Spirit of design (funkyfresh)

[AchromicWhite]

   Every time I log in to find people playing with 999999 credits and 40 units, I'm a little dumb fucked. Not because people CAN do this.
It's not that people can use wacky settings and enjoy themselves. I like that people have options...
   It's that they have no idea that they're not playing via the spirit that the designers intended.
It also seems to me that those that play with way ONLY play this way, and will basically never learn about the ins and outs of the game in full. They'll never see the really quite wonderful balance that WW managed to get into the game (whether by accident or not). I'd like to see some pathing for the next generation of players to learn the game.

   A lot of what makes RTS interesting is not what a team/race/side can do, but more what their limitation(s) is/are. And I'd also say that's true for the way that resources restrict what you can build. Even spread out tiberium fields so that you have to be aggressive on the map and play strategically as the game moves on, is incredibly important.
   In fact, starting with unlimited resources, too many units, not allowing any early attacks etc, actually means that there are less options available... once you figure out the best way to open, you'd just do the exact same thing each time. It hurts the strategy element of the game. Where as, if you can be attacked, you have to adapt depending on your opponent, and then they do the same; giving the game almost endless possibility. 

   I've talked before about making a competitive mode, so that people KNOW that there's a difference; but it gets derailed by (well let's be honest) one person saying that I'm trying to control everyone... mhm.
   Anyway. We've spoken about the spirit of design within mapping as well... that cutting off the map with tiberium is against the design, as it completely restricts the type of units that you can use (and it's worth noting that grenadiers are a substantial part of the meta game in GDIvX match ups).

   I'd love to see a list of competitive maps (no, not all my own maps, heck, I don't even think ALL of mine should be in such a list. And I'd be happy to discuss which should and shouldn't be), but just a list of maps that are known to be pretty damn well balanced and make for a games with a variety of strategies. To cultivate the possibility for new players to learn the game, and create a standard to competitive play.
Playing in the competitive mode would also auto-setup the other options; 10,000 credits, 1 unit, bases on, crates off etc etc.
Even if no laddered mode, I don't really care; but I'd like to see a clear game mode that captures the spirit of design set out by West Wood.

   I'd like to hear from someone like funky, on this, if there would ever be the chance for us to have a mode like this; to help new people to learn the ropes of the game. I added your name to the title to get your attention, to hopefully get an answer, even if just a "maybe IDK" from Funky.

 

[X3M]

One name comes to mind when playing 999999 maps.

 

Jordy

[AchromicWhite]

   Well, I wouldn't want to pick any until we'd discussed what features of a map are important.

   There's no point in just picking and choosing from "What do I like?". It needs format. By using a format we could then have real reasons to show that a map is/isn't balanced, is/isn't competitive. That's a large part of the point of this post.

   No, 'popular' doesn't factor into it. In fact, just reading through my post should show you that some maps and play styles can be popular yet not competitive at all. This issue shows up in almost every RTS game I've ever seen. TS is doing it (unlimited Tib), RA1 does it (unlimited Tib AND faster harvesting trucks... less time to fill the truck), SC1 does it with mod maps, SCII does it with "big game hunters"... yet all of these games also have higher competitive play in which people don't use said maps. Which is my point.

   If people want to play the maps that they like, instead of a competitive game, they can go ahead and do that. But be separating the two, we can cultivate a better understanding of competitive RTS.

   It showed up on your 'alarm bell', because you chose to 'follow me'. I'm just pointing out that everything you just did was entirely a result of your own decisions (as you seemed to be trying to pass it off as someone or something else prompting you).

Edited December 20, 2017 by AchromicWhite

[AchromicWhite]

13 hours ago, X3M said:

One name comes to mind when playing 999999 maps.

 

Jordy

Yeah, I had like "Dave" and someone else. It's fine, they can do that. But they seemed to think that they were playing C&C as intended...

Heck, even the designers didn't allow over 9999 credits or 12 units with bases on. So they KNEW that over doing it outright broke the game and didn't want people competing like that... and they had 'no bases' mode and 'capture the flag' etc. Which I'd consider not to really be 'proper' competitive play.

[AchromicWhite]

Just now, chem said:

Will you allow them to do that Saddam ? Its fine with you? They will be relieved.

"Will you allow them to do that...?
Yes

   The only reasons I have to say that people should be allowed to play the way they want is because YOU accuse me of saying that they can't... and now you're accusing me of being a dictator because I'm being clear about it, and advocating the freedom for people to play as they like. Well that makes sense.

