CCCP84

I believe that the power of the reactor should not be reduced. This is what I wanted to say in this post. I agree about underutilized units. Let's reduce the price of chrono legionaire to 1200. And increase the range of the Destroyer Tank and Tesla Tank.

I risk sounding like a braggart, but do you know how much work I put into a map of Oceania? Just for understanding, I'll tell you that there are 5200 trees on this map. And I put absolutely every tree by hand and saw if it looked good in this place, and then I removed it, moved it a few cells to the side and then moved on to another tree. And so I did with stones and spots on the grass and in general with everything else. I even made water by hand. There is no overlap of one tile of water on another. I also thought carefully about every game moment on the map. I tested so that aircraft carriers could reach each bunker, so that the centers of the bays would not be shot through by prisms, and the passages to them would be shot through, I carefully designed each small island, planned how the struggle would take place on it. I thought carefully about all the distances between the islands. I have every reason to be proud of this creation of mine. And you just added a few gold tiles to someone else's map and write your name there.

If I were you, I would not have indicated my name there at all in such cases. I would just note that the map is "modified", or "balanced". You understand the fact that sooner or later your name will still be removed from there. If not now, then in 5 or 10 years. You have not immortalized yourself for centuries by writing your name there. At some point, some guy will see your name there and think "WTF?" And just erase it.

Maybe it have to be: " Author: Westwood (modifier by ravage) or (mod by ravage) or (edt. by ravage)". Or just "Author: Westwood (modified)" But writing "Author: Westwood, RaVaGe" is wrong. Because you are not an author, but a modifier. And whatever you said about "and or &", but "," means the same thing. And when you write that the author of the Urban Rush or Meat Grinder map is Westwood, RaVaGe, it means that you are, as it were, the author of this map, although this is not true. There are some minimal changes made in 30 minutes. Do you think this is enough to identify yourself as the author of the map?

If you are the best map maker, then give examples of maps that you created, not "pro edited". And you didn't answer about Dune Patrol2 and Dont Mock The Crocks. What exactly had you "pro edit" there? Because it looks like the authors of these maps had to write your name there in order to get to the list of cncnet client maps.

Look yourself at the maps before and after, which you gave an example. This is essentially the same maps. Several new cliffs have appeared. Ore has appeared in a new location. Do you think that's enough to write your name on the map? I believe that this is not nearly enough. Maybe you have a certain painful desire to mark as many things as possible with your name? I am convinced that you could write that you modified these maps inside the map file. But not in the line Author. Because you are not the author of these maps. You just drew some rocks and put the ore. What was ProEdit in Dune patrol map? Or dont mock the crocks? These are very simple maps. Dont Mock the Crocks is such an ugly map that I don’t understand at all how it could end up in the client. It looks like just a daub. And there are some Westwood maps that don't look altered at all, even though your name is there. I understand that you are actively involved in the life of the community, but this does not mean that you cannot be criticized for obvious problems. Write your name on the maps you drew yourself. But do not write your name on maps that you are not the author of. Because Urban Rush will never become a Ravages map, it just looks silly. @RaVaGe

At this stage of the game, the alliance has mirages, which are problematic for the Soviets to deal with. Allies have gap generators, prisms. Do you want to take power from the reactor? Then add the gap generators to the Soviet ones. Thus, you will come to the warcraft2 model, where the sides have units that are identical in properties, but different in appearance.

No trolling. I'm just describing where this all leads. The main thing in this activity is to get started. The rest will happen ..

I would also suggest making it impossible for players who have formed an alliance to take control of each other's units with Yuri. This leads to the Soviets being able to spy easily, capturing their ally's spies with Yuri.

I only want to discuss changes to the base game here, not a patch. And such changes that will be unambiguous, as I said. Bug fixes and others. That will not cause controversy. All these proposals, after agreement, I can add to the first post so that they can be implemented into the game. I can add all these suggestions to the first post so that they can be implemented into the game.

With such an abundance of great ideas, the rebalancing patch will quickly turn into an unused thrash. Probably, this is how the final of this venture should be .. But, I don't mind. this patch is very useful as a valve for releasing steam from a lot of accumulated ideas

what are these bugs?

I have tested. Elite flak trooper is weaker. Here is video that shows it too.

By making these changes, we risk losing the game. It will become some other game. My wish is to pay more attention to the restoration of lost functions, like the psi sensor, or the correct spreading of ore. Or really necessary changes, like pinning the unit to one point. And all these changes here - they are controversial. I admit that they may exist as a rebalance patch, but are not included in the main game. The changes to the main game should be undeniably good and no doubt about it.

