cnc 3 walls

[zach016]

derek, just here to take up the challange, i personally love walls.just a recap of some reasons thrown out in the comments section,
-walls give time to react
-it is possible to have a disable function for online(not everyone can play online anyway)
-can impead the progress of stealth units into your base
-do make your base look more organized like a true base(they have fences although, not walls)
-diehard fans are calling for them to be put in (must have some use)
-they are a part of the tiberian sun universe and if a base in the true future did not use walls then the commanders of those bases would have a serious problem with advanced technology
-allows for new tatics to be ultilised
-the console version can not be modded to put in walls
and to adress some of your arguments in the comments section:
-starcraft had walls already on certain maps which could be played
-the people in the comment section may not represent the whole, but nethier do you, so you can not claim the majority of fans hate walls
-the former westwood employees, new games do not include walls because, maybe they happen to be working for a DIFFERENT company making a DIFFERENT series of games, whats that word again, DIFFERENT.

(sorry for not mentioning who gave the arguments, they can be seen in the comments section of the walls post at http://www.cncden.com/index.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1173385592&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&)

[Derek]

derek, just here to take up the challange, i personally love walls.just a recap of some reasons thrown out in the comments section,
About damn time.

-walls give time to react
Not if they're weak, and if they're strong then the gameplay slows down and suffers greatly.

-it is possible to have a disable function for online
That would only encourage n00bs (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060823).

(not everyone can play online anyway)
These people can download a mod. Don't interfere with the actual game.

-can impead the progress of stealth units into your base
You can't wall off an entire base fast enough. I would blow multiple holes in it with scorpians, and I could slip Stanks through any of those holes.

-do make your base look more organized like a true base(they have fences although, not walls)
This isn't SimCity

-diehard fans are calling for them to be put in (must have some use)
Entirely irrelevent

-they are a part of the tiberian sun universe and if a base in the true future did not use walls then the commanders of those bases would have a serious problem with advanced technology
Those commanders wouldn't use walls in the first place. So its not more "realistic" or more "in line with the story".

-allows for new tatics to be ultilised
Name one tactic that was only possible with walls in past CNC games (moving sandbags does not count, neither does surrounding your structures to stop engineers)

-the console version can not be modded to put in walls
The PC version should not be made with the console version in mind. That would only result in a watered down PC game that no one would want to play.

-starcraft had walls already on certain maps which could be played
But they weren't buildable.

-the people in the comment section may not represent the whole, but nethier do you, so you can not claim the majority of fans hate walls
I never made that claim, I just said that not all fans want walls. My claim is and always has been that wall only have potential to make the game worse.

-the former westwood employees, new games do not include walls because, maybe they happen to be working for a DIFFERENT company making a DIFFERENT series of games, whats that word again, DIFFERENT.
(sorry for not mentioning who gave the arguments, they can be seen in the comments section of the walls post)
Poor arguement. If walls were useful to gameplay then they would include them anyways. If you want walls only because they were in past games, that is not a reasno to include walls in a new game.

[zach016]

as in reasons ordered:wave:
1. even a weak wall gives you time to redirect units to that location and just because a wall is there dosen't mean you can't put defences there too.

2. noobs will ultilize any tactic, walls are no different and that dosen't mean non noobs will not use walls. Plus with a disable function usable then you can just find games not using walls, so then EA satifies all parties involved with walls.

3. on dial up a mod could take a long time to download, and what about those who get the console version or do not have internet at all

4. but i will notice your tanks blowing holes and just because their is walls there dosen't mean you cannot place defences outside them, its called managing.It just means you do not have to spend as much on defences because like in red alert 2 you could make certain defences shoot over walls, giving that defence extra protection which can save money instead of replacing it.

5. No it's command and conquer 3 tiberium wars, what other games had the title cnc and had tiberium in it? did they have walls? did everyone hate those walls and make mods to remove them?

6. Why would the people who play the game the most want something that is totally useless and just wastes money?

7. then those commanders would be swarmed and killed, even the bases of today use fences to keep infantry and civilians from being able to sneak into a base and kill everyone in their sleep. Yes tools can be used but using tools to cut a fence takes time, kind of like some tanks blowing through a wall which even can make sneak attacks noticed.

8. you just named tatics yourself, kind of screws up your counter point

9. both games should be equal or you will only angry one side or another. ghost recon was made with the xbox/xbox 360 only in mind and the lack of the same features made it a worse game on the computer and ps2.

10. but there were maps where you already started off surronded, and people could have played these maps more. also consider that these walls were not destroyable but it did not take away from the game experience.

11. your exact words were "the cnc fan boys who know what a good RTS game is are vastly outnumbered by those who don't" you used this to go against having walls therefore saying more would rather not have walls then those who do. you did make that claim.

12. this is a perfect reason for walls when the SERIES that the new game is based on is based on other games. You don't down-grade in technology.


looking forward to arguing more next time i have the chance and when you reply

[Derek]

1. even a weak wall gives you time to redirect units to that location and just because a wall is there dosen't mean you can't put defences there too.
No, weak walls wouldn't give you nearly enough time to react. Not at all.

2. noobs will ultilize any tactic, walls are no different and that dosen't mean non noobs will not use walls. Plus with a disable function usable then you can just find games not using walls, so then EA satifies all parties involved with walls.
But you don't want to encourage n00bs. Everything in the game should be designed to encourage people to play at the highest level possible, not the lowest. Appeasing n00bs only hurts the game in the long run, because potentially good players instead become no rush n00bs, which are entirely useless to the community.

3. on dial up a mod could take a long time to download, and what about those who get the console version or do not have internet at all
A mod that only implemented walls would consist of no more than a few text files and a small picture or two. Even people on dial-up could download this. People without internet is an ignorable market, and I already said that the PC version should not be designed with the console version in mind. They should be kept to completely seperate games.

4. but i will notice your tanks blowing holes and just because their is walls there dosen't mean you cannot place defences outside them, its called managing.It just means you do not have to spend as much on defences because like in red alert 2 you could make certain defences shoot over walls, giving that defence extra protection which can save money instead of replacing it.

5. No it's command and conquer 3 tiberium wars, what other games had the title cnc and had tiberium in it? did they have walls? did everyone hate those walls and make mods to remove them?
No past CNC game has encouraged making organized bases, why should this one be different? If you want to make pretty bases, play SimCity. If you want to make useful bases, don't build walls and don't try to organize your bases. (Ironically, well organized bases are often the easiest bases to destroy.)

6. Why would the people who play the game the most want something that is totally useless and just wastes money?
Because they only care about nostalgia, not about the game itself. There are three groups of people involved here: Those who want the game to be exactly like Tibeian Dawn, those who want the game to be exactly like Tiberian Sun, and those who want the game to exactly like Red Alert 2. None of these actually want CNC3, they want an old game with new graphics.

7. then those commanders would be swarmed and killed, even the bases of today use fences to keep infantry and civilians from being able to sneak into a base and kill everyone in their sleep. Yes tools can be used but using tools to cut a fence takes time, kind of like some tanks blowing through a wall which even can make sneak attacks noticed.
No they wouldn't, they would be much better off because they weren't wasting money on useless walls.

And you can't compare this to real life. In real life bases don't have factories pumping out unlimited tanks, they don't have buildings that pop up out of no where, and they aren't actually used to attack. Bases only have fences to keep out intruders, they're not actually trying to stop an attack. In CNC3 you are constantly being attacked, so there is no point in having walls.

8. you just named tatics yourself, kind of screws up your counter point
One tactic I named hasn't been possible since Tiberian Dawn, and the other is moot because the engineers have been very heavily nerfed. I was simply eliminating those two possibilities before you even named them. Now if you can come up with any better ideas, fire away.

