What do you want to see/not see in the remake of CnC1? I will send your comments to EA!

[chem]

Sorry to ask this again, but I think in this section of of the forum are the most dedicated and passionate cnc1 players in the world, also there's not that many of us, so the thread wont get long and blurred (hopefully) 

Im going to hopefully collect your answers and give my own, and then send the information with a link to EA, then hope and pray they will pay attention to it. I think not only are we the most dedicated cnc1 players in the world but also we are the most in touch with what will make the game good for everyone. Even those with highly contrasting opinions on that tend to balance each other out well. So I think it will be the ideal market research for EA, and I'll collect it and deliver it to them, and leave the link, in order to do all I can in my limited control  in order to make the cnc series live on successfully. 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by chem

[chem]

 

Ok my wants and aversions for this new remaster of the original are the following. The ones in blue are the ones I feel reflect what I and everyone else want and are the most important 

 

1) Improved true 3d graphics , but highly close to the look and feel of the original graphics, also alternative terrains for variety.

2) Bigger maps

3) 8 or more players id like 10 or a fair few more frankly 

4) Id like to see the game balanced near to perfection

5)Id like to see the game balanced in a way that doesn't require the GDI weapons factory to be weak like paper.

6) Id like to see the balanced integration of units that are rarely used like the mrls for gdi and the chem trooper for nod

7) Id like to see base creeping eliminated ,you dont fight with buildings in real war and I think this should be fixed, however base building itself is obviously vital.

8. Id like to see south advantage fixed 

9) Id like to see right advantage fixed

10) Id like to see game modes for variety -  capture flag, sole survivor, co-op,  etc

11) Id personally like to see naval units in cnc1 but I appreciate this is not what most people might like, just my preference

12) Id like to see all the original units returned

13) Id like to see the nod light tank look like a real world tank instead of a Hodge podge of 2 different tanks atm it looks half way between a Bradley and a t72 and I think it should be one or the other 

14) Id like to 2 options and 2 games in 1, classic mode with only nod and gdi similar to the original, and id like to see a more expanded version that adds more sides and factions and they should integrate seamlessly

15) for  the extra factions id like to see machines in the style of cabal taking over/in the style of the movie terminator ,  idl ike to see a mutant side separate from gdi and nod , and id like to see an alien side scrin side but id like to see them take more inspiration from the film aliens and Independence day and star ship troopers in their look/style/design

16) Id like to see great flexibility and ease of modding for modders that want to make total conversions,I dont want to see them with sticking points like  hard fixed rules in the game that make it impossible for modders to change fix and overcome 

 17) Id like to see sub factions with a few extra units etc like in ra2 and cnc3's add on

18) Id like to see a zoom in and out function

19) Id like to see the A10  in use  , id like to see f22 or f16;s and an airfield as a building 

20) Id like to see more real world units in the non classic version like the A10 the m1 Abraham which is the med tank but also perhaps a b1 nuclear bomber or a b2 stealth bomber, T72, F117, or the amphibious APC the Americans use etc  in addition to the sci fi style obelisks VTOL orcas and ion cannons etc I really like the mix of modern ware fare units and sci fi weapons for cnc1 u get the best of both worlds and no disadvantages, I would like to see them expand on this original idea/theme. 

21) Id like to hear the exact same sound files for the commando unit and also a close as possible look for the graphics of him. None of these renegade sound effects

22) With bigger maps proper range for tanks and artillery/mrls 

23) id like to see cross tech units for when you capture tech from a different faction like in ra2 

 

 

Thats all I can think of for now but thats what I want what about you guys? What do you want to tell EA?

 

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by chem

[X3M]

If it is a remaster. Only graphics and a bit of interface upgrades should be done.

All the other suggestions. While I agree with most. Are more for a remake.

Eg. I like the factory to be able to build tanks at a constant speed. If you want tanks faster, build more factories. But one factory is not going to build faster tanks. Let's just say, more logic to the game like C&C3 had.

[chem]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 11:23 PM, X3M said:

If it is a remaster. Only graphics and a bit of interface upgrades should be done.

All the other suggestions. While I agree with most. Are more for a remake.

Eg. I like the factory to be able to build tanks at a constant speed. If you want tanks faster, build more factories. But one factory is not going to build faster tanks. Let's just say, more logic to the game like C&C3 had.

You are right X3M about the definition, but while they used that word , they used it very loosely, they don't mean it precisely. They are trying to give you a general idea that they have listened to what we want and will make something CLOSE to what we love which is the original westwood made command and conquer / early cnc games.

