Spirit of design (funkyfresh)

[X3M]

It might shock new players though. Having a good resolution, suddenly going "DOS mode".

[AchromicWhite]

17 minutes ago, X3M said:

It might shock new players though. Having a good resolution, suddenly going "DOS mode".

Yeah, I think the C&C Gold res would be better.
It's what WWchat was played on, of course. And yeah, Dos Res is actually just like... you can see about 3 refineries, lol.

[Zjorz]

I dont think the resolution should be locked. Just look at how age of empires 2 has made a comback after so many years. People play it at different resolutions yet there is solid competetive play

[AchromicWhite]

8 minutes ago, Zjorz said:

I dont think the resolution should be locked. Just look at how age of empires 2 has made a comback after so many years. People play it at different resolutions yet there is solid competetive play

Yeah, it'd still be competitive, for sure.
When I play people on high res, I can usually tell the difference, though... as you can never sneak anything past them. It does hinder their micro slightly, but IMO not enough that the trade off is equal. Which is why I mention this.

[Zjorz]

I do think a standard combination of settings should be chosen for "ranked" play.

I think it should be something like:

10k starting money

0 extra units

No crates

No undeploy MCV

 

[AchromicWhite]

44 minutes ago, Zjorz said:

I do think a standard combination of settings should be chosen for "ranked" play.

I think it should be something like:

10k starting money

0 extra units

No crates

No undeploy MCV

 

Yeah, I think that's spot on.
Everyone seems to pretty much agree on that. X3M also stated the idea of also having intervals of 1000 credits you could choose from (but all below 10,000) for credits.... but I'm personally of the mind of just making it 10,000. Just so that it's setting a simple standard to play by.
Also, No separate helipad. OR we could choose to have it be on, but it should be chosen to be one or the other.
Certainly, but in the WWchat days, it wasn't even an option. It was added to CnCNet to literally replace another option that they had... because the other option literally broke the AI of the units during your match if said setting was switched on.

[X3M]

Certain micro gets better with lower resolution.

Starcraft remastered players call me a cheater because I can focus fire. Imagine that.

They can hardly click small units. The reason is that their resolution makes for example a marine only 2-3 mm wide. You can't click this properly unless you are only 10 cm away from the screen. I have like 3 times larger in resolution. I simply pan the vision etc.

[cn2mc]

Seeing more of the battlefield has been the main goal of commanders since war began.

High res is a huge advantage in almost all respects and it vastly outweighs the very small disadvantages you get like infantry micro and precise targeting of small/fast units.

RA is a different game with a different imperative: build and shift tanks fast, keep all your tanks together. Many sneak attack options that TD has are eliminated - engis suck, air comes later in the tech tree, no real rush units exist besides tanks, small infantry squad assaults are basically rendered obsolete because of tanks... tanks.  

But also I'm pretty sure that on 'regular' RA maps, as opposed to the mirrored money maps that are played, high res might very well be better than low res.

So yeah, I believe in competitive play resolution should be either universally locked or forced to be the same for both players in individual games. Definitely locked in case of a tournament but there are more elegant solutions for ladder play, like coefficients. F.ex if we both play at the same res and I win, I get 10 points. If I'm at one res level higher than you I only get 9, etc.

I like the idea of playing at speed 5 as it unlocks a lot of micro potential, but then again, it also gets very tedious very fast. If there was something in the middle between that and 6... (7 is actually not necessarily faster than 6 and it causes more lag.)

 

[X3M]

6 hours ago, StagBeetleHarvister said:

Surely lower resolution is better in TD, would you agree or disagree X3M?

Seeing as how it screws things up in Starcraft, regarding clicking small units.
I think that lower resolution would be better for pro players.
But it is the pro player that could truly decide on this for TD.
At least I say, yes, low resolution is better for TD micro play.

Imagine fighting a squad of infantry from a distance with a humm-vee. You rather shoot that one bazooka guy instead of one of the 4 fodder rifle infantry. This is almost not done if you don't have precise mouse control. Lower resolution helps in this.

