X3M

I asked, because no one studied it yet. There is a big difference between an animation and watching objects. Do know that in Dune 2 it ALWAYS happened with objects. I suspect that even projectiles had this effect. But I am not sure yet. I often look off screen to get the enemy move slower. And it just so happens that rockets seem like having a better chance in hitting their targets there. I have no idea yet on how to test this properly.

Of screen Dune 2 units where way slower then those that you viewed. Does the NOD airplane perhaps the same effect???

True. So much actually that I compared a lot of RTS. Really a lot. Especially the retro ones. Thank you for that comment I wanted to talk about the communities that I know. And the editors etc. But I don't want to hyjack this topic. In short, other game communities does have average users that look around. Unreal Tournament was the big one in this regard. I estimate a 10% got to editing.

So according to you, the average user that you know, never goes looking around. Ouch. Any way, I always made use of a lot of editors. Integrated or external. Doesn't matter. Maybe it is because I have a DOS history. Watching the options and so on (WC2). The SC/BW editor has a basic integrated one. All the other blizzard games simply assume that the average user is smart enough to look around. But perhaps it is because the first games have the editors shown painfully clear in the open. Now then, I think it is safely to assume that the average user of editors. Will not be aware of all the options in the editors. Especially when the editors become more like programming. That is something other users have more trouble with. (Unreal, WC3, but even more so, SC2) Don't get me wrong. But changing mechanics is something different then changing stats only.

Wow. I have seen some answers from Joe. And it is odd to see that they tested things manually. One of his first games where mechanically the same as one of mine. An artillery game that takes the data from the screen. Nice, very nice to know He tested everything by watching it. Yet from my viewpoint, the game still looks well thought. Except for the Rocket Soldiers, hahaha. Which they forgot to test properly. And that video on youtube. A fish is unaware of its water. That is true. But it is also true that the same fish might have ended up in sea while it started in a river at first. And with that, I mean that broodwar had a much easier editor to begin with. And those who edited in that editor. Also took a look at WC3 editor. And with that, the editors evolved into those you see with SC2 editor. The real profesionals. And let me tell you, they DO know how to alter game mechanics. It isn't just age of empires which could allow this. Heck, even I made some sort of C&C style in broodwar. Where tanks where needed to quickly destroy armor yet did not much damage against infantry.

O nice. Video's that are important enough to be mentioned here. But I have to wait till I get home from work. Any way. One very important factor that most designers forget is the resource mechanics. I think that C&C was designed for 1 to 2 loads per interval. Not 6 to 8 that you see on an average game. This factor was also very important for my board game. I discovered that too much or to little income would mean a drastic change to the army components that players would choose. Just as much as how you see all players go for 10 tanks instead of 80 rifle infantry. I already had this difference at a number less then $1000 for a comparable game. Best to design your resource mechanics first. Then look at the army size and design.

I think they knew exactly what they where doing. They only made some mistakes imho. Crushing infantry is the biggest in my eyes. Which includes the rocket soldier.

Stop playing with those people is your only shot.

AchromicWhite. -25% build time equals +33% build speed.

Keeping the game original is ok. Having a mod version along side of it should also be ok. Those who think that the balance should be different, should mod this themselves. Maybe these "new" balanced could be added as a tick box too. I don't think the "original" advocates have problems with this, right? Back to topic. What I don''t understand is that they have chosen to increase build speed by 33%. Yet the plane arriving is a fixed time. Having multiple airfields increases the build speed as much as Gdi has with factories. However, the arrival time remains a constant. This means that when both sides have like 4 factories/airfields. Nod might already be at a disadvantage again? Even if it is by an unnoticeable margin. The argument that Nod has several dropping points and thus several airplanes coming in at the same time is valid. However, what if you need all units at one spot where the enemy attacks? And you have only 1 Airfield there? I think that Gdi has the advantage in that regard. Or am I over thinking things?

Funny how you say, back in the days when the cargo plane was slower. Does that mean that NOD has an extra advantage by the interference of cncnet?

Reminds me of the map we discussed AchromicWhite. Briljant solution with the bushes to replace the water. Just to break symetry in colour. This map looks excellent.

One name comes to mind when playing 999999 maps. Jordy

Well, either way, it would be nice to see more maps where the MCV is already walled in with concrete. Except for the corners for being able to build. No anoying APC/engi rush

You both make good maps. Just adjust the map if a certain starting position tends to win more times. If only, we could track the winning side for starting position. After playing 100 times on a map. You have enough statistical results to determine if the map needs to be adjusted. Whether this is done by a programm or manually. It is up to cncnet. Ps. I think we can learn a lot from SC/BW and SC2. And of course C&C3 which is rougly based in design on the Blizzard series.