[AchromicWhite]

3 minutes ago, chem said:

Err so which of your maps do you think are balanced and worthy of being put in this tournament I noticed you avoided that question. ?

 

1 hour ago, AchromicWhite said:

     There's no point in just picking and choosing from "What do I like?". It needs format. By using a format we could then have real reasons to show that a map is/isn't balanced, is/isn't competitive. That's a large part of the point of this post.

 

[AchromicWhite]

1 minute ago, chem said:

You must know which of your maps are well balanced!

I asked not which of them you like but which of them you think are the most balanced/ good enough to make the cut

You have a fair idea of balancing, and you know your maps better than anyone else, so which of them do you think are the most balanced for both nod gdi and in general out of all your maps?

 

   No, you asked me which maps I think should be on the list.

   My reply is that one person's opinion (including my own) should NOT be enough to place a map on a list. That instead we should have a format, a list of attributes that a map should have, to be allowed onto the list.

   I, and may other community members, are not always going too be here to nit pick such things. By creating a format to competitive play, it creates the ground work for the next generation to carry it on.

[AchromicWhite]

WOW what a lot to say...
Most of it seems to be "let popularity decide'.

   I've actually already addressed that argument.
You say that some people are noobs/afraid because they play a certain way. Well, they're not noobs to their own style, and I think they just enjoy their way of playing. They don't understand 'proper' matches, so it's not fun for them. Also, playing in such a way can still teach someone who knows almost nothing about the game, a lot about how to play.
   This thread is NOT an attack against anyone. It IS important to not attack our community, just because they enjoy the game another way.

   You mention that I wouldn't like engineers to be able to capture buildings or something... this would be addressed through the archetypes system. Where some maps would have it and others not. So that's actually not a big deal.

   I do want variety in a map system, so that's part of how we'd figure what maps are usable and what maps are not. Even briefly looking at WW maps, we see that some are open and others are cut off. That's fine.
   We also see that ALL of the maps have separated tiberium fields and don't put tiberium in such a way that completely restricts how you can build your base and also move your infantry around, so maps that completely cut the map apart with tiberium, not so much.
   Tiberium fields also create contention points on the map, to fight over. Which adds the element of capturing the map... rather than a match just coming down to;
-who can destroy production structures
-who can destroy the enemy army
(in other words, where your units/structures are matters)

   By doing this, 'balanced' doesn't matter. It can favour one side or the other knowingly, but it'd be in a category that would become more well known for favouring one side or another. I'd actually consider this a good thing, as it'd give us more information about exactly what makes maps bias to one side/strategy and just by how much. It'll help us to make more balanced maps, while we can still play on 'bias' maps just challenge ourselves and enjoy the range of matches provided by different archetypes.
   This is another reason I'm still a bit cringy about a ladder in particular. Playing for fun means wins matters little; yet with a map system we can understand the game better, and create a better path for others to get into the competitive game.

If you'd like to know more about RTS maps, I'd really suggest checking out SC-Remastered/SCII and how there are a range of communities within the single games. Yet both the casual and competitive scenes thrive side by side.

[AchromicWhite]

Chem STOP shit posting. I didn't read most of your reply, because you're clearly trying to make this into a 'pick and choose maps thread'.
NEWS FLASH
There IS NO official maps list. Nothing exists. I'm trying to get a ball rolling, and you dropping crap here is just showing devs that we're not ready to work together to make such a project happen. Grow up.
I didn't make thread for us to go through every damn map and say yes or no. That's why I'm not answering your question. You're just cluttering it with crap, now.

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

" I can tell you: In my opinion, any map, which isnt open enough for engineers, should be and therefore would be rejected. This is "my" attribute for any map. Would you like that? I dont think so."

   That's the part I was referring to when I talked about you saying that engineers should be possible.
Maps can be open enough, or closed enough and still be competitive. They just need to be relegated to a proper archetype list.

   If we're all just deciding by popularity what goes on a list, then there's no point in a competitive mode. If it's just popularity, then it's just exactly what we already have.
I've JUST explained the issues and you agreed. Now that we're talking maps, you think it doesn't make a difference. Of course is does.
What's important is keeping the spirit of the design of the game in tact.
Else we may as well all by playing mods like P4.
Having maps that test a range of skills will help to show who a better player is. Again, go and look at SCII/SCI.
Have a look at the ladder maps, vs, "Big Game Hunters", "Fastest Possible Map", You'll see the same thing that we have going on in C&C95.
Real pros don't play on BGH and FPM. (and no, we don't have real pros), but we can at least cultivate/emulate competitive play. And pass the skills onto the next lot of players.

