muleet

fir3w0rx > The only efficient use of turret I know is when you pre-buy the turret, and only when an opponent is about to attack your base, you place your turret where the opponent is. But it has the problem that you have to bet on which one will be useful, before you are attacked, and that your opponent could still attack from somewhere else. And it's quite impossible to do something like it with Prisms tower, since they are only powerful in number and costs 1200. According to this, I think turrets have, at best, only a few situations where they are useful. However, I play only with one friend, and on the same map (Dune Patrol) so it's possible that we didn't explore all the possibilities. And you may be right, there may never be an agreement, however there could be a consensus. That's why I think the Cncnet developers should add a "poll section" in their software, about the balance of the game. It does not mean that they would have to do what the result of the poll would say, but it would be an indication that it would be a popular change. For example, you may have heard of the mod "Project M" for Super Smash Bros Brawl, the developers of that mod made a topic ( http://smashboards.com/threads/new-characters-for-project-m-discussion-thread-voting-closed.341479/ ) on the official forum of the mod, to propose to their fans to vote which new character would be added. Hundred of ideas were made, good ones, bad ones, weird ones, and the modders felt free to reject the ones they didn't liked, (according to specific criterias, of personal feelings) and everybody thought it was okay (since the developers were the ones who will take the time to code those ideas, in their own time, doing it for free). The changes for Yuri's revenge would be less important than those of Project M (because it would be only a balance to buff a few units) but it could be interesting. Maybe the turrets and the IFV + seal are bad examples, but it'd be interesting to know the opinion of players, in any case. ore_truck > I totally agree. An online poll could allow to propose changes to buff the tesla tank.

FunkyFr3sh > I know that possibility, but that would be like playing a very specific game that no one knows about, if I were to make my own changes. I tried Mental Omega and I know there are others like it, but I'd like something more close to the original, and more "commonly accepted". Maybe the problem is that what is a "good balance" is a too arbitrary notion. What about an online constant poll about what optional changes could be made to the game ? Cncnet developers could propose some changes, and people would say yes or no to each proposition. Or they could develop directly changes that they think as good changes, and people could answer if those are good choices. That would be like a democracy about RA2's balance. If there is a general consensus about the IFV + Navy seal combo as being an issue, why would there be no optional nerf ? (I don't know if there is a consensus, it is a suggestion that we should verify that.) I think Red Alert 2 has mostly really fun units, and that it is a globally funnier game than recent games like Starcraft 2, that tries to be more balanced than fun. But I don't see what could be good in having useless defense options in RA2. Maybe if the Westwood guys were still there, they would think the same. (I don't think it would be too much work for Cncnet developers, since RA2 has, at worst, only a few problems.)

As far as I know, Cncnet only add features in the game, or fixes the bugs, but it does not balance it. I understand how shocking, outrageous, iconoclastic, it could be to break the "balance" of an old game, with which so many fans are familiar with, today. But what about an option ? For example, when you are in a Cncnet lobby, you could have a new option : it would be called "Activate recent balance patch". And there would be a link to know to the patch note, to know every little things that changed, so player would be free to agree or disagree with it. I say that, but I personally think that the game is already balanced with most units. The only good changes I would consider, are changes to make more usable and more strong units and building that are inefficient most of the time, because of the strenght of other units. So I'd prescribe only buffs, no nerfs. For example, a buff to turrets. Who uses turrets in multiplayer games ? No one most of the time, because an attack is always more efficient than a defense. So they should be buffed, like if you create 1 sentry gun you can place 3, if you create 1 tesla coil you can place 2, something like that. (The problem of turrets is that if you placed 1, the other sides of the base are still vulnerable, so if you want to be defended you have place a lot. It doesn't really make sense I think.) (I have seen a mod that does something like this for AI players, they can place several times the same building when they create 1.) Like I said, it should only be optional. The more stuff we can use, the more fun the game is. There is one nerf however that is important I think : when the IFV is loaded with a navy seal, or a sniper, or a virus, or any unit that instantly kill infantry units at good distance, they should have less range and less fire rate, than they have now. It's interesting that the IFV can be loaded with an unit, but right now you can kill a whole army of infantry with it, very easily, in an instant, with this quite cheap unit. It means that if a player makes an ifv and load it with a navy seal, the opponent cannot make infantry of any kind. I don't think it is fun, so it should be also an optional modification of the game, in order to make infantry more usable. What do you think ? Do you agree ?