9. both games should be equal or you will only angry one side or another. ghost recon was made with the xbox/xbox 360 only in mind and the lack of the same features made it a worse game on the computer and ps2.
No, they should not be equal. The PC and 360 are completely different platforms, if you try to make the game a compromise between them then it will suck on both. You have to make each game with its platform specifically in mind, while ignoring the other.

10. but there were maps where you already started off surronded, and people could have played these maps more. also consider that these walls were not destroyable but it did not take away from the game experience.
Indestructible walls completely surrounding a base? Thats just a bad map. This still has absolutely nothing to do with buildable walls though.

11. your exact words were "the cnc fan boys who know what a good RTS game is are vastly outnumbered by those who don't" you used this to go against having walls therefore saying more would rather not have walls then those who do. you did make that claim.
Umm, my quote means the exact opposite. It means that there are far more people who don't know what a good RTS is (ie, they want walls) than there are people who know what they're talking about (ie, they don't want walls).

12. this is a perfect reason for walls when the SERIES that the new game is based on is based on other games. You don't down-grade in technology.
"Because previous games did" is no reason to included an bad feature. Games are supposed to move forwards, not backwards.

[raulriera]

I want to point out something here, you are a General buff, so ADMIT this!

MOST (if not all) GLA players barricaded their supplies with 1 supply stash, 1 barrack and 1 arms dealer, to keep tanks and other stuff from squashing your workers, now isent that the same as eerrr walls?

In RA2 I used a deadly tactic which consisted in using spider drones (which cant kill walls) and use the iron curtain on them, then I sent them to my enemy's tanks... they coundlt destroy them, and even when my spider finished eating up his tank, it will still come out with the iron curtain on (this mean invinsible), now the players took a while to realize that the ONLY wat to stop that from happening was to run away and wish to god that my spiders didnt get them, or use walls to trap my spiders or make them waist time moving around the walls.

Those are good 2 examples of walls, in strategies... I havent play c&c3 online, and neither have you.. I will post a wall strategy once I study some of the c&c3 online moves.

[zach016]

1. the walls in tiberian sun and red alert gave you plenty time to react and they did not hold back gameplay. playing games is not only about online anyways.And you can stack them(make several layers) making them more effective.

2. who said it would encourage noobs anyway, that is only a prediction made by you and even if it did, a noob is still a person and they paid the same amount as you.There will always be noobs, deal with it. "potentiality good players would become no rush noobs" not everybody likes to rush, again deal with it, plus someone who does not rush is not a noob, they can use more of there brain to come up with other take down stratigeys and these players can become better then any rusher, it just gives options,something that is being smiled on more and more in gaming today.

3. "people without internet is an ignorable market" no market is ignorable and people who don't have internet should be able to have just as much fun as those who do. "the pc version should not be made with the console in mind" no they should be made equal with equal possibilities. Only allowing the ability for modding walls in on the pc version should be frowned upon, there are people without a computer powerful enough to play the pc version and they lack the funding to upgrade for just a game.Plus just because you can mod in walls dosen't mean you can add in a offical picture that goes along with the rest and tell the ai what to do against the wall without encountering problems.

4. if you find a well organized base easy to destroy then the base is not organized. An organized base would be one that keeps the fire power of an unorganized base while being easy to locate every unit in play. plus you don't have to build one layer of wall, building mutiple layers of a wall just adds to protection and would give you time to respond. Its all about balencing your use. And as i said before if defences could fire over a wall then even an unorganized base can take that much longer to take down. "no past cnc game has encouraged making a organized bases" no they left it up to the players choice, it's called freedom.

5. if these are the only three groups then you just killed your argument. But what people want is the feel of the old games that they LOVED. And walls isen't even that huge of a stretch back in the first place, it's a convience and it won't kill nor change the game to a huge amount, it's just another defence.

6. unfortuanly for your arguement they are not useless, you can just stack them, plus walls were never costy in the first place and running on the old system you covered a good space every one-two pieces. its not that much of a dip into your econamy and its called managing your resources which is a factor in this game anyways.

7. this is the now not the future, you don't know what future war will be like, it may be all robotic, and if you are constantly under attack then it is a perfect reason to have walls, stacked they can buy much time and yes even a weak wall will buy you five seconds, that five seconds may be the difference between a mamotth tank that turns the tide of the battle but your war factory would have been destroyed by invadors.

8. you want a better idea, stops sneak attacks, walls are quick to fix and noticple if they are destroyed, you may have a weak point you do not notice, another is the one i just mentioned above, buying time for units, another is protecting your defences if they could fire over, another is to impead infantry from getting in easier then it has to be. Walls open possibilities, work with them, not against them.

9. never ingnore the other, if you lose sales on one, you can lose sales on both. The form of mouth is a powerful advertisment and everyone who would have liked the game will tell their friends not to get it. like i said above they have to be equal, your'e trying to make maxium profit.

10. well youre the one who named starcraft as a better online game,i was just informing that it had maps with walls that were pre-built for you, and just because you don't like the map doesen't mean everyone else dosen't, keep that in mind.

11. but if the majority feels that walls are better then dosen't that mean that they should be put in, it's the majority that desides what a good game is, not the minority. and sorry about the quote, i miss read it, little tired.

12. but only a few that have voiced there opinons feel that walls is a bad feature while many that i have seen love walls and because previous games did is no reason, but because previous games IN THE SERIES of tiberium related games did is a perfect reason. You don't make a sequal to a movie a completely different movie, off topic and everything do you? granted that getting rid of walls is not a huge hole in the story line but it still takes out a feature that many grew acustomed too.

[WNxAnthrax]

Considering walls in all C&C games as i remember costed 100 and you could wall off a conyard with 2-3 wall portions. They took about 6 hits from a rhino tank (in RA2) 3-4 cannon blasts in TS and in TW they took 4 shots from a rail gun mammoth if i remember right maybe it was 2. Was more without rail gun upgrades. Would give you a few seconds more to respond to the threat then the walls not being there at all. Also adding the fact it could be used to protect the watch towers from the Nod Fanatics, and tank assaults on the Obolisk cause itd have to shoot THROUGH the wall to get at the Obolisk. Would be worth the price of immobile base defenses.

Now for the sake of argument god for bid if you must go that 'extra mile' to seal victory or if you had to use a little bit more force to overcome there base or use more TACTICS to get the job done... heaven for bid you must use more tactics then rush and rush to win....

There's ways around walls. Sky is the limit... You could do what i did in a game vs a friend in Generals on Twilight Flame. He had made a wall of Patriot Missiles and i was China. I went down, around the patriot wall with migs with black napalm and took out his power plants then sent battlemasters and Overlords past his unpowered Patriots and spanked him.

-WNxThrax-

[SgtRicko]

3. "people without internet is an ignorable market" no market is ignorable and people who don't have internet should be able to have just as much fun as those who do. "the pc version should not be made with the console in mind" no they should be made equal with equal possibilities. Only allowing the ability for modding walls in on the pc version should be frowned upon, there are people without a computer powerful enough to play the pc version and they lack the funding to upgrade for just a game.Plus just because you can mod in walls dosen't mean you can add in a offical picture that goes along with the rest and tell the AI what to do against the wall without encountering problems.

Thank you for recognizing me. +Rep to you, brother.


BTW, another use of walls is to (temporarily seal off choke points and bridges long enough for some artillery to bombard the enemies that are trying to break through them.

[Derek]

I want to point out something here, you are a General buff, so ADMIT this!
I just happen to know that Generals had the best gameplay of any CNC game, no other CNC game even came close. Trust, me I know all about the past games (probably more than you).

