Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chem

Play red alert 1 online broken forever?

Recommended Posts

Attacking with structures intended for defense, spamming teslas v2s, cruisers power plants and war factories. This is not what the designers intended for the game. This is not command and conquer at its best, this is not as enjoyable as the way the designers had intended.

Unfortunately is is a strong male instinct to out compete and out rank other men, so despite it being a less enjoyable fixed and strategic way of playing, men will do WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN!

Which means teslas spam, base creeping, v2s etc

In light of this dynamic going on, and the fact it will remain broken until developers step in and take counter measures , should they do that?

 

Should the cnc.net crew re balance the game according to the original intentions of the westwood team?

 

Or should they leave the game broken and leave people exploiting the bugs without fixing it?

 

The aftermath game option wo fast build seems closer to what the game was meant to be, but no one takes it seriously because everyone is already playing it the broken way.

 

My question is should the developers step in as game balances or should they leave the game aas it was when westwood left off?

 

I dont know the answer to this question or which side of the fence im on but id like to hear your opinions?

 

 

 

 

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P4 a map that looks like a 5 year old tried out the map editor?

Attacking with teslas and power plants? Do I even need to say why this is r tarded? They are meant for base defense, not attack!!! Its like using bullet proof armor as a weapon used for bludgeoning someone to death in a first person shooter game, it doesn't make any sense

Is this what westwood intended?

Is this what cnc.net intended?

Will cnc.net continue to allow and support it?

Should they intervene or not intervene?

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaah. You discovered the spam feasts.

Clickclickclikclickclick. Since nothingelsematters in their lives.

No doubt some 9f them think that of me when I do my 8 lt rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, X3M said:

Aaah. You discovered the spam feasts.

Clickclickclikclickclick. Since nothingelsematters in their lives.

No doubt some 9f them think that of me when I do my 8 lt rush.

I respect their ability, I respect the top level players it takes talent to get high up in the rankings, wise use of life time or not. Thats a big load of people to dominate.

I have no doubt the top guys in p4 would be the top guys in aftermath slow build games too. They are not less talented because they are fast clickers or no life losers etc thats an ego excuse for lesser players so they can still feel superior when they are shown by reality to be inferior, they are more talented if they are at the top usually. (exceptions on both sides of fence granted)

However I dont respect the way the game plays, its sick, its broken, its retarded, and most importantly its not what the westwood creators intended or wanted. Hence them trying to fix it in aftermath.

Do you think cnc.net should enforce what westwood intended on everyone? Because if they dont it wont change, should they force aftermath and its 3 (not 10) conyard build speed bonus on everyone?

I still dont know which side of the fence im on, but I think it needs discussion because the game is so obviously badly broken, and people will  keep playing it that way and they will do this for reasons that are not what they want deep down I suspect.

 

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chem, I think ferret is attempting to do what you talked about.

We know that during the testing of RA, they changed the tanks to be around twice as fast (a rough estimate) as they originally intended. This change made the gameplay much faster and more like an action game which brought a good responce from the testers at that time.

You have to remember that they were looking forward and not backward as we are now. They were attempting to make the genre more playable and they came to the conclusion (due to testers) that that is what they were doing.

Edited by Myg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Myg said:

Chem, I think ferret is attempting to do what you talked about.

We know that during the testing of RA, they changed the tanks to be around twice as fast (a rough estimate) as they originally intended. This change made the gameplay much faster and more like an action game which brought a good responce from the testers at that time.

I think Ferrets doing something completely different? Like a mod where u cant crush troops and has all tech gdi nod, allies, soviet etc

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well originally he started out making the tanks slower in the direction that you mentioned. Its been a long time since then and other stuff have snuck into his project (as it usually goes). That is one of the issues with changing a game, you keep finding reasons and exccuses to make it more to your personal liking like a snowball rolling down a hill gathering size, its a slippery slope.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Ferrets Mod. But i wouldnt say that RA is "broken". Some like it, some dont like it. But compare it to TS or TD: THere are much more RA games with much more players than in the other 2 games on CnC.com.