Edited December 20, 2017 by AchromicWhite

[AchromicWhite]

I ASK YOU A THIRD AND LAST TIME: WHY DO YOU/THE COMMUNITY KNOW BETTER  WHICH MAP IS GOOD FOR A LADDER GAME OR NOT THAN THE PLAYERS WHO FIGHT?

Because I've played for competitively for 15 years and have done decent study of RTS design, through modding and mapping, and compared competitive systems for said games.
Chem is asking the same thing over and over and I've answered him. He trying to change what this thread is about, because he's jumping the gun.

[AchromicWhite]

Again, walls of text.

Chem replied to me, and didn't even reply to anything I'd written. Literally just trying to tell me I'm bad at things.
While I don't even claim that my newer maps are balanced... give me one other person who's made something that looks more closely balanced that my own maps, and explain why/which aspects of my maps create an imbalance.

---


    Your argument is that if MORE people believe something, that it's more likely to be true... let's use a mental experiment to check if that's true, I'll even use C&C as an example;
    Let's say it's early days of CnCnet, that 10 people play the game regularly in an extremely small player base. They get good at the game and have reasonable knowledge of the game.
    Now, let's say that the CnCnet advertises and gets 30 new players. Your argument is that anything the 30 new players say is true, simply because there's more of them. lol, ya.

    You're also accusing me of being elitist? (I think?)
    I'm not elitist if I say that I claim to understand something more than other people. I'm elitist if I deny your ability to ever achieve. There are understandings about games that designers of games understand, which most gamers do NOT. This is well known, and if you'd like to know more about game design, I'd advise the series "Extra Credits" that you can find for free on Youtube.

   I've never claimed that I know better than any other player... I'm literally arguing that we shouldn't try to have only "balanced" maps, because it's boring. You seem to be saying that I'd not allow open maps, when I'd be happy to have them on it and just placed under a certain archetype. and BTFW engineer "rushes" as you call them, are a part of the game that I fully accept. Why the fuck are you accusing me of trying to cut them?! You're just saying rando shiz about me now. (less so then chem, but still)
The type of maps that I think suck are ones where you CAN'T do stuff, not where you CAN. That's been my conclusion as I've thought more and more about archetypes and not worrying about balanced maps, as much as I've thought about making interesting maps.

The next part of your statements starts talking about a ladder... I've not mentioned my want for a ladder in this thread. In fact I actually advocate that perhaps a ladder is a bad idea, because it creates an elitist community.
I don't play Chem, and we've taken plenty of games off of each other.
I don't play Chem because he's a horrible person... would you like me to fetch you a list of all his threads where he attacks community members?


ALSO


   You two are the worst people on this forum!
LOOK at what you're doing in this thread!
You're NOT talking about the topic, you're personally attacking me over game skill?
I don't even play one of these people so no one knows who's better, and more importantly, has nothing to do with the topic... jus so you know... I recently played a bunch of those people high up your list, syrianrefugeeengineer. I didn't just beat, but THRASH them. NOT on my own maps, either.
So, you know jack shit.

I can see why the forum is now dead, too. Because who the FUCK can get anything done here?
Enjoy your desert.

[AchromicWhite]

1 hour ago, chem said:

 

Pretty much sums up what you do in this forum. At least you can see that.

[AchromicWhite]

You didn't see me lose to anyone either... lol

And yes, I can see that the purpose of everything you and Chem do is to annoy and bait people. It's also against forum rules to do that. So congrats.
Your list made me laugh, because you kept saying that Cat was one of the best GDI players. Cat's cool and all, but I know a lot of GDI players that are a few steps above.

"I will tell it anybody; lets see, how the ppl think about you xD. "
See, here's the problem. I don't know what you're saying.

" i never said the more ppl say sth, the more truthful it becomes."
...Again

I'm not "smarter" than other players. That assumes I'm all around more intelligent. I'm not. I have game and RTS knowledge because I've played for 15 years, have been involved with modding/mapping and have done research into game design.

"And you talk much about, which victories you had against sb. "
... and again.