MOST (if not all) GLA players barricaded their supplies with 1 supply stash, 1 barrack and 1 arms dealer, to keep tanks and other stuff from squashing your workers, now isent that the same as eerrr walls?
1. You're not harvesting with infantry that can be run over by tanks
2. You're nor harvesting from a box, you're harvesting from a field.
3. Even if both the above were true, it would still be better (and cheaper) to box with buidings instead of walls.

In RA2 I used a deadly tactic which consisted in using spider drones (which cant kill walls) and use the iron curtain on them, then I sent them to my enemy's tanks... they coundlt destroy them, and even when my spider finished eating up his tank, it will still come out with the iron curtain on (this mean invinsible), now the players took a while to realize that the ONLY wat to stop that from happening was to run away and wish to god that my spiders didnt get them, or use walls to trap my spiders or make them waist time moving around the walls.
I would have attacked you long before you could have gotten an Iron Curtain up. Super Weapons are almost never built in a serious game. Even had you built them, walls wouldn't have stopped that: The tanks would be outside of the base (they should never be just sitting around in your base), and you couldn't put up walls to surround drones, thats impossible.

1. the walls in tiberian sun and red alert gave you plenty time to react and they did not hold back gameplay. playing games is not only about online anyways.And you can stack them(make several layers) making them more effective.
They clearly didn't, otherwise people would have used them more. The only thing people used those walls for was to stop overpowered engineers rushes, but those have been severely nerfed in CNC3 so you don't need walls to stop it anymore. And stacking them won't help, now you're just spending even more money, by the time you've encased your base in two or three layers of walls I've already destroyed everything inside it, because you were wasting your money instead of actually building. So all your walls were useless.

2. who said it would encourage noobs anyway, that is only a prediction made by you and even if it did, a noob is still a person and they paid the same amount as you.There will always be noobs, deal with it. "potentiality good players would become no rush noobs" not everybody likes to rush, again deal with it, plus someone who does not rush is not a noob, they can use more of there brain to come up with other take down stratigeys and these players can become better then any rusher, it just gives options,something that is being smiled on more and more in gaming today.
It will encourage n00bs, thats a fact, just like how having a "No rush" option encourages n00bs. It doesn't matter if a n00b paid the same for the game that I did, a game is better off without any n00bs.

If you don't like to rush you are either a newb (and you will learn to rush soon) or a n00b, you have no yet realized that rushing is the only viable strategy and takes far more skill than just sitting in your base clicking the "build tanks" button for fifteen minutes, then sending all your units at the enemy base. There is no strategy involved in "no rush". I wasted the first two months of my high speed internet playing no rush games, it was boring as **** and there clearly wasn't any real skill involved (and there are no options either, there is just one strategy: spam your most powerful unit). I was taught the hard way to play without rules, it is a lot more fun and exponentially more challanging. If you have not learned this yet, I hope you will someday, because only then will you know what an RTS game is.

And for the record, CNC is pretty much the only modern RTS that has no rush n00bs in its community. Play a game like Dawn of War, Warcraft, or Starcraft, and you won't find anyone hosting games that say "no rush 20". These communities are far more advanced than the CNC community and know that rushing is an integral part of the game.

3. "people without internet is an ignorable market" no market is ignorable
There are a lot of ignorable markets. Would you make a game catered towards people without a computer? No. And you wouldn't make a game meant for online play (as all RTS games are) catered towards people without internet access.

4. if you find a well organized base easy to destroy then the base is not organized. An organized base would be one that keeps the fire power of an unorganized base while being easy to locate every unit in play. plus you don't have to build one layer of wall, building mutiple layers of a wall just adds to protection and would give you time to respond. Its all about balencing your use. And as i said before if defences could fire over a wall then even an unorganized base can take that much longer to take down. "no past cnc game has encouraged making a organized bases" no they left it up to the players choice, it's called freedom.
A well organized base is predictable, you can easily find and kill the critical structures. They also have a tendancy to lump similar structures together, making it easy to completely eliminate a critical aspect of their base in one blow. Bases should be impromptu, not only is this more effecient (since you're not wasting critical time deciding where to place things), but it prevents your opponent from exploiting the above weaknesses.

5. if these are the only three groups then you just killed your argument. But what people want is the feel of the old games that they LOVED. And walls isen't even that huge of a stretch back in the first place, it's a convience and it won't kill nor change the game to a huge amount, it's just another defence.
You missed the point. People who want the game to be exactly like the old games should be ignored. Turning the game into a simple remake will only hurt it. Furthermore, while these people may be a majority of the CNC community, they are a huge minority of overall buyers, because casual fans want a new game, not an old game with pretty graphics.

6. unfortuanly for your arguement they are not useless, you can just stack them, plus walls were never costy in the first place and running on the old system you covered a good space every one-two pieces. its not that much of a dip into your econamy and its called managing your resources which is a factor in this game anyways.
When you're surrounding your base with two or more layers of walls, it is very costly. But would you build a few walls? No, that would be pointless.

7. this is the now not the future, you don't know what future war will be like, it may be all robotic, and if you are constantly under attack then it is a perfect reason to have walls, stacked they can buy much time and yes even a weak wall will buy you five seconds, that five seconds may be the difference between a mamotth tank that turns the tide of the battle but your war factory would have been destroyed by invadors.
Walls are useless against constant attacks, they can only stop small raids. Constant attacks would destroy the walls early and then prevent them from ever being rebuilt, so you would be better off without the walls in the first place. And that five seconds isn't as important as the $4000 you spent surrounding your entire base with multiple layers of walls (which is the only way to get the five seconds).

8. you want a better idea, stops sneak attacks, walls are quick to fix and noticple if they are destroyed, you may have a weak point you do not notice, another is the one i just mentioned above, buying time for units, another is protecting your defences if they could fire over, another is to impead infantry from getting in easier then it has to be. Walls open possibilities, work with them, not against them.
I've already explained how walls are useless at stopping stealth units: You can't build a solid walls around your base before I've made a hole in it, which you would have to repair, but then I've made another hole, and another. You would be so busy repairing walls to try and stop stealth units that you would get overwhelmed by teched units before you even got you pre-tech units out.

9. never ingnore the other, if you lose sales on one, you can lose sales on both.
You're not listening again. I never said that you ignore the console version, I said you ignore it while making the PC version. You have two different developement teams: One for the PC, and one for the console. Other than a few basic guidelines, these two work independantly and ignore the other. The result is two different games, each made with its respective platform in mind, instead of trying to make one compromise that would fail, you've made two good games for two different sytems. Analogy: Instead of trying to make one peg that will fit both a square and a round hole, you make a square peg and a round peg, each of which perfectly fits its own hole.

10. well youre the one who named starcraft as a better online game,i was just informing that it had maps with walls that were pre-built for you, and just because you don't like the map doesen't mean everyone else dosen't, keep that in mind.
Now you're getting off topic. I named Starcraft as an example of a succesful game without buildable walls. Unless you can prove to me that Starcraft had buildable walls, then you can't argue this point.

11. but if the majority feels that walls are better then dosen't that mean that they should be put in, it's the majority that desides what a good game is, not the minority. and sorry about the quote, i miss read it, little tired.
Just because the majority says something should be so, doesn't mean it is better. It is often the case that people don't know what is good for themselves. This is the supreme weakness of Democracy. Of course in a Democracy we can educate the populous about politics, but we can't educate every potential customer about what makes a good RTS game, so we can't develop a game in a democratic fashion. It should be developed only by those who know what they're doing, and the majority will enjoy it even if its not what they thought they wanted.