Despite that, i agree with you, Chem. The game is just a stupid clickfest. Thats the reason, i rarely play RA1 now; as a kid, i liked it and TS the most.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, someone raises this issue. This only happens on custom made maps with gems everywhere. Sadly, 90% of the RA games are played on these maps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myg said:

Well originally he started out making the tanks slower in the direction that you mentioned. Its been a long time since then and other stuff have snuck into his project (as it usually goes). That is one of the issues with changing a game, you keep finding reasons and exccuses to make it more to your personal liking like a snowball rolling down a hill gathering size, its a slippery slope.

Well its a fine mod, but yea it most definitely is now a mod and not a re balance of ra1, that wont change nor should it, its awesome how it is, something fun and different to play.

Also I agree you cant have an individual deciding what the new balance is going to be, then its just 1 guys wants over everyone's. 

It has to be westwood deciding???

I know their last intention and balancing idea was not to slow tanks down or to make troops uncrushable but rather to bring the construction yard build speed bonus down in aftermath. Thats their most recent highest level balance and their most recent and highest intention for the balance of the game. Maybe that should be the gold standard that cnc.net encourages/implements/forces?

Thats what id lean towards and have the money maps as the tick box, have them as the side note, as the unranked matches, not in tournaments or ranked matches. Or maybe "we" (they cnc.net crew) should let everyone have the options to choose and let them do what the hell they want which is exactly what they are doing now? But that results in p4 ie a lousy map a 5 year old could have made, and attacking with teslas a base defense something westwood didnt intend a bug a glitch used to get wins by competitive guys.

Is it possible to get hold of any original members of the westwood team, perhaps get their advice on what they wanted and ask how they wanted it balanced? What they would have done next if they were still balancing it etc, they surely must love their work and game and legacy I wouldn't be surprised if some of them wanted to give an email of advice to the cnc.net crew?

If the cnc.net crew does get hold of any of the original developers and they help out with the balance of the game it would give cnc.net an "official" linage that no other cnc.net like spin off has and could make cnc.net untouchable and primary for the original command and conquer games.

 

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chem said:

Well its a fine mod, but I yea it has become just that a mod and not a re balance of ra1, something fun and different to play which is great.

Also I agree you cant have an individual deciding what the new balance is going to be, then its just 1 guys wants over everyone's. 

It has to be westwood deciding???

I know their last intention and balancing idea was not to slow tanks down or to make troops uncrushable but rather to bring the construction yard build speed bonus down in aftermath. Thats their most recent highest level balance and their most recent and highest intention for the balance of the game

Or maybe that should be the gold standard that cnc.net encourages/implements/forces? Or maybe "we" (they cnc.net crew) should let everyone have the options to choose and let them do what the hell they want which is exactly what they are doing now?

Is it possible to get hold of any original members of the westwood team, perhaps get their advice on what they wanted and ask how they wanted it balanced? What they would have done next if they were still balancing it etc, they surely must love their work and game and legacy I wouldn't be surprised if some of them wanted to give an email of advice to the cnc.net crew?

If the cnc.net crew does get hold of any of the original developers and they help out with the balance of the game it would give cnc.net an "official" linage that no other cnc.net like spin off has and could make cnc.net untouchable and primary for the original command and conquer games

Contacting the original developers would be a good way to get an official 'intention' response, I don't know if anyone here wants to/can do it though.

Edited by Myg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Myg said:

Contacting the original developers would be a good way to get an official 'intention' response, I don't know if anyone here wants to/can do it though.

Well we can get their names from the credits of the game at the ending, and we can perhaps email them or tweet them or get one thats contactable and see if he can give us further contacts for the westwood crew?

They are probably busy making games for other companies I presume, but I would hazard a guess that they havnt made a game as influential or legacy defining as command and conquer/red alert, and I bet some of them would have enough time to shoot an email back letting us know their intentions for balance, what their next step would be to attempt further balance etc

We could suppose a new balancing idea like for ra1 the mcv only after the tech centre and only a 3 plus build speed even for ra1 without aftermath etc but until someone from westwood says this is what they want not that, its just a dirty idea from someone unofficial.