I already have noticed that clicking an infantry squad, multiple times when an infantry unit of it died. Helps in fast killing the entire squad. Thus reducing it's damage towards my vehicles. A bit more skill, and I can easily target the most threatening infantry. Bazooka>Grenadier/Flamer>Rifle.

A game speed of 5.5 sounds like a good idea. Fine tuning on where the most optimal mouse control versus overall skill, is possible, is a must have for every game.
Is it possible?

If every setting is going to be locked. Then I have my doubts about 10k. 10k allows for lame openings. Still a 4 apache rush is OP.
Perhaps a 7k as standard? It is between 10k and 5k that I previously suggested.
Now, players need to scout really well, to have this 4 apache rush. But it also means that they will NOT have income if the rush, is rushed.

If this apache rush is in combination with a refinery. Then only 3 apaches will be in the field. A CY will survive, and when the apaches return, several bazooka men can stand ready as a late preparation.
With 5k, it will be only 2 apaches asap. And this means that they need to return twice, that is, if the CY is being repaired.
A lower starting credit will push air to a later game. Air would be used as support.

So ask yourself, do you want the laming being possible? Or make it a more of a tactical choice for mid to late game?

Edited April 28, 2018 by X3M

[AchromicWhite]

Thing is, I can click infantry just fine on the resolution of 1024x768, especially now that my mouse is more consistent in it's movements.
But it's a MASSIVE help to see more on the map, for sure. Maybe true that battles can come down to micro, but losing a single battle by a little is far less of an issue than a runby that took out production/flyers on pads etc. And, with the highest res, you can simply never be caught out like that.
The other thing, is that if low res IS better, then we have the same problem that some people are at an advantage, while others are at a disadvantage. The only way to be fair is to set it the same for all players.

On the issue of speed; we basically want it to be as fast as it can go, while still being able to micro. 

On the issue of money; I have no idea how the game will play with less than 10,000. I know my most common build is 3 refs before either orca or factory. Both require a lot of money, so IDK how that'll change.
Let's take 3 refs before factory vs 1 ref before strip buggy push. The excess money left over is spent on infantry to defend the factroy etc. If it survives the rush, you're ahead. If that's no longer possible, we lose a whole tier of economic openings. We then can only choose between 1 ref or 2, as the nod units are mostly capped by build time, rather than price. 
Regarding apache cheese in particular; it's quite beatable if you can read the build. Denying scouting is obviously important... but most that I've seen do this build actually move their harvester to do the scouting, as it can just drive past defending infantry... thing is, it's a give away. As soon as you see it, you cancel the factory, start rocket production and build more barracks around the con.
If they DO choose to use infantry, then it's a gamble.
The one cheese that bugs me is quick APC + Engi, because even if it fails, it can crush infantry and force defences to be built. In this way, it's efficient enough that a failure can be just fine. (There's no hard counter, even if you scout it). But it is what it is.

The main reason I'd like to see the money kept at 10,000 is that it's what's been used for so long, at the highest end of play. I have no idea the ways that it'll ultimately change the meta (for better or for worse) if that's changed.

[Ferret]

Absolutely great discussion in this thread.

I think map choice plays a big role within hosting a tournament. It really determines the types of games you'll be seeing, as well as the quality of them. It would be interesting to see a map with very limited resources, for example, a standard Westwood map, as micro choices and unit losses would be more impactful. Now in comparison to something like one of those 64x64 maps filled with tiberium, not so much.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to start thinking about map design at this point as well. I'm thinking more towards the lines of scarce resources and terrain advantage points, where controlling certain portions of the map would make or break a game. I think on one of @AchromicWhite's maps, we had a good example of this while playing with Tiberian Alert rules.

Even then, maps like Blistering Sands varies quite differently in comparison to something that of High Tide, where the game style is much different. Although technically, all games end up mostly with the same unit composition, it's mostly the transitions of the build, and the actual terrain variables you have to consider.

I could touch on that more. But, moving on for now.