12. but only a few that have voiced there opinons feel that walls is a bad feature while many that i have seen love walls
Thats because most of these people are so fed up with you guys that they keep to their own forums, www.gamereplays.org. Go and make a thread like this there and see the response (it won't be pretty).

and because previous games did is no reason, but because previous games IN THE SERIES of tiberium related games did is a perfect reason. You don't make a sequal to a movie a completely different movie, off topic and everything do you? granted that getting rid of walls is not a huge hole in the story line but it still takes out a feature that many grew acustomed too.
Previous games crashed. Does that mean that CNC3 should crash? Previous games were 2D, does that mean that CNC3 should be 2D? Bad features should never, ever, be carried over to a sequel. It doesn't matter of they were the most important part of the original game, if it was a bad feature it should be removed.

Considering walls in all C&C games as i remember costed 100 and you could wall off a conyard with 2-3 wall portions.
But thats unnecessary because engineers have been nerfed.

Also adding the fact it could be used to protect the watch towers from the Nod Fanatics, and tank assaults on the Obolisk cause itd have to shoot THROUGH the wall to get at the Obolisk. Would be worth the price of immobile base defenses.
With the exception of maybe that Obelisk, defensive structures in CNC3 are very weak. They really aren't useful for more than a tempory emergency defense. Adding walls in front of them won't make them any better, and will only cost you more money. Don't use the example of the demo missions, because those are missions, where everything is pre-built for the enemy.

There's ways around walls. Sky is the limit... You could do what i did in a game vs a friend in Generals on Twilight Flame. He had made a wall of Patriot Missiles and i was China. I went down, around the patriot wall with migs with black napalm and took out his power plants then sent battlemasters and Overlords past his unpowered Patriots and spanked him.
A no rush game on Twilight Lame hardly constitutes an example.

BTW, another use of walls is to (temporarily seal off choke points and bridges long enough for some artillery to bombard the enemies that are trying to break through them.
Walls would never last long enough for you to build artillery and then move it into position. Not too mention that the enemy could just as easily have their own artillery to shoot over the walls.

[SgtRicko]

Oh... my... GODS... I give up!!!!

How long did it take you to compose that MONSTER of a reply, Derek!?!?:eek:

[jman79]

Quote:
In RA2 I used a deadly tactic which consisted in using spider drones (which cant kill walls) and use the iron curtain on them, then I sent them to my enemy's tanks... they coundlt destroy them, and even when my spider finished eating up his tank, it will still come out with the iron curtain on (this mean invinsible), now the players took a while to realize that the ONLY wat to stop that from happening was to run away and wish to god that my spiders didnt get them, or use walls to trap my spiders or make them waist time moving around the walls.

I would have attacked you long before you could have gotten an Iron Curtain up. Super Weapons are almost never built in a serious game. Even had you built them, walls wouldn't have stopped that: The tanks would be outside of the base (they should never be just sitting around in your base), and you couldn't put up walls to surround drones, thats impossible.







LOL........OWNED!:rofl:

[SgtRicko]

Yeah, I don't know what the f*** Derek has been smoking and crap, but he just flat-out uber-pwned us "Pro-Wallers" with that post's size alone.:dead:

[Derek]

Oh... my... GODS... I give up!!!!

How long did it take you to compose that MONSTER of a reply, Derek!?!?:eek:
Probably about half an hour in total, but I was interrupted to eat Breakfast. For the record, its 5 pages long, about half of which consists of quotes, and the other half consists of my responses.

[Lazzars]

seems to me your in the minority on this derek

personally i feel that becuase there is now more oppertunity for building space in TW thanks to being able to expand much faster and not having to build a new mcv every time you want to make a second base.

it wouldn't be much of a streatch to cover up certain choak points around your base (ie bridges or valleys) and put an obalisk or something behind it to stop them getting near before your ready.

and just becuase some people don't like rushing doesn't mean you have to play agaist them

[CO Valle]

So, a good game must be good at online gaming to be a good game???

I think NOT. C&C's roots are at single player, other than that it could be like any other RTS.

Walls are part of C&C (even I if you deny so).

True, walls MAY encourage n00bs, but good players must start somewhere, and I tell you, having an APC with and engineer capture your CY its not very encouraging for newbies (and that can take away future good players as much as it can encourage them to be better). So perhaps walls have little use in MP, but walls have a use.

About walls stoping a rush, that is a lie, it will only cause victory to be a few minutes away. And rushing its not the only valid strategy (if that can be called a strategy).

I started as a rusher (or as a steamroller), but I have come to be better and have no need for that strategy anymore, and actually I find it boring.

I rather have a long fullfilling game that one that ends ten minutes after it started (even if I lose).

It is my opinion that rushers are people that are only interested in a quick victory rather than a good game.

I have to say again, walls are part of the C&C 'feel', and without the C&C feel, you just could play any other RTS.

[Soviet779]

Its safe to say walls arent all that useful... come on theyre not... you could better spend cash on tanks or defences etc.

BUT

Its not gonna hurt to have them in! The people who dont like them and wont use them simply wont use them, those who do like them and want to use them will do so.

SO

Walls should be implimented. Its up to people whether or not they wanna build walls or not, and its up to EA if they want to give us them or not. I think they will in the end since its not gonna hurt anything and they have been in most other c&c's and they have this new listen to the community somtimes thing going on.

[Derek]

and just becuase some people don't like rushing doesn't mean you have to play agaist them
These people are like a disease on the community. It doesn't matter if we can avoid them, they still make it worse.

So, a good game must be good at online gaming to be a good game???
If its an RTS, FPS, or one of the other multiplayer oriented genres, then yes. It does.

I think NOT. C&C's roots are at single player, other than that it could be like any other RTS.
And thats why CNC has never been the best RTS series.

Walls are part of C&C (even I if you deny so).
So what? That doesn't matter.

True, walls MAY encourage n00bs, but good players must start somewhere,
n00bs are not new players. I recommend you reread the definition (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060823). n00bs have already missed their chance to become good players, and its very hard to bring them back. In the meantime, n00bs corrupt newbs, preventing potentially good players from learning how to play.

and I tell you, having an APC with and engineer capture your CY its not very encouraging for newbies (and that can take away future good players as much as it can encourage them to be better). So perhaps walls have little use in MP, but walls have a use.
Try to do that in CNC3, it won't work. I've said it before, but I'll restate it here. Engineers have been severely nerfed.
1. APCs are slower, barely faster than a tank.
2. APCs can only cary one squad, since engineers are one man squads, that one engineer per APC.
3. Engineers are weaker than ever, any anti infantry weapon will kill them in one shot, any vehicle can run them over, and even tank shells and rockets are bad agains them.
4. Engineers now have to reach the center of a building to capture it, not the edge. This gives more time for them to be killed.

So you don't need walls to protect your CY.

And rushing its not the only valid strategy (if that can be called a strategy).
Not rushing is not useing the resources whats availabe to you, so not rushing is not a valid strategy. (Actually, you can counter rush too, and this is fine, but most no rush n00bs would think a counter-rush was a rush)

I started as a rusher (or as a steamroller), but I have come to be better and have no need for that strategy anymore, and actually I find it boring.
You can steamroll with a rush, a rush is a small number of units meant to harass the enemy. In CNC3 you can't really harass harvesters (they're too strong), but you can destroy expansions, power plants, etc. This is harassment. If you lose to a harassing attack, that just demonstrates how much you suck.

I rather have a long fullfilling game that one that ends ten minutes after it started (even if I lose).
If you knew how to play it wouldn't. The longest game I've ever seen in Zh was a no rules game between two of the best players ever, it lasted at least two hours. The longest game I've had was probably around 45 minutes or so, my average game in ZH is about 10 minutes long, which is plenty of time to tech up and use whatever strategy you want.

It is my opinion that rushers are people that are only interested in a quick victory rather than a good game.
Wrong again. You're on a roll. "Rushers" are just people who know how to play the game right. Rushing is not supposed to result in a quick victory, that only happens when one player is a lot better than the other (in which case, what did you expect?). When two players rush each other, that is when a game gets good. Sitting in your base for ten minutes building nothing but your one strongest unit is not fun. But you wouldn't know this, because you've never played a no rules game.