 

If you read the article below you will see the reality is that its all up in the air and they are collecting feed back on what we actually want, before they make a final decision hence why I think its vital we here at cnc.net give them our opinion on what we want because no one plays or knows  classic cnc like us no other fans etc on reddit know in depth the issues joys and chores of classic cnc nor do they know the ideal directions for improvement or change like we do unless they are old pros or members of cnc.net.

 

 

Here's a quote from the EA producer its on the pc gamer website

"

Electronic Arts producer Jim Vessella has been answering questions on Reddit regarding the Command & Conquer remasters they recently teased. There's not a lot of information in the thread, but then this is a project that's probably a couple of years away and still in the planning stages. However, in response to one question Vessella confirmed that "We will not be adding any microtransactions to a C&C Remaster."

Which is nice. Not much else of interest was said, with Vessella instead asking questions of the fans about what they'd like to see. "Would you want to see updated balancing or a more robust UI?" he wrote. "For example, would you want to see the C&C3 style tabs and unit selection sidebar in one of the classic games?" 

Balancing was a concern for several fans, who are worried that new versions of the classic games would be altered to make them more esports-friendly. "Should the balance stay the same as the classic versions, or should we rebalance it to make them more appropriate?" Vessella asked. "

 

They don't mean it literally although I did get carried away with my remake ideas so well corrected , you are right too

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by chem

[ScottO]

Keep it the same, same music etc, no messing with units, although it would be interesting to build the gunboat unit somewhere, also skirmish mode, once I have done the missions, that's it, there is nothing.

[ore_truck]

If C&C1 is getting a remaster, make it exactly like the one we have on cncnet, except:

1. Fix the out of sync error.

2. Make it compatible with newer systems.

3. You don't need a 3rd party platform to play online.

4. Better resolution and have its settings available at options (pls dont touch the other graphics).

5. Better the harvester pathfinding.

[chem]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 10:53 AM, ore_truck said:

If C&C1 is getting a remaster, make it exactly like the one we have on cncnet, except:

1. Fix the out of sync error.

2. Make it compatible with newer systems.

3. You don't need a 3rd party platform to play online.

4. Better resolution and have its settings available at options (pls dont touch the other graphics).

5. Better the harvester pathfinding.

that will  never happen, EA would never make so few changes and then sell it they just couldn't do that, but I appreciate u like it how it is lol 

[AchromicWhite]

On 10/15/2018 at 6:22 AM, chem said:

12) Id like to see all the original units returned

19) Id like to see the A10  in use  , id like to see f22 or f16;s and an airfield as a building

Not sure what 12 means.

But for F22 etc

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/YF-22

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Widow_(Aircraft)

I guess they just never made it into the latest parts of programming or something?

[chem]

7 hours ago, AchromicWhite said:

Not sure what 12 means.

But for F22 etc

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/YF-22

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Widow_(Aircraft)

I guess they just never made it into the latest parts of programming or something?

12 means id like to see all the units used in the 1st cnc to also be in the new cnc, but id like to see additional new units as well, keeping with the awesome theme of modern warfare mixed with a little bit of not too distant future sci fi warfare, I love that theme so much

 

Amazing, nostalgia mixed with awe, so they were thinking along the same lines that would have been hella kewl, thanks white!!  

 

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by chem

[X3M]

I think they could do a lot with how tiberium grows. Especially in TD.

C&C3 almost got it perfect. Only the circular shapes should be more randomized. Growth should be a bit faster then 1 harvester taking it. And a bit slower compared to 2 or 3. A set limit of course. That way, resources are imho as fair as possible.

Also, the ai should not cheat with resources. Filling those silo's. No other way to store the money like in dune2. Only spending it all in attempts of defending. 

[chem]

1 hour ago, X3M said:

I think they could do a lot with how tiberium grows. Especially in TD.

C&C3 almost got it perfect. Only the circular shapes should be more randomized. Growth should be a bit faster then 1 harvester taking it. And a bit slower compared to 2 or 3. A set limit of course. That way, resources are imho as fair as possible.

Also, the ai should not cheat with resources. Filling those silo's. No other way to store the money like in dune2. Only spending it all in attempts of defending. 