Letting people just choose whatever they want  a total democracy does tend to end in a mess, a childish mess.

But taking control and making it your way results in something worse a tyranny for your preference over everyone elses.

But if the westwood team had some input it would solve these 2 problems out right. They are the original creators of this master piece after all.

 

We could do the same for Tiberium dawn I believe 90% of people playing online when it came out where nod players, I dont think they intended for nod to be op or overly popular

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ore_truck said:

Finally, someone raises this issue. This only happens on custom made maps with gems everywhere. Sadly, 90% of the RA games are played on these maps.

Does everyone agree with this is it only "broken" on money maps? I think its still attack with teslas on most maps? In cnc1 that is possible to attack with turrets etc but theres massive variety in what happens, its not every single game attack with tesla coils or obelisks, Theres huge variety and thats just one of many options. In ra1 thats like the only choice if you want to be effective

 

Also if infinite ore is the cause of the broken game why do the cnc.net crew encourage tournaments based on money cheat maps and glitching? Why dont they rank people on normal ore maps only? That is the game. Its like people are getting ranked based on how good they are at a mod of the game.

 

Keep the ranking and tournaments for the real game surely? That will cut the p4 stuff down.

 

Im pretty sure the game itself is broken though, playing ribbon with ore instead of gems will probably still result in a tank rush followed by a  tesla creep reinforced with v2s?

 

 

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, RA1 is imbalanced and broken in this regard, but so are 95% of all RTS games, especially from that era. Only Blizzard focusses hard enough on balance to avoid this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TaxOwlbear said:

Yes, RA1 is imbalanced and broken in this regard, but so are 95% of all RTS games, especially from that era. Only Blizzard focusses hard enough on balance to avoid this.

 It can be fixed tho to a certain extent.

Cnc1 is pretty well balanced, if RA1 can at least reach that level wo the tesla glitch as the only effective method of attack along with tanking it would be golden, and cnc1 could be something really well balanced with a slight change

Im not sure if nod is still the best side at the highest levels cause of naders and barracks but  90% of players back in the day were nod players, that says something isnt right

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Myg said:

Chem, I think ferret is attempting to do what you talked about.

We know that during the testing of RA, they changed the tanks to be around twice as fast (a rough estimate) as they originally intended. This change made the gameplay much faster and more like an action game which brought a good responce from the testers at that time.

You have to remember that they were looking forward and not backward as we are now. They were attempting to make the genre more playable and they came to the conclusion (due to testers) that that is what they were doing.

surely making tanks slower would worsen the tesla problem? 

 

mobility is one of the few advantages the tanks have left vs the tesla creeps,  tanking is one of the few  effective tactics left that isnt a glitch? Although slower tanks isnt such a bad thing it would allow more use of light tanks rangers troops etc, but tanks r better than glitch spam teslas

 

Cruiser spam is a glitch lol the force fire alone wipes out the soviet sub balance which was too weak already, and in numbers tanks get evaporated in about 100 yards, at least it has a chance vs tesla spam and v2s

 

westwood didn't touch the speed of the tanks much did they in aftermath or throughout the balance updates, they reduced the speed of the construction bonus from 12 to 3?

 

 

 

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chem said:

We could do the same for Tiberium dawn I believe 90% of people playing online when it came out where nod players, I dont think they intended for nod to be op or overly popular

1) GDI infidel, shut up :P.

2) I think, GDI is fun, too. It depends on the map. I played GDI for a week and i like it, too. SO: NO CHANGE TO TD!!!!!! Otherwise, noobs will cry, that the apc is "too overpowered".... Forget it! Perfect game, well balanced. As well, as TS. I think, you cant change anything in those two games.

3) For RA1: Can you implement Kirovs? xD That would be great.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TaxOwlbear said:

Yes, RA1 is imbalanced and broken in this regard, but so are 95% of all RTS games, especially from that era. Only Blizzard focusses hard enough on balance to avoid this.