See, here's the real problem; you're just slurring everything I'm saying. Either you're doing it on purpose, or you actually don't know what I'm saying. Either way, it doesn't bode well for you to not be able to reply properly.

"You are smarter than a MrGearhead, a justme, a rootbie, a Cat, etc? NO. But i will tell it anybody over and over again ;)."

LOL

"FACT: You would be crying after a game with Chem. He beats you like a boy fighting against Muhammed Ali."

The last real match I had against him I beat him. The other match he claims was so easy, I literally opened 4 (might have been 5) refs + 2nd PP before WF (thought it was GDI v GDI, new player... was messing around). He was using a different name so that if he loses, he can just claim it was someone else...
And then tries to actually USE this as leverage to say he's better than me.

I play Ferret, LoveHandles, Jacko.... and I play them over and over. No issues. Yet, these players are better than me.
Why then will I play them when I lose? Because they're not Grade-A Trolls.

 

[ore_truck]

Actually, chem did contribute some decent inputs here, though some of his comments are just annoying and baiting people. Syrianrefugeeengineer was 100% troll being nice to chem as if he's getting chem to join him become a 100% troller baiting people.

Ok back to topic...

I do agree games with over a million starting credits or 12+ starting units (bases ON) ruined the intended gameplay of C&C. Usually, I teach these people a lesson by apache rushing in the first minute as if saying "this is what happens when you host a circus game". Jordy is one of them and a Brazillian guy name Alessandro.

As for competitive, there's none in GDI vs Nod, even if the maps are symmetrical. It's hard to get a map that puts both factions and starting spots equal. South have advantage, western Nod players can get vehicles faster. You need like to make a left vs right symmetric map with GDI vs GDI to make it balance. No Nods since it's imbalanced in L v R games. But I'm against banning this, banning that like what people are doing to YR or ZH because it takes away the fun.

I might be wrong because I haven't been playing TD for a long time, I stop because everyone was only playing hjk or a billion starting cash last time I check so I move to Red Alert. But I do recognize some of the names there like rootbie, he was good player along with ggeneral, mattattack,... I remember g3arhead being average and is well-known for his rants whenever he's losing, I remember CAT a newbie sucking off Wolf for lessons but she's calm and cheery even when losing (as opposed to g3ar). I know Jacko, a pro who can do anything, and justme another average player. I know TBK who loves playing at tiberium garden and aborts when losing and groefaz, who was still new when I played him. But who cares if this player is a pro or not? It doesn't matter, why are we even talking about a list of who's good and who's not? These elite people might lose their skill and the newbies might actually be an elite today.

[Ferret]

There is a reason why the report button exists. Use it.

[FunkyFr3sh]

Could try to get the ladder up if there is demand.

Would be possible to choose maps like we do in RA1, 6 officials and 4 customs. You are allowed to veto 4 maps, this way no one is forced to play customs

[AchromicWhite]

2 hours ago, FunkyFr3sh said:

Could try to get the ladder up if there is demand.

Would be possible to choose maps like we do in RA1, 6 officials and 4 customs. You are allowed to veto 4 maps, this way no one is forced to play customs

Well that's the sort of system I was looking to make; but to have a way that people could add more maps to the list. Creating space for more community content, and an evolving ladder. Maybe we could even rotate official maps a few times a year or so.

Come up with a list of attributes for official maps to have... and a veto list would be great, too.

By having archetypes (which, I'd be happy to work on) we could categorise the maps, so that exact balance doesn't matter so much. Let people play a best of 3, or something, if they wanted to run a tournament. Still not 100% sure if a ladder is actually a good idea... just considering how elitist people can be about it. The attitudes of people in this thread illustrate that.

[AchromicWhite]

7 hours ago, ore_truck said:

Actually, chem did contribute some decent inputs here, though some of his comments are just annoying and baiting people. Syrianrefugeeengineer was 100% troll being nice to chem as if he's getting chem to join him become a 100% troller baiting people.

 

Yeah, they do at point say things that are worth having... but yes it's obviously troll territory.|
 

 

7 hours ago, ore_truck said:

As for competitive, there's none in GDI vs Nod, even if the maps are symmetrical. It's hard to get a map that puts both factions and starting spots equal. South have advantage, western Nod players can get vehicles faster. You need like to make a left vs right symmetric map with GDI vs GDI to make it balance. No Nods since it's imbalanced in L v R games. But I'm against banning this, banning that like what people are doing to YR or ZH because it takes away the fun.