Thanks for input X3M :)))

[chem]

another thing id like to see is many styles of play being balanced in effectiveness so that the best players in the world don't all have the same uniform style, so the turtles should have a chance as  should the rushers, guerrilla tactic guys etc etc

 

for me the great fun of multiplayer is having 1guy play like a complete jerk ie pence, 1guy a turtle ie gro, 1 guy a rusher, 1 guy balanced, 1 likes troops, one air etc etc

 

 

Also I like when you have both tech that you can combine units in away that you couldn't before like the IFV in ra2and use soviet infantry in it, or using a spy in other rts games that gave you a new unit that wasn't the exact enemy unit but one based on their technology that you can now build,  I also like super units like in KKND 1 the ones you find and the way they balanced compared to the rest of your units

Edited October 28, 2018 by chem

[fir3w0rx]

I think when it comes to additions, the more the awesomer. Unlockable vehicle skins, 5v5, AI can build a base... whatever. Even something crazy like a drop-in-drop-out feature so that 2 guys can jump in the middle of a 1v1 match and make it 2v2!

[X3M]

32 minutes ago, fir3w0rx said:

I think when it comes to additions, the more the awesomer. Unlockable vehicle skins, 5v5, AI can build a base... whatever. Even something crazy like a drop-in-drop-out feature so that 2 guys can jump in the middle of a 1v1 match and make it 2v2!

That 1v1 becoming 2v2. I have seen it before. But it works better in the form of 2v2 from the start. However, the first party sets up a base, can't build units. This in a time limit. They also don't have much resources to harvest. The second party will start from scratch with some units to defend with. As if they are the invaders.

 

A player that likes to use infantry only? You need some decent nerfing on the anti infantry weapons. Namely flame based and crushing.
An idea that just popped up, to make soldiers more useful. Is a pause on the tanks who crush them. If they drive over the soldiers, it takes time to turn them into mince meat. In other words, the movement speed of a tank over infantry is significant slower then on normal ground. If possible, depending on the number of infantry standing in that square.
And a flame weapon can jump only X times from soldier to soldier. Maybe leaving some only damaged. So NO 100 army going down within 1 second by 1 candle light.

[AchromicWhite]

On 10/27/2018 at 5:42 PM, chem said:

another thing id like to see is many styles of play being balanced in effectiveness so that the best players in the world don't all have the same uniform style, so the turtles should have a chance as  should the rushers, guerrilla tactic guys etc etc

 

That  can literally take years, in an RTS game, to balance.
Because people evolve new tactics to counter stuff.

Heck, SCII's been at it for near on a decade, and they still can't get protoss to open with a robo vs zerg. These games are complex and take a LOT of time and dedication... and IDK if you know; but EA is NOT dedicated to patching it's games over the years.
They make something, try to sell it a lot, put a load of micro transactions in it... and if people like it, they continue support for a while. Once people get a bit bored, EA just moves on.

[chem]

2 hours ago, AchromicWhite said:

That  can literally take years, in an RTS game, to balance.
Because people evolve new tactics to counter stuff.

Heck, SCII's been at it for near on a decade, and they still can't get protoss to open with a robo vs zerg. These games are complex and take a LOT of time and dedication... and IDK if you know; but EA is NOT dedicated to patching it's games over the years.
They make something, try to sell it a lot, put a load of micro transactions in it... and if people like it, they continue support for a while. Once people get a bit bored, EA just moves on.

 

I mean cnc1 almost does what I want and that was the 1st game so maybe its not such an unrealistic ask.

Maybe going the red alert 2 route would make it easier and having a specific unit/units that helps you rush harass attack with force or turtle etc they have experience doing this already with generals cnc3 ra2 etc

Or perhaps we should just be happy with a near balance and accept that a game with so many variables is always going to be imperfect. So long as they keep patching till its close, no 1 side thats obviously OP etc I think that's the best you can hope for? It must be very hard to balance, you make one unit fast another slow with armor and then try to make 2 non equal non compatible different attributes equal in effectiveness, it must be insanely hard to balance. Maybe we should not expect or try to get perfection from anyone with this genre?

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by chem

[AchromicWhite]

As soon as you change one thing, you can often completely change how you play; depending on how complex the rest of the game is.

We've all talked about the tweaks you could make to get the game to be near perfect... but to explain that to someone, they already need to understand the game, as is, to understand the changes.
Now, is EA going to come here and learn the game and then make those changes?
No.
They are not.

So, it's not going to happen.

[fir3w0rx]

EA should just give up and sell the C&C franchise to Blizzard . They'll make more money doing this, than creating another failed C&C game. Blizzard will then breath new life into our favorite C&C games... these guys know how to do a remaster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zfx5hQ3CE

Not to mention the all star line up of games under their banner: Starcraft (remastered), Starcraft 2, Warcraft (1,2 & 3), World of Warcraft, Overwatch, Diablo...

[X3M]

A storm is coming.

It is called a Blizzard.

Yeah, they know how to keep things alive and well.
If only EA games could follow their lead.