As for resolutions, forcing them, and the like. I don't think it would be reasonable to do that, not saying that it shouldn't be enforced, but rather the fact that we have no way of telling what resolution you were playing on after the game has ended. For example, Red Alert 1 has a post-game report after the game has ended. It does include resolution and the sorts, but if we were to do that in Tiberian Dawn, it would be more or less honor bound. But I wouldn't bother honestly. Yes, you can see more portions of the map and so forth, but it does honestly come down to preference as you are aware that you're purposely sacrificing less map vision for comfort. Not only that too, but if you do play on a higher resolution, microing armies can be more difficult for some players.

There are many great points in this thread so far, but I thought I'd chime in on some of them. Please let me know if you'd like to know more, as I'm more than open to do so.

I think the discussion of starting credits wouldn't be a bad place to start.

What do you guys think of starting credits?
Are there any certain maps you think should definitely be in the map pool?

Let me know what you think.

[AchromicWhite]

Yeah. I've been thinking of making a thread regarding what features we'd want on maps.
Regarding that; I think it's better to say what features/restrictions/design we'd want for the maps, rather than strait picking them, because then picking them as a community is easier and we can clearly show WHY we're doing that, and show that it's not some scheme to annoy, get cheap wins or anything else. The thread I have on map design helps that.
If we could then answer major points regarding mapping like:
-Features that should never be on tournament maps
-Features that should always be on tournament maps
-Features that change (like resources) on tournament maps
Particularly, regarding features that change, if we have say 4 major points that can be higher or lower, we can place those into categories, so that if we have a tournament (or a ladder or whatever) that pools of maps will always contain a spread of different styles, without having absolute nonsense maps in the mix.

The more I think about different amounts of starting credits, the more I'm open to it. I think it maybe shouldn't drop below about 5,000, though, as when it's that low, you can't scout effectively in the early game and still have any sort of econ. Again, I think that APC would be insane with that econ.
The tricky part is; IF we decide to have that as a competitive mode for newbies to practice on... but then we all just play 10,000; are we just misleading new players?
Because we CAN already play with less than 10,000, but almost no one does, anyway.

On resolution. I still really like the idea of locking it. Not only because it makes sure that everyone's playing the same game, but it also means that people who have camera skills can use those to raise their win rates over those who don't have that skill. It gives people something to master which they can be proud of, as they grow.
Also, could we not have a feature which allows resolution to be locked through CnCNet on certain game modes, and further more, show a breakdown at the end of a match that would tell all players what they were playing with etc?

 

[Ferret]

6 minutes ago, AchromicWhite said:

If we could then answer major points regarding mapping like:
-Features that should never be on tournament maps
-Features that should always be on tournament maps
-Features that change (like resources) on tournament maps
Particularly, regarding features that change, if we have say 4 major points that can be higher or lower, we can place those into categories, so that if we have a tournament (or a ladder or whatever) that pools of maps will always contain a spread of different styles, without having absolute nonsense maps in the mix.

Good idea. Let's start getting opinions from everyone and then as a community decide what would be good, and what would not. A good place to start is showcasing a map screenshot, and then outline the points you described. With that said, I also was thinking of a simple veto system as well.

I agree with your last point.

10 minutes ago, AchromicWhite said:

The more I think about different amounts of starting credits, the more I'm open to it. I think it maybe shouldn't drop below about 5,000, though, as when it's that low, you can't scout effectively in the early game and still have any sort of econ. Again, I think that APC would be insane with that econ.
The tricky part is; IF we decide to have that as a competitive mode for newbies to practice on... but then we all just play 10,000; are we just misleading new players?
Because we CAN already play with less than 10,000, but almost no one does, anyway.

I agree, especially with your APC point once you're around the $5,000 mark. Although, on the flip side, having a low starting economy does force slow starts. So essentially you'd be seeing massive Refinery production much later, and not as quickly. For example, someone who may do a quick APC Engineer rush will be behind if it's successfully defended. Although, your main point still stands as the APC early on is extremely strong against infantry.