I have to say again, walls are part of the C&C 'feel', and without the C&C feel, you just could play any other RTS.
No, walls have nothing to do with the CNC "feel". CNC is about fast gameplay, with a modern setting. The emphasis is on constant attacking, not on making your base look good.

[CO Valle]

If its an RTS, FPS, or one of the other multiplayer oriented genres, then yes. It does.

If the game is a solely MP oriented one I would agree with you, but in C&C SP is (at least) as important as MP, so that sort of invalidates your point.


And thats why CNC has never been the best RTS series.

So in order for a game to be good it must be a copy of other game?, nonsense.


n00bs are not new players

I knew that; what I meant was that, regardless of n00bs overusing walls a new player must have a way to "protect" himself while understanding the way to play.


reread the definition (http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060823)

Hahaha, funny one, I've never seen it.


Try to do that in CNC3, it won't work. I've said it before, but I'll restate it here. Engineers have been severely nerfed.

I've done it against the IA, but I'll wait until the full game comes out to
see if you're right, and I think it'll be possible (perhaps not as easy as in previous games)


If you lose to a harassing attack, that just demonstrates how much you suck.

I've countered such kind of attacks succesfully, I'm speaking for the new ones.


If you knew how to play it wouldn't.

So, your gameplay style is the only valid one?


"Rushers" are just people who know how to play the game right. Rushing is not supposed to result in a quick victory, that only happens when one player is a lot better than the other (in which case, what did you expect?). When two players rush each other, that is when a game gets good. Sitting in your base for ten minutes building nothing but your one strongest unit is not fun. But you wouldn't know this, because you've never played a no rules game.

Again, rushing is not the only way to play. And yes, I've played several "no rules" games (and won many of them), as a matter of fact I once was called cheater, only because my adversaries didn't knew that Tanya could blow up bridges. So the fact that certain players don't know about some tactics doesn't mean these shouldn't be used.
Sitting in your base for 10 minutes is boring, yes; but who says I do that?.


No, walls have nothing to do with the CNC "feel". CNC is about fast gameplay, with a modern setting. The emphasis is on constant attacking, not on making your base look good.

Wrong!, walls are part of the C&C feel. I agree walls have little use in MP, but they do in SP, and, as I've said before, SP is at least as important as MP.

[zach016]

lets get started, this could take awhile,

1. "i just happen to know that generals had the best gameplay of any cnc game" this is an opinon, not fact, different players like different games

2. "even if both of the above were true, it would still be better(and cheaper) to box with buildings instead of walls" not true, walls are cheaper, faster to build and again can be put in many lines.

3. "i would have attacked you before you even got an iron curtain up" key word is attacked, an attack can fail and a pro should be able to make it to the superweapon stage.

4. " by the time you have encased your base in two or three layers of walls iv'e already destroyed everything inside" you are alful confident that you can just kill anybody in a game that has not even been released in full.plus who said you had to even build walls first, they can be built after defences,with defences and they are a self acting defence. walls were not used more because people did not take the time to learn how to use them to their full effect.

5. "a game is better off without any noobs" a noob utilises their options and has fun, something that gaming is all about. "it dosen't matter if a noob paid the same for the game" It matters all the same, they paid for options, you paid for a rush game and only a rush game. "if you don't like to rush you are ethier a newb or a noob" no you are a player who dosen't feel a game about tactics should be filled with just mindless rushing, they like a game to be interesting, not over in two minutes with know fun. "there clearly wasen't any real skill involved" that is only one way to play and don't forget while you are building your massive army the emeny will be doing the same in kind and they will meet. playing against people is different from playing against AI. you just get impatient when you can not win as quickly as possible. this community is the more advanced one. It has people how like it one way, and it has people who like it the other. plus don't try to compare apples to oranges. different games are just that DIFFERENT.

6. rts games are not meant for all online or the developer woulden't even bother making a single player and offline skirmish. again no market is ignorable, you are in for maxium profit and i do believe that board games are games for people without computers. A console is not a computer, yet games are made for that. Timesplitters was an online meant game, and it still rocked offline. CNC is a mix.

7. placing things all over the place takes just as much time as not. and you then have to flip between them to make units, buildings. Plus if you get past the defences of any base you can kill there crital structures no matter where they are placed and with a split team tactic it takes just as long.

8. causal gamers want an experience, plus if they havent even played the old games, the new games are new to them.

9. "it is very costy" not as costy as replacing that outer turret every 2 seconds due to constant attacks.

10. "constant attacks would only destroy the walls early and prevent them from ever being rebuilt" any attack can be pushed back, walls have never taken long to rebuild and the only way to stop the rebuilding process is to breach the economy, which is located on the other side of the walls that shut every time they are opened, buying time for that defence turret to be built off another yard. "five seconds isent important as the 4000 dollars you spent surronding your base" that five seconds can save you 50 000 dollars in buildings and the game, plus surronding your base can cost as little as 1000 dollars per row, at five seconds per wall, thats 20 seconds it saved me.

11. holes are noticed, can be fixed and units can be despatched to take care of the problem. A small hole inbetween to far-between defence turrets goes unnoticed until it is too late.

12. "these two work independantly and ignore each other" if they only had basic guidelines then each team would change different things. every game must be made with everything in mind, they must be exactly equal, or they are different games."anagoloy...' this isen't two different holes, this is the same game on different systems, a round peg in a round hole dosen't have much in common with a square peg in a square hole. Games have to have every feature in common except graphic wise.

13. i never said it had buildable walls, i said it had USABLE walls. a buildable wall is also a USABLE wall.

14. It is a majority that desides what is liked in a game.People deside what they like, We are talking about buildable walls not politics, gaming not nuclear testing.

15. If they are fed up and have gone to their own forms then they have retreated, i suggest you do the same, you can't argue an uphill battle forever.

16. walls are not a bad feature, theyb made it into several cnc games, they must have been liked some how, again i don't see any mods removing them. 2d was the only possiblity at the time and crashes were not preplanned into the game. You can advance in technology but you cannot change the core.

17. yet they are useful for other things. you said earlier that they were only good for stopping small raids. a small raid can be used to weaken defences and distract units from a larger assualt. looks like i just came up with another use using your arguement.

18. if defences are weak then thats more reason to protect them with walls, not to get rid of them.

19. a no rush game on any map can be used as an example because it can be played.

20. but what if the artillary is already built and just needs to move into position or needs a little more protection and time what then?

lets move on to page 2

1. "you coulden't put walls around drones" a tactician could, what if i lured it in with units in a prebuilt box or moved an infected tank into position in a half built box and sealed it? j-man your'e argument is flawed, you owned nobody.

2. " these people are like a desease on the community" That is an offensive comment that applies to half the community, only single minded people who try to bar good things are a deasease on any community. without these people their would be no community.

3. rts and fps are not online oriented games. they are a mix of everything and they have to excel at everthing to succed. resident evil outbreak was an online oriented game, this is not a resident evil outbreak type of game where what you do offline only effects what you do online.

4. there will never be a best series of anything because a new one will come in right after it. only at the end of gaming can a true best be proclaimed.

5. this matters hevalialy. you do not throw out a part of a game, you work on it and make it better. getting rid of walls is not progress. and if so few other games do not have walls, then would that not help set this game out from the rest.

6. potentially bad players can become good players just as much as a good player can become bad. Its called challange, life is full of it.

7. cnc 3 has not been released,small things can still change, apcs could become faster. Don't lead an arguement with assumptions and engineers could come in after infantry take are left from your defences being squalhed while walls spaced out far enough can prevent them from attacking.