[chem]

I think we should work proactively with EA, they are listening, they are showing that they are listening, you cant really ask for more at this stage. We should be positive and  proactive not destructive immature and negative. Not giving orders just feel it is a more logical way to be in order for us to get what we want.

Edited November 3, 2018 by chem

[X3M]

Hey. I have given some "positive" input.

Was that joke really that harsh that I already got 2 sad faces? It is sarcasm on the other posts here (in any topic and discord) about Blizzard.

I wonder if the big guy is going to comment on any of this stuff.

[chem]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 2:21 AM, X3M said:

Hey. I have given some "positive" input.

Was that joke really that harsh that I already got 2 sad faces? It is sarcasm on the other posts here (in any topic and discord) about Blizzard.

I wonder if the big guy is going to comment on any of this stuff.

xD The sad face was a joke too lmao  . Its hard to see context on a forum or text etc.

I totally understand why ppl are upset with EA, I can even understand why EA made a mistake with cn4, it wasn't really a horrible thing they did, they just went with the flow of how the top pros where building bases in cnc3 ie moving them alot to get the tiberium. Its an understandable mistake ie you can see why they did it, it wasn't arrogance .

Edited November 4, 2018 by chem

[X3M]

Hey! You are looking at how they are thinking. cool.

If that was their train of thought. Why didn't they allow for both options? Or better yet, a second option for refineries like a re-deployable refinery (+power). A bit more expensive. But worthwhile the money and trouble. Just like the mobile war factory in TS.

Enough about "off topic".

I have experienced something this last month regarding RTS gaming on the mobile phone. If EA-games came to the community about 2 years ago regarding this. THEY could have made something similar like AoW3.
Now, I am not going to write what this game has. But EA-games could study it and get idea's from it. Maybe making a better mobile app than rivals, while using TD as the basis. All they need to do is study AoW3. And apply this to C&C TD.

Of course with better and more realistic graphics.

Less money grabbing!! Have commercials or something for their income. And if they really want players to pay them money. Simply allow for free download. But let the players buy cards in a shop. Like how WOW works. Not a monthly pay. Just a one time payment for buying the game. And if they really want to, have the same card for the same money, provide something else in the game. I dunno, module's for customisation of units and such. Like how CoD has expansion packs.

[chem]

1 hour ago, X3M said:

Hey! You are looking at how they are thinking. cool.

If that was their train of thought. Why didn't they allow for both options? Or better yet, a second option for refineries like a re-deployable refinery (+power). A bit more expensive. But worthwhile the money and trouble. Just like the mobile war factory in TS.

Enough about "off topic".

I have experienced something this last month regarding RTS gaming on the mobile phone. If EA-games came to the community about 2 years ago regarding this. THEY could have made something similar like AoW3.
Now, I am not going to write what this game has. But EA-games could study it and get idea's from it. Maybe making a better mobile app than rivals, while using TD as the basis. All they need to do is study AoW3. And apply this to C&C TD.

Of course with better and more realistic graphics.

Less money grabbing!! Have commercials or something for their income. And if they really want players to pay them money. Simply allow for free download. But let the players buy cards in a shop. Like how WOW works. Not a monthly pay. Just a one time payment for buying the game. And if they really want to, have the same card for the same money, provide something else in the game. I dunno, module's for customisation of units and such. Like how CoD has expansion packs.

Don't know,  maybe less work to only do it 1 way, maybe they thought it would fix base creeping, maybe they thought its more efficient more futuristic that old style base building so it fits in with the games futuristic theme and gets rid of inefficiencies like building units etc far away from where you want them, maybe they spent a lot of time patching and balancing and commentating on pro games on cnc3 and wanted to carry on in a similar way  from the work done there,   also  more work to do it both ways, yea you could have a more complex strategic game with more options like that,  I like it as an idea but only in a very limited way, how it was in TS was ideal, just 1 unit that added a fresh new idea and extra strategy (mobile war factory)  but totally changing the fundamentals of the game was a big mistake imo.

Never seen aow3 will check it out,  I don't know enough about the payment schemes to comment but your idea sounds good, pay to play might have advantages (IDK) but it sounds insane to me. :)))

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by chem

[X3M]

Well, if you don't like the mobile factory. I understand. Somehow it felt off for me as well. It didn't really add up to the main strategies. It was a very cheap proxy too.

Mistakes are to be learned from too. And the only way to make mistakes, is to try things out.

But what exactly didn't you like about it?
Was it the fact that you didn't had to base creep?
It could be carried over to a place where you would not scout at all after the first scout?
Or that its build speed was that of the main base in cooperated?

PS. If you have trouble with AoW3. PM me. Also, no bikes, but 2 buggies.