16 minutes ago, AchromicWhite said:

On resolution. I still really like the idea of locking it. Not only because it makes sure that everyone's playing the same game, but it also means that people who have camera skills can use those to raise their win rates over those who don't have that skill. It gives people something to master which they can be proud of, as they grow.
Also, could we not have a feature which allows resolution to be locked through CnCNet on certain game modes, and further more, show a breakdown at the end of a match that would tell all players what they were playing with etc?

Valid point, absolutely. As for the post-game report, I don't have the experience necessary to be able to have a say in that. I don't personally seeing it being a thing since there isn't much incentive for it.

[cn2mc]

I remember TD actually briefly had a (slightly flawed) post-game report at a certain point, so it's most probably not impossible. 

As for map features: no tiberium seas, no capturable multi-tech CYs, even though I'm fine with comm. centres or power plants, or something, for expansion. Obviously no ion cannon-firing civilian structures and the like.

Resources. IMO, maps should have enough to sustain at least 3-4 ref. builds for both players. Not too little, as to limit the game to rushes, but also not too much or too dense, so that they inhibit troop movement and base expansion.

Base-creep potential is also a point that needs to be reasonably addressed, probably as one of the 4 'sliding' features White suggested. 

Settings. 5-10K starting cash seems reasonable, I'd say the № of starting units is a greater point of contention, with people getting APCs at 5, IIRC. Crates are a no-no and visceroids can be eliminated/minimized as a threat if need be, by changing their stats: no weapon, little health, etc. I kind of like the separate helipad option, because it widens the use of chinooks, at least theoretically, and it doesn't really slow heli rushes down that much. Optional for me.

I believe slowing down the speed a notch to 5 will defuse the threat of APCs somewhat, giving more micro time to the defender... but then again, I myself prefer the excitement of the faster setting and I don't think it's really a balance breaker in competitive play. Scouting the rush and taking early measures is much more important than the 3-4 additional frantic clicks you'll get to make when it comes on lower speed. I say: optional between 5 and 6, agreed upon beforehand by the players and/or observer/referee/tournament rules and locked for the duration of the game. 

Pausing also seems possible/plausible if official matches ever take place. Lowering the speed down to 1 slows the game to a crawl, and if theoretically we can tinker with these settings, it can be made to go even slower or almost not at all. (Basically the same suggestion as the previous one, of hacking in a speed between 5 and 6.)

[nariac]

Starting credits, would 5,000 to ~7,000 be reasonable? A 7,000 credit start would allow the traditional opening build orders, ( the opening 1 or 2 refs question, etc) but limit the effectiveness of an apache rush. And I'm sure nobody would mind apache rush being nerfed a bit.

[cn2mc]

Well, defence against apaches will also be decreased to a significant extent. It's important to have the spare power plants, barracks and cash to build rocket men on demand when the helis come. If the defender is GDI, scouting the rush and slapping down a quick helipad and an orca can also help a lot. So the less cash you have, the less defence options you get. At 5000 credits heli rushes become practically impossible and turn to harassment, so that might turn out to be a bit too limiting as far as play choices go. There are also quick tech rushes which get stricken off the record at 5K, so 7K I would consider a safer minimum. You keep the 4 apache death-blow as a risky all in option, while you still get enough starting cash for a wide variety of builds including economic 3 ref. starts. I reiterate the safe minimum part, I personally believe it's better to play at 10K. Gives more options, is possibly easier to get used to and do the math for for less experienced players.

[AchromicWhite]

Interesting, so both X3M and nariac both would like to see a cash limit at 7000, and also talking about going as low as 5000?
Something I was thinking of was the idea that some features may be chosen for the players, and they just veto some options/maps.
So, say you had a pool of 7 maps, and each map is a different type (has a different combination of the 4 (or more) points that describe a map), and each person gets 3 vetos. And then we have 5 (or so) different amounts of credits to start with, say; 5K, 6K, 7K, 8K, 10K (so, in this case no 9K) and you veto 2 of them.
You're then randomised a map and an amount of credits that both you and your opponent didn't veto.