8. "not rushing is not using the resources availble to you" it takes more resources to outlast a seige then to be killed before the second building is finished.

9. losing to a harasment just means A. you don't have what YOU need to prevent the attack B. you are new playing against advanced players.

10. a long game allows people to do more of what they want and brings everything to play early. A short game may open the ability but you cannot use them to their full potential

11. rushers are not people who know how to play the game right, they just know how to play the game the way they like it, different people like different things

12. wrong cnc is not about a fast game, its about playing a game with enough possiblities to do what you want. constant attacking may please some but a game is meant to please as many people as possible, not a small group.

i think thats all of it. Whos ready for another round?

[Lazzars]

These people are like a disease on the community. It doesn't matter if we can avoid them, they still make it worse.

thats personal opinion, not argument

[zach016]

can anyone here set up a petition to be sent to EA for walls? and are there others that can spread the word of a petition?

and lets hear more opinons from more people, for and against walls, just back up your answer with something that hasen't already been countered

[Derek]

If the game is a solely MP oriented one I would agree with you, but in C&C SP is (at least) as important as MP, so that sort of invalidates your point.
Thats the problem, CNC emphasizes singleplayer too much. We don't need another game to exacerbate this problem. CNC needs to focus more on multiplayer, Generals did an excellent job at this, and CNC3 is looking good too.

So in order for a game to be good it must be a copy of other game?, nonsense.
You take what is good from other games and apply it to your own. You don't stick with something bad just because someone else beat you to the good idea. Sony knows this, thats why the blatently ripped off the Wiimote for their own console. If other RTSs are doing something that works, and CNC isn't, then CNC will suffer, so it should copy these games.

I knew that; what I meant was that, regardless of n00bs overusing walls a new player must have a way to "protect" himself while understanding the way to play.
No, they don't. They will suffer for their first few games online, thats unavoidable. But its very easy to get to a passably proficiant level. All giving them walls would do is delay their defeat by half a minute, if their lucky. What it will do is encourage them to try useless strategies. If you take away the walls then they will have two choices: Build defences, or build units. While there is still a 50% chance of them making the wrong choice (building defences won't get you anywhere), you're pointing them in the right direction.

I've done it against the IA, but I'll wait until the full game comes out to see if you're right, and I think it'll be possible (perhaps not as easy as in previous games)
Keyword there: AI. The AI will fall for strats like this easily, but a real person would never lose to it more than once.

I've countered such kind of attacks succesfully, I'm speaking for the new ones.
Again, they're going to have to learn the hard way first. Pretty soon they'll realize that they can just copy their opponents, and bam! They start winning games.

So, your gameplay style is the only valid one?
The only valid strategies are those that win games. If rushing is the only way to win games, then yes, it is the only valid strategy.

Wrong!, walls are part of the C&C feel. I agree walls have little use in MP, but they do in SP, and, as I've said before, SP is at least as important as MP.
Then how come in all my years playing CNC (its been nine), I have never build walls to surround my base? Sure I surrounded my CY in RA2, but that was only because of the OP engineer rush. Walls have absolutely nothing to do with CNC, they're just an oddity that just happened to be in every game.

1. "i just happen to know that generals had the best gameplay of any cnc game" this is an opinon, not fact, different players like different games
No, its a fact. All you need to realize this is a quick browse through the strategy sections on this forum and you will realize that Generals/ZH is far more diverse, and a more diverse game is a better game.

2. "even if both of the above were true, it would still be better(and cheaper) to box with buildings instead of walls" not true, walls are cheaper, faster to build and again can be put in many lines.
You have to build a Barracks and Arms Dealer anyways, so yes, its cheaper than building a wall.

3. "i would have attacked you before you even got an iron curtain up" key word is attacked, an attack can fail and a pro should be able to make it to the superweapon stage.
Attacks don't spontaneously fail, if you want to stop my attack you have to spend money, if you're spending money you can't build an Iron Curtain. All I have to do is keep attacking you and you will never get a chance to build a super weapon.

4. " by the time you have encased your base in two or three layers of walls iv'e already destroyed everything inside" you are alful confident that you can just kill anybody in a game that has not even been released in full.plus who said you had to even build walls first, they can be built after defences,with defences and they are a self acting defence. walls were not used more because people did not take the time to learn how to use them to their full effect.
If you try to build defences first you will lose. All you have to do is try the demo to tell this, defences are very weak and a small tanks force will take down any defence (including the anti-tank defence). So that strategy won'twork either. And the reason walls weren't used more was because there was no use for them, those games were out long enough that if there was any real use for walls (outside of stopping engineers, which I've mentioned) it would have been discovered and become widespread. But nothing was discovered, but walls had no use then or now.

5. "a game is better off without any noobs" a noob utilises their options and has fun, something that gaming is all about.
You are entirely wrong, n00bs do not use all their options, if they did then they would rush and not be n00bs. A n00b is someone who refuses to learn how to play the game right, they obstinately stick to one way even though it clearly doesn't work. So they don't use their options, they don't have fun (they just whine because people won't let them win), and they aren't any fun for anyone else.

"it dosen't matter if a noob paid the same for the game" It matters all the same, they paid for options, you paid for a rush game and only a rush game.
It doesn't matter because they're ruining the game for everyone else. n00bs prevent the community from growing, which is bad for everyone (except the n00bs) in the long run.

"if you don't like to rush you are ethier a newb or a noob" no you are a player who dosen't feel a game about tactics should be filled with just mindless rushing, they like a game to be interesting, not over in two minutes with know fun.
No, you're a n00b. A real player knows that rushing is the most strategic and challanging way to play the game. When you rush you are pushing everything to its limit, how fast you can build (which involves a lot of strategy, knowing what you have to build and what can wait), how well you can manage your troops (knowing what is worth killing and what is not), as well as simultaneously not neglecting your base (multi-tasking). In no rush games all you do is wait around building your most powerful unit until an arbitrary (and imaginary) timer expires, then you throw your armies at each other and see who build the most in the given time span. Had you actually played a serious game you would also know that rush games don't end in two minutes, because two players are rushing.

Tell me, if I can build units faster than you and attack you before you are ready, why shouldn't I? Clearly if I can attack you first then I have a better strategy, so shouldn't I be exploiting my advantage? Thats what RTS is all about after all: Doing something better than your oppoennt, and exploiting this advantage. Remember: Anything I can do, you can do. So there is nothing unfair about it.

mindless rushing
You have proved your ignorance here. You now have 0 authority on the game. I'll still argue with you, but keep in mind that your arguements no longer carry any weight.

"there clearly wasen't any real skill involved" that is only one way to play and don't forget while you are building your massive army the emeny will be doing the same in kind and they will meet. playing against people is different from playing against AI.
Its the only way to win no rush games. You can choose to spam defences instead, but spamming units will beat spamming defences. You can't actually use any real strategy because there are too many units to manage, so all you can do is give them generic commands. No strategy at all.

you just get impatient when you can not win as quickly as possible.
Not at all. I've a very patient person, I will get my win in due time. But I do want to win, so I will use everything in my powers to do so. Rushing gives me an advantage, so I will rush. If you know what you're doing, you will stop my rush. Then I will attack again, and you will attack, and our units will meet in the middle and fight. Someone's units will survive, and go to attack the other's base. They do some damage, but then are stopped. This can go on for ages, you just have to be good enough to stop that first attack. If you're not, then why should I just let you take your time? I should finish you off while I have the chance.

this community is the more advanced one. It has people how like it one way, and it has people who like it the other. plus don't try to compare apples to oranges. different games are just that DIFFERENT.
But the goal is always the same: Defeat the enemy. This community is not at all advanced, if it were we would have tournaments with prizes in the thousands of dollars. But we don't. We have n00bs wanting to play no rush games because they refuse to learn how to play.

