Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

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

steelc0ck

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About steelc0ck

  • Rank
    Technician
  1. Possibly the case. However an unfinished game de facto doesn't mean that the balancing was wrong - it just means that some parts were unfinished. Game developers generally build games for the masses not for highly competitive gameplay - this is an important note. A balance for pros may not nessacarily be what's optimal for new players that are often quite slow. It's entirely conceivable that WW were balancing in favor of GDI for the average player that don't have the abilities of pro players and that balancing artefacts like overpowered bombers and weak subs were entirely intentional as their beta testers and early user community (that are likely similar in ability to new players today) may have had difficulty overcoming nods stronghold abilities and that 11 banshees were seen as overpowered, so they strengthened gdi. Conversely, vet was developed by pro players, for pro players. I'm sure that it will be argued that "what is best for pro players is good for all players", and if it is the case with Vet then, it would be by coincidence, not by design as the patch appears hyper geared towards geared competitive players. I haven't heard of much beta testing with average players, if there was then I suspect you would see that average GDI players would have high difficulty breaking a vet Nod bunk due to lack of game sense or control. Different beta testing sample groups (particularly if those groups range in level of experience and ability) will likely produce different optimal balancings. It's possible that WW developed a good balance for average players but one that had clear deficiencies for advanced players. There's a saying: "it's easier to break a highly complicated system than it is to improve it", I generally err on the side of caution because there may be unintended consequences of changes that you make (as outlined above). Yes it's true, Dan could turn CnCnet into an exciting pokemon game if he had inclination to do so. My comments were more about recognising c0rps' perspective and reframing the approach to be about what is good for the community (and not nessacarily about how much "better" the vet patch is) rather than exploring who had ultimate control over the server or rights to the game. I'm not sure if c0rps is looking this deeply into the balancing but it's interesting to consider how WW originally balanced the game and the sample group they were designing the game for. However my point was more about looking to approach opponents to vet (c0rps, honda etc) in a way that looks at the positive effect vet could have on the community and get them to rally behind this rather than to directly espouse vet's superiority.
  2. From what I've read, it appear that C0rps is a purist - which is not nessacarily a good or bad thing, but telling him how much better VET is isn't the right approach, as it doesn't appear he's arguing that perspective. He's arguing on ideology / principles - that the most "pure" form of TS is as the developers intended it and that all others sources of modification are non-authentic fan fiction.. I suspect he doesn't like seeing people shoehorned into the non-original version - regardless of whether it's a more balanced game. This is why he's *not* discussing particular issues with VET, because it's not the point: you're building a non-secular version of TS that's forced onto other players, which is a valid perspective. Although this doesn't mean that the "purist" approach is the "right" approach to supporting the community, it's just a valid perspective. The better discussion here is: is there a balance difficiency in vanilla TS? I think he would agree that there is a balance issue in vanilla ts (as outlined by humble - and as most experienced players are aware), and is that balance issue damaging the TS community (particularly competitive gameplay). If that's agreed on, then the question becomes: what compromises should be made (And are nessacary) for the benefit of the community and that ideally preserve the original gameplay experience. He may agree that Vet is not canon / non-secular, but he may also agree that a more balanced patch benefits the community and that it's a nesscary change. Don't try to explain to c0rps how much better vet is, I don't think that's the point he's trying to make.
×
×
  • Create New...