game. Turned out I'm not as good at balancing games as the team that actually made them and created the RTS genre. Good that I grew out of that. Weird that you haven't. Although I can kind of understand it from the perspective of Jacko and Ferret, who are both quite younger.
×
×
  • Create New...