The reason I say 5 credit amounts, is that you need an odd amount of options if you have a veto system, and if we want to include 5K and 10K then an amount needs to be cut, and I think that 9K is not that interesting... as it's already close enough to 10K. However, that does mean you're always more likely to be randomised a smaller amount). For those who like smaller amounts going up against those who like larger amounts, you'd basically always play with 7K, which I think is a good mid ground. Could make it 7.5K though.
OR
5.5K, 6.5K, 7.5K, 8.5K, 9.5K

Dang it Cn2. I agree with too many of your thoughts xD

Let's see. Instead of going through what I agree with, let's try and find what I don't...
Yeah, regarding capturable tech; that could be a check box system. So you'd only have 1-2 maps with something like that. But I agree.
I think that production buildings in particular are a no no. They not only unlock units you ever wise can't build, but they speed up production at points in the game where the production speed should still be ramping up. They make all-ins that are already powerful, completely insane.
One issue that I have with buildings on maps is that you can't see them in the preview of the maps, and I think that it's important for the veto system to be intuitive for newer players. Like, they may still be screwing themselves over even with a good preview, but at least they're looking at the actual map. Maybe a veto screen could show better previews (or at least have a link to a page with pictures on).

I'm honestly 100% against having ANY extra units to start with. Just the MCV. Even with 3 units, nod gets 2 light tanks, while GDI gets a med and a rocket soldier. I don't consider that fair.

On Game speed; I'd like to see it just locked at 6, but I'd be alright with it being 5-6. For me personally, it throws off my rhythm. But I do think that not allowing to be stupidly slow, and also locking the speed during the game is a good idea.
Game pause would be a nice addition. Regarding non reffed matches, it's important that there's a way for the player whom didn't pause the game, to be able to continue. If someone is losing a match and can just pause the game... yeah.
 

[X3M]

What if the starting units are fixed, are buildable by both sides and make for some protection against air and apc rush?

Like giving each side a number or rocket soldiers? Make that an optional?
Reasons:
These can't attack that good by themselves because they are slow and weak.
They can still scout a fair bit, but it is better to still build a barracks and then other infantry.
They will be a starting protection against air.
To a lesser extent to an APC rush.

The same goes for the MRLS. But this one is a bit to powerful to my taste. You can only defend well enough with armored units. But having just 1 should not really be a problem.

So;
Option starting units 1: 0-6?? Rocket Soldiers.
Option starting units 2: 0-2 MRLS.

To stop APC rushes. Or make sure that the APC rush needs MORE investments, like wall destroyers. Simply have each player start with walls around their MCV. I have seen this a lot before. And TBH, I liked it a lot. It stopped me, and the opponent. But having a proper investment in the APC will still allow the APC rush.
With 4 or at a minimum 1 opening to build from. Preferably in the direction of tiberium. So that a Refinery starts right next to it. More so would be having the tiberium being at the closed side, right next to the wall. That the player can see it and build the refinery above or under the CY after having build the power plant. If the refinery is placed under, there is room for 2 towers to be build. Or infantry to walk to. But also, one of the corners is closed up right away. Advanced guard towers build there can even reach above, if the apc stops there. Turrets would have not much of an option here. I know.

Optional starting units can also hide behind those walls.

[AchromicWhite]

There are some maps where you can just wall at the entrance anyway, if you know how. Quarry is a good example... in that way, I'd rather the strat of APC rush just be viable on certain maps.
Like, they can be potent, but they also can be defended. You mostly have to be careful about making a load of infantry, because the APC can end up paying for itself via crushing.

Not sure if there's a way to change the starting units like you've stated, though. Making 5 or so rocket men is not too hard, either. Just go double barr/hand if you have to, to spit them out where you need them.

I don't so much disagree that this wouldn't help, as much as that I'm not on board with the idea of trying to flat nerf strats. If we wanted to nref such a strat through editing the game, the obvious way would be to just place the engineer at comm tech and maybe remove APC from the Nod arsenal. But I don't really want to do either of those things.

The only edit I've become open to would be moving Chem Warrior and MLRS both to comm centre tech, so that we actually get to use them.