Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

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

Changes to the game that everyone will agree with.


CCCP84
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

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

--------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by CCCP84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CCCP84 said:

The value in the original RA2 is correct.

[SPY]
Soylent=1000

[TANY]
Soylent=1000

 

1 hour ago, CCCP84 said:

Adding buildings to RA2 has no drawbacks, only advantages. I am sure there will be no objection. This change is only positive

Now think about next scenario. We added YR buildings to RA2. And people made a load of maps for RA2 with YR buildings.

1. How it is supposed to play these shit maps in services where society prefer to keep the original game?
2. Well, they aren't so popular atm. What if after few years CnCNet disappears into nothing and we go back to them or the newer ones?

Considering the present disadvantage of lack some structures in YR maps those structure can be added only in YR maps. This way we won't get compartability problems in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ezer_2000 said:

  3 hours ago, CCCP84 said:

The value in the original RA2 is correct.

[SPY]
Soylent=1000

[TANY]
Soylent=1000

why you changed my message?

These values are exactly what lead to the problem. Players start making money by simply reselling Tanya.

Edited by CCCP84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ezer_2000 said:

 

Now think about next scenario. We added YR buildings to RA2. And people made a load of maps for RA2 with YR buildings.

1. How it is supposed to play these shit maps in services where society prefer to keep the original game?
2. Well, they aren't so popular atm. What if after few years CnCNet disappears into nothing and we go back to them or the newer ones?

Considering the present disadvantage of lack some structures in YR maps those structure can be added only in YR maps. This way we won't get compartability problems in future.

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.

Edited by CCCP84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are there versions of FA2 that dont read YR assets out there that you can use to avoid this kind of problem?

the flak trooper thing... it has "FIREPOWER,ROF" in both its VeteranAbilities= and EliteAbilities=, so i dont think that its elite wep is actually weaker even though it looks like the elite wep will do 4 less damage. the burst will also make it slightly more effective against grouped enemies AKA rocketeer spam so i think its fine.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, McPwny said:

are there versions of FA2 that dont read YR assets out there that you can use to avoid this kind of problem?

the flak trooper thing... it has "FIREPOWER,ROF" in both its VeteranAbilities= and EliteAbilities=, so i dont think that its elite wep is actually weaker even though it looks like the elite wep will do 4 less damage. the burst will also make it slightly more effective against grouped enemies AKA rocketeer spam so i think its fine.

I have tested. Elite flak trooper is weaker.

Here is video that shows it too.

 

Edited by CCCP84
  • Check 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

huh. i guess that means that the westwood devs made the mistake of listing the veterancy buffs twice but not having them actually stack. i guess the proper thing to do would be to remove it from the veteran list or increase the elite weps damage. that said, i somehow doubt it will happen since there are a handful of other easy fix bugs in the game that have gone unpatched forever and ever

  • Check 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wouldn't necessarily call these things you mentioned "changes", they are mainly bugfixes. They should be applied to the game in any case, without clicking on a "rebalance" button in the lobby. Same is f.e. with the CLEG-OilDerrick bug. This should be fixed without any question.

The discussion in the topic we had before (why you opened a new one?!) is about what balance changes are needed.

We all agreed that the patriot missile needs a buff f.e.. This is what pushes the game forward and most ppl prefer to play the game with the balance changes, when they are done the right way. Anyways, if you don't want to play with these changes you are free to not activate them.

Edited by cypher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cypher said:

The discussion in the topic we had before (why you opened a new one?!) is about what balance changes are needed.

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.

  • Check 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some of these would be very hard to fix
-engine level changes

Some of these are easy but would stir argument 
 (flak trooper) - What amount of damage is reasonable for elite?

Also Chrono legionnaire Can shoot over walls
Elite Chrono legionnaire can NOT shoot over walls - Another Westwood mistake - Surely this was supposed to be inverted and the skillset be incrementally improved with veterancy rather than diminished? 

Edited by bbglas007
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bbglas007 said:

Some of these are easy but would stir argument 
 (flak trooper) - What amount of damage is reasonable for elite?

I think increase in damage from 8 to 20 (while retaining burst=2) for elite would be reasonable. I say this because most units have their weapon firepower doubled when going from non-elite to elite.

 

6 hours ago, bbglas007 said:

Also Chrono legionnaire Can shoot over walls
Elite Chrono legionnaire can NOT shoot over walls - Another Westwood mistake - Surely this was supposed to be inverted and the skillset be incrementally improved with veterancy rather than diminished? 

I don't necessarily think it was meant to be inverted. I think that Westwood meant to make both non-elite and elite shoot through walls, but they forgot to update the elite weapon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

I don't necessarily think it was meant to be inverted. I think that Westwood meant to make both non-elite and elite shoot through walls, but they forgot to update the elite weapon.

Just notice how @ReaperAA again taking a side for buffing owerpowered Allies. Same as here https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/11738-yuris-revenge-rebalanced-20/page/5/#comments

 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2021 at 9:32 PM, ReaperAA said:

Nice of you to assume I am taking side of Allies here when I am actually a Soviet player.

Correct, probably because you are suck at playing Allied side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another change I have in mind is having elite Mirage Tanks actually using their elite weapon (of course with elite weapon readjusted and have the range reduced from 9 to 7).

I know not everyone will agree with this change (Ezer_2000 will probably throw Nuclear Missiles at me for this). But the reason why I think they should use the elite weapon is because:

  1. AFAIK, they are the only tanks in the game that don't use an elite weapon when becoming elite.
  2. The elite weapon exists in the ini file, and even allocated to the mirage tank in the form of EliteSecondary=MirageGunE. However, the mirage tank never uses the Elite Secondary weapon. I suspect it might be because WW changed the mirage disguise logic at one point, but then forgot to update the Elite weapon, as shown in the ini code.
Primary=MirageGun
DisguiseWhenStill=yes;gs I can no longer pick a disguise nor deploy
;Primary=TankMakeupKit
;Secondary=MirageGun
;IsSimpleDeployer=yes ;gs yeah for alpha date rewrite!
;OmniFire=yes
.
.
.
EliteSecondary=MirageGunE

At one point in development, the Secondary weapon was Mirage Tank's "firing" weapon and the primary (TankMakeupKit at that time) was used for the tree disguising. But then they changed the tree disguising logic and the firing weapon was made primary (and probably forgot to update the EliteSecondary to ElitePrimary)

 

With that being said though, I do think the elite weapon should be adjusted and made less powerful before assigning it to the Mirage Tank.

[MirageGunE]
Damage=150
ROF=80
Range=9
Projectile=InvisibleLow
Speed=100
Warhead=MirageWH
DisguiseFireOnly=no	; SJM: design change, tank can fire always
Report=MirageTankAttack
Bright=yes
DisguiseFakeBlinkTime=5 ; when a mirage fires, its disguise blinks for this long for VISUAL ONLY, not a logic blink
RevealOnFire=no ; Doesn't clear shroud when fired

I feel that the Range should be reduced from 9 to 7 (same as non-elite) and the DisguiseFakeBlinkTime should also be changed from 5 to 15 (again same as non-elite). In addition, the line Anim=VTMUZZLE should be added to give the tank a muzzle flash.

  • Upvote 1
  • Check 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...