6. rts games are not meant for all online or the developer woulden't even bother making a single player and offline skirmish. again no market is ignorable, you are in for maxium profit and i do believe that board games are games for people without computers. A console is not a computer, yet games are made for that. Timesplitters was an online meant game, and it still rocked offline. CNC is a mix.
I never said they were meant for only online, but the singleplayer only serves to train the player (and tell a little story while you're at it). The core of the game is online. Play singleplayer RTS is like playing chess against a computer. It might be fun, but its really only practice for when you take on a real person. Board games are for everyone, not just people without computers. But the real point of boardgames isn't that you don't need a computer, its that you have something physical to gather around and pick up and manipulate. Thats why board games tend to be boring on computers. And consoles are computers, there are computers dedicated to gaming. I know that Timesplitters was good, but a lot of why it was good was that it had good multiplayer (split screen). Now just imagine if that game had been online compatible, it would have been even better.

7. placing things all over the place takes just as much time as not. and you then have to flip between them to make units, buildings. Plus if you get past the defences of any base you can kill there crital structures no matter where they are placed and with a split team tactic it takes just as long.
It takes less time to place buildings because you don't have to consider where they should go. You don't have to flip between the buildings, it is very easy to manage buildings without going to your base. And even if you want to go to your base, its easy to remember where you placed the building. In a sponteneous base it takes more time to find critical structures, and they're less likely to be bunched together, this gives the defender a chance to bring in more units. Keep in mind that there are no real defences to break through, just units that were sent to stop you, and more units can always be sent. Organized bases are only made to look good, but thats not what RTS is about, so organized bases are stupid.

8. causal gamers want an experience, plus if they havent even played the old games, the new games are new to them.
If they haven't played the old game they can by The First Decade, but the fact of the matter is they still want a new game. The old games were good in their time, but compared to today's games they suck, so there is no point in remaking them.

9. "it is very costy" not as costy as replacing that outer turret every 2 seconds due to constant attacks.
You don't replace the outer turret, you don't even build an outer turret. You just build units to defend, and then when they're done defending you use these same units to attack. Units are better at defending them structures because they can move around, so they can defend multiple places, and then they can attack later. Defences can only defend one place and can never attack.

10. "constant attacks would only destroy the walls early and prevent them from ever being rebuilt" any attack can be pushed back,
But pushing an attack back costs money, money that you won't have if you keep trying to rebuild walls.

walls have never taken long to rebuild and the only way to stop the rebuilding process is to breach the economy, which is located on the other side of the walls that shut every time they are opened,"
The economy is not protected by walls, most of the tiberium fields are located outside the walls, meaning that it is very easy for me to destroy your harvesters if you are walled up.

buying time for that defence turret to be built off another yard.
That defensive turret won't do you any good, what you need is a unit. A tank, an aircraft, rocket infantry, whatever will work, but it needs to be a mobile unit.

"five seconds isent important as the 4000 dollars you spent surronding your base" that five seconds can save you 50 000 dollars in buildings and the game, plus surronding your base can cost as little as 1000 dollars per row, at five seconds per wall, thats 20 seconds it saved me.
The five seconds won't save your 50,000 in buildings because you didn't spend 4000 in units to stop the attack. Delay me all you want, but buying 4 tanks will help you a lot more than surrounding your base in walls.

And if you can protect your base with 1000 worth of walls (for one row), then you have a very small base. The kind that can't produce enough units to stop an attack anyways.

11. holes are noticed, can be fixed and units can be despatched to take care of the problem. A small hole inbetween to far-between defence turrets goes unnoticed until it is too late.
Everytime you repair a hole in the wall you are spending more money on not attacking, and in the mean time I'll just make yet another hole. Since you're not actually stopping my attack, I can make you spend all your money on walls instead of actually doing anything useful. Before you know it you would be flooded in tanks with no way to stop them.

And once again, you shouldn't build turrets in the first place.

12. "these two work independantly and ignore each other" if they only had basic guidelines then each team would change different things. every game must be made with everything in mind, they must be exactly equal, or they are different games."anagoloy...' this isen't two different holes, this is the same game on different systems, a round peg in a round hole dosen't have much in common with a square peg in a square hole. Games have to have every feature in common except graphic wise.
I hope you never, ever become a game developer, because you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'll end this line of debate here because you clearly don't understand that consoles and PCs are fundamentally different platforms, and that what works for one does not work for the other. Just remember that if you make a PC game with a console in mind, you will have a very bad game on your hands.

13. i never said it had buildable walls, i said it had USABLE walls. a buildable wall is also a USABLE wall.
We're not talking about useable walls, we're talking about buildable walls.

14. It is a majority that desides what is liked in a game.People deside what they like, We are talking about buildable walls not politics, gaming not nuclear testing.
The majority doesn't know what is actually fun. The majority only thinks it knows, but it doesn't. If you got all the gamers of the world together to design a game, it would be a terrible game.

15. If they are fed up and have gone to their own forms then they have retreated, i suggest you do the same, you can't argue an uphill battle forever.
They hardly "retreated", they just aren't patient enough to argue with you guys because you guys never listen. But trust me, they have contacts with EA and other RTS developers, in fact, one of their former members is now the community manager of Petroglyph. GR.org is the premier website for RTS games, and the things they say are taken seriously by developers, unlike the things people like you say.

What you don't seem to realize is that I'm not fighting an uphill battle, I may be outnumbered, but I'm more knowledgeble about these games than any of you guys. Its you who is fighting the uphill battle, because you have yet to prove that you actually know what you're talking about (in fact, you disproved this when you called rushing "mindless")

16. walls are not a bad feature, theyb made it into several cnc games, they must have been liked some how, again i don't see any mods removing them. 2d was the only possiblity at the time and crashes were not preplanned into the game. You can advance in technology but you cannot change the core.
Walls were never part of the core, never, ever. That part was all in your head. Furthermore, the core of old CNC games was bland and repetetive, so it had to be changed, and thats what has happened.

17. yet they are useful for other things. you said earlier that they were only good for stopping small raids. a small raid can be used to weaken defences and distract units from a larger assualt. looks like i just came up with another use using your arguement.
I was talking about real life fences there. In RTS games they aren't even good for stopping raids, because it costs more to protect everything with walls than it does for your opponent to raid you, therefore even though your opponent can't raid you, he still wins the economic battle because he made you waste money.

18. if defences are weak then thats more reason to protect them with walls, not to get rid of them.
That would just be spending even more money on something that sucks. Instead you should be looking for better outlets for that money, such as building units (something you seem to be very averse to) and teching up.

19. a no rush game on any map can be used as an example because it can be played.
No rush on Twighlight Lame is not an example of how RTS should be played. Its a bad form of play on a bad map. A realistic example would be playing no rules on Tournament Desert.

20. but what if the artillary is already built and just needs to move into position or needs a little more protection and time what then?
By the time the artillery gets there the walls are still going to be dead, and the artillery won't do any good. You would need walls that could withstand at least 30 seconds worth of attack, and walls like that would be bad for the gameplay.

1. "you coulden't put walls around drones" a tactician could, what if i lured it in with units in a prebuilt box or moved an infected tank into position in a half built box and sealed it? j-man your'e argument is flawed, you owned nobody.
Then you've put a lot of preperation into something that might never happen, and would only work with one drone. You'ld be better off just buying something to remove the drone.

2. " these people are like a desease on the community" That is an offensive comment that applies to half the community, only single minded people who try to bar good things are a deasease on any community. without these people their would be no community.
n00bs are single minded people who bar good things. You're right that this is offensive, its meant to be. n00bs deserve no respect, they serve no purpose.