True, you can't cast blizzard with one mage on one end of the map and simultaneously cast polymorph on the other side of the map with another mage. A human player could only do this within 3 to 5 seconds with good control, practise and planning this ahead. You know that double clicking a group number, brings vision on those units, right? Combine that with some zeppelins in groups, and you are good to go. Just practise. Denying that a multicast exists, will cost you matches. And the correct method would be:.....drum rolls... Select your 9 mages. Put them in group # by pressing Ctrl #. Select one of them and select blizzard. Press Alt #. Notice how you still can cast blizzard while the whole group is selected? Select a target and all 9 mages will cast blizzard. I like to multicast with healing (no excess mana lost), blizzard and whirlwind. Death coil (cast on ground within an enemy group) and fireball (cast on ground in front of an enemy group) are less, but hey, a range of 11 or 13 effect is funny nonetheless. And the rest, has no use from multi casting imho. Talking about "cheating" that the AI does, but a human player can do too. Use the Q key, and keep your tanks moving around while battling your opponent. I am winning way to many matches with my shitty light tanks!!!

@TaxOwlbear You have not played my maps yet. Where the AI doesn't have path finding problems. Also, try to deal with 2 or 3 on a normal skirmish map. Not the campaign maps. There they are set to easy for new players to deal with. @Lightning Hunter You yourself can use up to a total of 9. And yes, you can let them cast Blizzard all 9 at once. I often cast 18 whirlwinds within 5 seconds myself. And a second group can add 18 more. And it is considered legal to do so too. @EugEnO Yeah, the difficulty can drop fast. But also can jump into high gear. You can notice this when you have base building missions and missions where you only have a select team at the start. It is the difference between replacement and permanent loss. Old games also allow you to hog up a lot of units. This is not the case in Warcraft 3 though. There you are limited to 90 or 100. And the AI will build to a number accordingly to difficulty. There is even a noticeable difference between missions where you can heal on a regular basis and those missions where healing is not an option.

They will even get reinforcements when you destroyed their entire base. It isn't cheating, it is how the AI is build. Think of it as if they have a base that you can't reach. Yet they can reach you. Many AI from old games have this. The fairest one so far would be the AI in Warcraft 2.

How goes... this awesome topic?

Nah man, he did it perfectly. Bottom right has the problem that refineries and other structures have their exit points on the wrong side. Also, harvesters, micro them. I would prefer blossom tree's in base fields as well. But that is a matter of taste I think.

On s'en fout?! Google Traduction FTW.

You will not find the worst kind of addiction here. Some kids might throw away their time by playing these games. But there are games out there that forces players to keep playing. Pay to win games. Look it up.

Are there any admins around who can do something about this topic title problem at all? Like implementing something that might work as solution?

https://www.amazon.com/Official-Command-Conquer-Strategy-Guides/dp/1566862477 Please note the difference in stars given and the dates of the reviews. Any way, it is so rare. That there is only one site, selling these. A new one costs $81, there are 3 currently. An used one only $2, there are currently 19?? wtf. Makes you wonder how much quality those have. There are some shipping costs as well, but who cares. I think, amazon might be pissed if a digital version can be found. But I will salute you if you do scan them pages in.

You are somewhat, wrong here. That is only the point of view for english communities. There are a lot of these "internet communities" that are in other languages. True that most of dot com is in english. But each "international" community has its own language. From wiki: Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) allocate IP addresses: African Network Information Center (AfriNIC) for Africa American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) for North America Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) for Asia and the Pacific region Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC) for Latin America and the Caribbean region Réseaux IP Européens – Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) for Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia After English (27%), the most requested languages on the World Wide Web are Chinese (25%), Spanish (8%), Japanese (5%), Portuguese and German (4% each), Arabic, French and Russian (3% each), and Korean (2%).[63] By region, 42% of the world's Internet users are based in Asia, 24% in Europe, 14% in North America, 10% in Latin America and the Caribbean taken together, 6% in Africa, 3% in the Middle East and 1% in Australia/Oceania.[68] The Internet's technologies have developed enough in recent years, especially in the use of Unicode, that good facilities are available for development and communication in the world's widely used languages. However, some glitches such as mojibake (incorrect display of some languages' characters) still remain. So in my opinion. Let them talk in Portuguese. They aren't hurting any one. And you can google translate their stuff too. Would not be the first time for me to do that either.