Most RTS games from that time look broken because the resource systems are flawed in money maps.
You are not supposed to have 20 harvesters run around and grab money. 1 or 2 is all you need. And if you look closely at the single player missions, you will notice this as well. GDI 9 is the best example, you can have only 2 or 3 at tops for you patch across the bridge. And then, it is empty in no time.
 

The double speed is regrettable.

Resources to the intended ammount. Less tanks, more infantry.
Slower tank speed, less tanks, more infantry.
And then anti infantry weapons will have more use as well.

 

I have Always been curious who the statistic designer was for C&C TD. And how much input he/she had on RA1. Also, why did they do things better with C&C3 in certain regards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, X3M said:

Resources to the intended ammount. Less tanks, more infantry.
Slower tank speed, less tanks, more infantry.
And then anti infantry weapons will have more use as well.

Medics will have more use.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, X3M said:

Most RTS games from that time look broken because the resource systems are flawed in money maps.
You are not supposed to have 20 harvesters run around and grab money. 1 or 2 is all you need. And if you look closely at the single player missions, you will notice this as well. GDI 9 is the best example, you can have only 2 or 3 at tops for you patch across the bridge. And then, it is empty in no time.
 

The double speed is regrettable.

Resources to the intended ammount. Less tanks, more infantry.
Slower tank speed, less tanks, more infantry.
And then anti infantry weapons will have more use as well.

 

I have Always been curious who the statistic designer was for C&C TD. And how much input he/she had on RA1. Also, why did they do things better with C&C3 in certain regards.

wheres the proof that they doubled the speed of tanks after play testing? Its a bit extreme to x2 the speed?

Also since they balanced it that way and decided it should be that way , that is red alert the official way, it wouldnt be wise to change it even if you prefer the way it plays slower  because thats your decision not westwoods (and I do see why you like that it brings a variety of units back into play which I like too,  but when you start overturning their decisions youre making a mod for yourself its not the official game)

 

the tesla creep on the other hand thats something they didnt think about when designing the game that is obvious, no one designs it that way its an obvious fault in the game which they tried to fix with a slower speed on construction yard bonuses in aftermath

 

anyway it would be good to email them with our thoughts on slower tanks bringing back more depth and the devastation of cruiser spam, and base/tesla creeps/ giant spam bases  without any attempt to persuade one way or the other and see what they would do to re balance (if anything) then we can go from there otherwise its just us arguing over preferences, some like action some like strategy some would like to keep using their hard earnt skill in the way the game plays in its broken state etc so we have to let westwood make the choices if we can get a reply from any of them

let some1 responsible from cnc.net contact them, like nyguds not one of us, not just a mod, like the primary creators of cnc.net

Edited by chem
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I've talked about this before but here it goes. First off, I'm against any 'official' balance changes to any of the games, whether they're consulted with their creators or not. Bug fixes are enough. But then again, I don't play RA...

If people want to play infinite money, other mod maps, Aftermath or whatever, they can. I see this issue just as I see the tib-infested maps in TD - it just limits your options for playing the game and makes for a more predictable meta. It has its good sides: emphasis is placed on skill and speed in building and shifting improving those abilities in players, but other skill-sets suffer because many of the game's remaining options are rarely feasible.

The developers obviously pretty much decided "this is it" for RA and put it out. As far as their intentions for what the game should be like, they're pretty easy to spot by just looking at the main changes they made compared to TD. You have faster tanks, a cheaper CY that is available lower in the tech tree, and a Q-mechanic. This basically nerfs everything else on its own. The obvious intention is: this is a tank rushing game. And if you don't have enough tanks, you better have a lot of teslas. The game is thus limited by design and that is what put me off back when I first played it after it came out and realized this.

RA is basically the 4th RTS in the world (after Dune II, Warcraft I and TD), they were still experimenting with the genre, and they had much less time to work on it than they had for TD. I'm pretty sure WW just saw with TD that many people liked smashing a lot of tanks together and decided to tilt the next game in that direction. Sure, some aspects of it suffer, but as far as sales and popularity go, WW appear to have made a good move, even though RA's commercial success can be attributed to other factors like the hype after TD, the internet gaming scene and the net itself growing significantly from 1995 to '96-'97, much more people having computers, etc.