But maps are already being created for YR. It is already impossible to play them in the original RA2. Even my Oceania and Black Sea are designed for CNCNET. Oceania has over 100 waypoints and triggers using waypoints in excess of this number do not work correctly in the original RA2. And on the Black Sea there are barriers that are not supported by the original RA2. I am convinced that now CNCNET sets the standards for Red Alert 2. Potential future projects will rely on the CNCNET base.

why you changed my message? These values are exactly what lead to the problem. Players start making money by simply reselling Tanya.

Rocketeer costs 600, Patriot costs 1000. Imagine that 10 rocketeers are attacking a base where 3 patriots are stationed. The attack will be easily deflected. At the same time, the attacker will lose all 6000 entirely, and the defender, with an initial investment of 3000 (half of the cost of rocketeers), will lose 1 patriot in a bad scenario (1000). The ratio is 6 to 1. This is at the initial cost of the defender 1/2 of the costs of the attacker. The numbers are scalable.

I rarely use rocketeers. Usually attacking an enemy base with rocketeers is more costly to the attacker than to the one being attacked. Will increasing the power of the patriots lead to the abandonment of using rocketeers?

I propose in this thread to discuss changes to the game, with which everyone will agree. For example, fixing bugs. Or any other solutions that will not cause controversy. I suggest guys from the team to make these changes if no objection is raised. To make changes with unanimous approval. ------------------------------------------------------------ For example, I have some kind of wish. In RA2 mode, some civil buildings from YR are missing. It would be nice if you add them for RA2 too. On some maps, in RA2 mode, for example, bunkers located with the back to the observer simply disappear. Also you could use additional buildings to create maps. For example, I wanted to use a spotlight and a water tower for decorative purposes on checkpoints, on the the Black Sea map. However, they were absent in RA2 mode. And I had to give up this idea. It's the same with bunkers. I could only use 2 instead of 4. Adding buildings to RA2 has no drawbacks, only advantages. I am sure there will be no objection. This change is only positive. ------------------------------------------------------------- Another no-objection solution might be fixing a bug with the elite flak trooper, that becoming weaker than the regular flak trooper. It have to be: [FlakGuyAAGunE] Damage=20 -------------------------------------------------------------- There is also a problem with Yuri Prime in RA2 mode, which can control 10 units at a time, while in the original RA2 he can control only 1. Definitely 10 controlled units is wrong, it makes the game run out of chance for the opposing side. The value in the original RA2 is correct. Should be: [SuperMindControl] Damage = 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- There is also a problem with selling alliance units in cloning vats in RA2 mode. It is profitable. This shouldn't happen. The "Soylent =" parameters were corrected in rulesmd.ini, however, not corrected in rules.ini for RA2 mode. Here it is necessary to bring the "Soylent =" parameters in accordance with the rulesmd.ini (YR). [CLEG] Soylent=750 [E1] Soylent=100 [PTROOP] Soylent=500 [SNIPE] Soylent=300 [SPY] Soylent=500 [TANY] Soylent=500 --------------------------------------------------------------

Made 2 versions of Oceania for 2v2 fights. We needed it for the tournament. Perhaps someone will also come in handy. All resources and buildings have been removed from the extra islands. [4] Oceania 2x2 diagonal v3.4A (CCCP84).map [4] Oceania 2x2 v3.4A (CCCP84).map

Yes, of course, players who are used to YR will say that GI are weak in RA2. But in fact, the troopers demolish the building in 2 seconds in YR. This is completely illogical and wrong. It is also pointless to fight with tanks against them. I'm talking about the broken balance between units, not the habits of the players.

What can I say about GI .. When playing RA2, I quite often noted for myself that the GIs in RA2 are very well balanced. Their damage is exactly what is required. You can fight them with tanks, but at the same time, if the control is unsuccessful, you can lose the tank. You can shoot them by IFV from afar, but if you get closer, they will cause significant damage to this, but at the same time, there is a chance to escape. They do enough damage to buildings. They are just perfectly balanced. But in YR, for some reason I don't understand, this balance was rudely destroyed. The GIs are absolutely owerpowered here. I don't play YR, but if you want to make YR more balanced, just make the GIs Identical to the GIs from RA2. They are perfect there.

Each side has its own strengths and weaknesses. The alliance has gap generators, prisms, mirages. And the air defense of the alliance is more effective against the Kirovs. The game was meant to be. I do not see any problems in the air defense of the alliance. All the players, attacking me only with rocketeers, were defeated. This tactic is bad. Such players lost more resources with this kind of attacks and lost. Because the air defense of the alliance is quite effective.

I don’t understand, would it be a pleasure that you wrote your name on someone else’s map? Moreover, everyone knows that Ravage did not make these maps. This is more of a shame than pride.

I'm not sure if changes are needed. The Alliance has rocketeers as good air defense. In combination with ground systems, the overall air defense of the Alliance looks more than sufficient. In addition, the IFV is rapidly becoming elite, and is becoming a very formidable weapon. I specifically put Tanya in IFV and kill the troops to make it elite.