 

Yes, I agree 100%

The two solutions I have here are;
a. In regard to dealing with balance; create an archetype system so that maps are categorised. Forget trying to balance them 100% (it's impossible, as you point at) but let people know the flavour of maps they're going to play on. In the case of tournaments, make people play against each opponent on a variety of archetypes, to showcase their skill.

b. In regard to 'banning' maps; Play styles would not be banned from being used online. All that people can do now, they'll still be able to do. The idea is that there'd be another button they could push that would create a 'competitive match', it'd auto setup part of the options (bases on, 10,000 credits etc) and open the list of competitive maps, for them to choose through. Funky also shows the idea of players being able to veto maps, so that they wouldn't end up having to play on some of them, if they personally couldn't make a map work for themselves.
This would give a standard to competitive play that would be universally understood, while still letting people setup crazy matches and big FFAs and everything else that players obviously enjoy.

[AchromicWhite]

On 12/22/2017 at 5:17 AM, Ferret said:

There is a reason why the report button exists. Use it.

^^^
**Didn't mean to hit reply to that comment. Can't figure out how to delete the quote**

Anyway.
I got the day off of work today, ANZAC day. Headed down to the dawn service, too. Bit tired, but worth it.

I spent much of the rest of the day chilling out and playing some of my fav game of all time; good ol' C&C.

I played some FFAs, teams, and 1v1s. Had fun.
I also played some people that were trying to learn 1v1 matches. Two of these stood out to me, one was someone I'd played before, he's been here for a while now, the other was a new guy from South Korea.

The South Korean guy was learning fast, reading what I wrote to him. It doesn't surprise me, there's a decent chance he's come from a culture of RTS games. But I did notice that he was setting up with 20,000 each game. Not understanding that this was 2x the intended amount for MAXIMUM money by the designers... not to mention what we ourselves know about cranking up the money.

The other guy's been here for a bit, he's playing on Manu's injustice of all, or another version of it. 15000 start cash.
Note: he had the game set to 2 players ONLY, he was specifically looking for a 1v1.
No opportunity to scout and once again playing with really too much money for a 1v1.

Both of these players were struggling to play this game, and the thing is, without some sort of standard to what a typical 1v1 looks like, they have NO idea what they should even be practising. That's a shame, because where as our older players got the opportunity to learn within a standard, the new client relies on you already knowing what you should be practising IF you want to play that. (Which, obviously they DON'T know... and why should they take my word for it, who am I?)
Immediately, this thread, and many other things that I'd said about mapping etc came to mind.
I specifically got a reply from Funky about a Ladder, which is: Could try to get the ladder up if there is demand. 

I agree with this, because, why the heck should the CnCNet team make something for bugger all players?
 So great, if we want something like that, get more people into that play style... but we can't, because the ground work for typical 1v1 doesn't exist, and the longer that's left, the more that a pool of players who don't know how to set that up, become the new standard (so NO standard). And as a result, we just slowly lose 1v1. Maybe not gone gone, but for SURE we get fewer players into it, especially new people who are very well be interested in it. And that's the real down side to waiting around on this.

So I'm sorry to necro this thread, but can we discuss this and actually get a ball rolling here?

Edited April 25, 2018 by AchromicWhite

[X3M]

Since it looks like a solo preacher since 75% got removed due to reasons.

I'll post an opinion about this.

Maybe special options BEfore hosting?

"Original 1v1 tournament"
Sets player limit to 2.
Money to 10k.
Game speed to 7.

"Strategic 1v1 tournament"
Sets player limit to 2.
Money to 7.5k.
Game speed to 6.

"Tactical 1v1 tournament"
Sets player limit to 2.
Money to 5k.
Game speed to 5.

These are examples. Nothing more.
The thing is. The last example forces players to focus more on infantry.
I played a couple of these games. And have to say, I liked them very much.

As for maps?
There should be a set of maps that support 1v1.
Blistering sands (the one from Ferret as well) Is one of the better maps for this.

How about making a giant list to begin with. Then those who post here can vote down certain maps they think are bad.
Important notice to them: You don't have to play the maps, they are optional for others to play. It is only, if you think they are good enough for 1v1 matches.

Then, the map that is selected BEfore hosting, should only be selected from this list.
I noticed a dropdown that could add another option, "1v1 tournament maps".

 

If the 1v1 is done, 2v2 is next.