PS - no such thing as "90% were Nod players". Wasn't like that. The ladder did have separate No. 1 spots for the top Nod and top GDI player though. Top-ranked GDI players very often finished with more points than top-ranked Nod players. Records are probably still out on there somewhere.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, X3M said:

How about you start your own mod?

See how it turns out.

No one /so few will play. It would be a big waste of time I suspect. There's loads of mods already done. Some are a superb and massive undertaking and they are almost empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, cn2mc said:

Pretty sure I've talked about this before but here it goes. First off, I'm against any 'official' balance changes to any of the games, whether they're consulted with their creators or not. Bug fixes are enough. But then again, I don't play RA...

If people want to play infinite money, other mod maps, Aftermath or whatever, they can. I see this issue just as I see the tib-infested maps in TD - it just limits your options for playing the game and makes for a more predictable meta. It has its good sides: emphasis is placed on skill and speed in building and shifting improving those abilities in players, but other skill-sets suffer because many of the game's remaining options are rarely feasible.

The developers obviously pretty much decided "this is it" for RA and put it out. As far as their intentions for what the game should be like, they're pretty easy to spot by just looking at the main changes they made compared to TD. You have faster tanks, a cheaper CY that is available lower in the tech tree, and a Q-mechanic. This basically nerfs everything else on its own. The obvious intention is: this is a tank rushing game. And if you don't have enough tanks, you better have a lot of teslas. The game is thus limited by design and that is what put me off back when I first played it after it came out and realized this.

RA is basically the 4th RTS in the world (after Dune II, Warcraft I and TD), they were still experimenting with the genre, and they had much less time to work on it than they had for TD. I'm pretty sure WW just saw with TD that many people liked smashing a lot of tanks together and decided to tilt the next game in that direction. Sure, some aspects of it suffer, but as far as sales and popularity go, WW appear to have made a good move, even though RA's commercial success can be attributed to other factors like the hype after TD, the internet gaming scene and the net itself growing significantly from 1995 to '96-'97, much more people having computers, etc.

PS - no such thing as "90% were Nod players". Wasn't like that. The ladder did have separate No. 1 spots for the top Nod and top GDI player though. Top-ranked GDI players very often finished with more points than top-ranked Nod players. Records are probably still out on there somewhere.

 

Well they created these master pieces and I think they deserve far more praise than you give them, as far as creating a good game is concerned. However I respect the points you made even if some of  them are pure speculation with little evidence

However I still think they made efforts to resolve balance issues in aftermath, and would probably have some good input regarding balance if they were contacted especially since selling to a mass market would no longer be a high priority.

 

So where the very best players in the world in the games hey day GDI or Nod players?

 

Edited by chem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wrote that the very best were both GDI and Nod, and the situation is still pretty much the same. If there were ever proper statistics I don't recall ever coming upon them, but any advantage for either side against the other in win rate would probably be about as big as that of white vs. black in chess, or slightly over 50%. 

As for RA, I'm not saying it's a bad game, just that I don't like it, because it fails to match up to its potential and is limited by the emphasis on tanks, which devalues the other options you have. That's why I play TD.

Also, if anything, I'm pretty sure many RA players would say that the changes in Aftermath actually swung the game a bit more in the Soviet's favor. But that's not the problem. Tank spam and base creep might be limited, but the underlying balance issues of the game are still there - tanks are OP and can only be dealt with with other tanks or defences. You can't snipe them with MiGs and Longbows, or kill them with men - they're too fast. There are no light vehicle alternatives like TD's bikes.

Point to speculations please, I'm pretty sure I actually read WW people themselves say they wanted RA to be a tank game (don't feel like trawling the net now for the specific interview or what-have-you, though). It's also pretty evident by they way it plays. They also knew about base creep since TD, and even as they knew, they made it easier in RA. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×