I don't think that 3v3 should be possible. 6 player games often crash, or crashes are more common suddenly after an update.

[AchromicWhite]

16 hours ago, X3M said:

Since it looks like a solo preacher since 75% got removed due to reasons.

I'll post an opinion about this.

Maybe special options BEfore hosting?

"Original 1v1 tournament"
Sets player limit to 2.
Money to 10k.
Game speed to 7.

"Strategic 1v1 tournament"
Sets player limit to 2.
Money to 7.5k.
Game speed to 6.

"Tactical 1v1 tournament"
Sets player limit to 2.
Money to 5k.
Game speed to 5.

These are examples. Nothing more.
The thing is. The last example forces players to focus more on infantry.
I played a couple of these games. And have to say, I liked them very much.

As for maps?
There should be a set of maps that support 1v1.
Blistering sands (the one from Ferret as well) Is one of the better maps for this.

How about making a giant list to begin with. Then those who post here can vote down certain maps they think are bad.
Important notice to them: You don't have to play the maps, they are optional for others to play. It is only, if you think they are good enough for 1v1 matches.

Then, the map that is selected BEfore hosting, should only be selected from this list.
I noticed a dropdown that could add another option, "1v1 tournament maps".

 

If the 1v1 is done, 2v2 is next.

I don't think that 3v3 should be possible. 6 player games often crash, or crashes are more common suddenly after an update.

Good reply.
And yeah, the deletion of threads by chem and pence is what it is. IDK if I really agree on deleting them all, but it'd become a mess. I guess whomever did it felt that they simply didn't have another way to deal with it.


Can I ask why you think there should be 3 extra set modes (other than a fully customisable game)?
-Why not just the one mode?
-Why have multiple game speeds? (if someone wanted to practise on slower speed, they could do that with a custom, the same way you might practice a build order, etc)

I get that there should maybe be more than one, especially regarding money; but I'm further confused as to why we'd change the game speed. As I said above, we really need a standard as to what it looks like. Am happy to see why your mind went to that, though. 

I agree with what you say about 1v1s and 2v2s.
I'd like to see the 1v1 mode supported first, as we have more than enough maps to not only fill a good pool, but even to rotate maps in and out to keep it fresh.

Regarding maps: The first thing is to make a written list of attributes that each map should have. So that it's not a popularity contest. That's really important, because popularity does not select the best maps for high end competition, in fact, it has a tendency to select maps that are easier to mass units on; a sort of, artificial stability, which hurts evolving meta-games.

I agree that we need to start building a pool of maps, though.

[X3M]

For the game modes. I looked at some other games (starcraft). Some have an official rule that a tournament game is at 100% speed. And normal at 120-150% for other types of games.

We all know that c&c has this 100% on 3. But everyone agrees that this is too slow.

5 is a decent slowest speed setting for extreme micro control on individual units. Which is what certain players like.

The speeds and multiple modes are only examples. We could also have one mode for tournament. And that the players are limited in choices. 3 speed settings and a couple of starting credits. Not trespassing the 10k.

Might as well call it slow. Medium and fast. Credits could be 8 choices. 3k 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k.

The starting credits could be different for different openings for strategy. 4 apaches are very unlikely on 5k starting credits.

Either way. It should be entirely locked during the game what game speed is chosen.

No crates!!!

No viceroids!!!

Those two are waaay to random for tournament maps.

This is just my train of thoughts. 

[AchromicWhite]

Ahh, I see. That is interesting.

See, another one that I thought of was locking the resolution. Like, take it back to C&C gold. The resolution does indeed play a big part... not saying it has to be that way, but this is the sort of stuff we have to look at when making this type of mode.

Wouldn't mind your thoughts on it. And yeah, I'm aware that there are advantages AND disadvantages, but IMO the advantages out weigh the disadvantages, as long as the resolution doesn't make the game so tiny that you can't control individual units.

[X3M]

Didn't think about the resolutions. But you are absolutely right.

I don't even mind having the dos resolution as choice.

But how to get all players use these resolutions by force?

[AchromicWhite]

8 hours ago, X3M said:

Didn't think about the resolutions. But you are absolutely right.

I don't even mind having the dos resolution as choice.

But how to get all players use these resolutions by force?

Well it's in ccconfig which is at least accessible through cncnet. Couldn't CnCNet auto change the resolution on launch? I'd think that wouldn't be too hard to do.