3. rts and fps are not online oriented games. they are a mix of everything and they have to excel at everthing to succed. resident evil outbreak was an online oriented game, this is not a resident evil outbreak type of game where what you do offline only effects what you do online.
Both those genres are online oriented games by their very nature. Any game in which you are righting an opponent on equal grounds (such as an RTS or FPS) is a game that is best played with another real person, and not against a computer. I will again refer to my chess example, you can play chess against a computer, but thats really only practice for playing against a real person.

4. there will never be a best series of anything because a new one will come in right after it. only at the end of gaming can a true best be proclaimed.
Even if you can only be the best for a few months, you should still strive for this. World records are broken every day, but that doesn't mean people should stop trying to break these records. You should always strive to be the best, even if you know someone else will be better soon.

5. this matters hevalialy. you do not throw out a part of a game, you work on it and make it better. getting rid of walls is not progress. and if so few other games do not have walls, then would that not help set this game out from the rest.
If it is inherently bad (and walls are), then yes, you throw it out. It doesn't matter if it was in older games, what is bad should go and what is good should be added, the past can be damned. Stagnation is never a good thing.

6. potentially bad players can become good players just as much as a good player can become bad. Its called challange, life is full of it.
All players are potentially good when they first start, its only when they become n00bs that they lose this potential. Games should not encourage players to become n00bs, it will only hurt the game in the long run.

7. cnc 3 has not been released,small things can still change, apcs could become faster. Don't lead an arguement with assumptions and engineers could come in after infantry take are left from your defences being squalhed while walls spaced out far enough can prevent them from attacking.
Could be, but its highly unlikely. The difference between the first version of the game and the demo is likely to be little to none (other than a few bug fixes, of course). If you have lost all forms of anti-infantry then your opponent has already bested you, capturing your buidings is his reward for playing better than you.

8. "not rushing is not using the resources availble to you" it takes more resources to outlast a seige then to be killed before the second building is finished.
If you are killed before your second building is done, then you really, really, suck. At the beginning of the game you don't have a lot, but if with what little you have you can attack your opponent, then you are a good player. If your opponent can't stop this attack, you are better than him and deserve to win.

9. losing to a harasment just means A. you don't have what YOU need to prevent the attack B. you are new playing against advanced players.
Every attack can be defended against, thats part of faction balance. But its up to you to figure out how to stop it. And if you are new playing, then you should lose to an advanced player, this is a good thing.

10. a long game allows people to do more of what they want and brings everything to play early. A short game may open the ability but you cannot use them to their full potential
The first part is right, but to achieve a long game you have to be able to stop the first attack. If you can't stop the first attack that is your problem. Artificially extending a game with rules will not allow you to use units to their full potential, because some units work at their best early on or in small groups, while no rush games only encourage massing of late game units. For an example, raiding units can't be used to their full potential in no rush games, but they can in games without rules. In a no rules games every unit will get a chance to shine if both players are good enough, in no rush games only a few units ever get used, no matter who the opponents are.

11. rushers are not people who know how to play the game right, they just know how to play the game the way they like it, different people like different things
If a rusher and a n00b play a game the way its meant to be played (ie, without rules), then the rusher will win. Therefore, the rusher know more about the game than the n00b. Fact.

12. wrong cnc is not about a fast game, its about playing a game with enough possiblities to do what you want. constant attacking may please some but a game is meant to please as many people as possible, not a small group.
CNC is about constant attacking, it always has been. The first online CNC game was Red Alert, that game was all about constant attacking with tanks. Tiberian Sun had more options to attack, but it was still about attacking with whatever units you chose. Red Alert 2 was back to the tanks, and then finally Generals came to give you a wide variety of viable strategies, all of which were for attacking. CNC is not an open world game like GTA, where you can do whatever you want. CNC is a closed game with a specific objective: Defeat the enemy. Everything in the game is there for you to use to destroy your enemy. Its not there to make a pretty base, if you can't use it to defeat your enemy, then you don't use it.



(Nine pages, now do you see why I didn't want to do this in the CNCDEN comments?)

[Apolo]

Right lol nice eassy Derek:hyper: As for me all i have to say is dosent even matter if Walls are in this game like iv read so far walls wont be any use in online games and are only good in skermishes if you want to make a nice base.SO relly whats a wall going to do that a GDI Mamoth cant do ? Walls will just make the game that little bit more diffrent i think.(So far on the demo walls are a pile of s h i t,they dont stop any thing):rofl:

[Soviet779]

Right lol nice eassy Derek:hyper: As for me all i have to say is dosent even matter if Walls are in this game like iv read so far walls wont be any use in online games and are only good in skermishes if you want to make a nice base.SO relly whats a wall going to do that a GDI Mamoth cant do ? Walls will just make the game that little bit more diffrent i think.(So far on the demo walls are a pile of s h i t,they dont stop any thing):rofl:

They stopped that one guy on here that decided it would be easier to go around the wall than to blow it up with his tanks. I dont remember who said that but somone did!

[zach016]

here we go, one more time

1. a game that just does mutiplayer does not excel as much as it could. one more time, developers want as much profit as possible, and gamers want the best time possible even when they can not play online, which is a large portion of gamers. an all mutiplayer game loses out on dial up and no internet people, which there is many sadly with myself included.

2. you don't steal from other games or you just make a repeat, kind of like repeating tiberian sun. people want new good games, not the same old thing with a coat of polish

3. the half minute that delays defeat gives half a minute to mount a defence, an offence, funds and a plan. Any gamer will suffer their first few games, thats no argument to get rid of walls. and for your two stratigies, walls are a defence, by the sounds of it you are just not willing to learn how to use them.

4. exactly, all you have played against in this game is AI, don't make assumptions on how easy it will be to take down a walled base, this is a new game with different units and abilities.

5. copying your oppontent requires no thought. Its time people learned to think of their own moves, not others. And don't forget that their oppontent can copy their defence and it becomes a stale mate.

6. a valid stratgy is one that hurts your oppontent and gives you a chance to win, their is no true valid stratigy because everyone reacts different, and rushing is not the only way to win games

7. if you have never used walls to their full effect, then how can you oppose them? its like saying you don't want to be cured of cancer because you have not had the treatment before.

8. just because a game has more stratigies that people have SHARED does not make it better. and walls only give more stratigies

9. you may have to build them anyways, but you only have to rebuild them everytime they are destroyed and if you only have enough time to build one, then once they are destroyed your unit making capability is ruined until they are un and runing.

10. no they are countered, and a countered attack can easily fail if it is countered in the right way, and you could still gather as much money as you need, iv'e used the word before and i will use it now MANAGEING

11. units can count as a defence, and defences will be built anyways with units, a well mixed defence can stop any attack in its tracks. and your claims of useless walls are opinon, i have named several uses, you just don't want to hear them.

12. rushing is only one option that everyone has, if you cannot utilize other options then that is a fault of yours. you have to explore possibilities, not stick with one tried plan, because that one plan can always fail.

13. noobs do not prevent a community from growing, people how can't learn to cope with people and be patient prevent a community from growing

14. its challangeing to rush an underdefended oppontent? i sure thought wrong, i figured it would be harder to punch through line after line of units and defences, plus with the option of stealing other players better units, you may just make their defences even harder to penetrate. "had you actually played a serious game" did i mention i have dial up? thats why i heavily oppose people like you who focus on online and yet i still counter your arguments. why shoulden't you attack me early? i never said you coulden't, i said open possibilities for those games to last and to force players stratigic rush to fail in the face of certain players and force them to become better on the whole, not on one area.

15. am i ignorant? maybe, do my arguements no longer carry any weight? no. don't try to make me back down, rushing can just as easily be mindless as not. Im not saying all rushing is mindless but certain rushes will be, by people i do believe you call noobs.

16. the only way to win no rush games is to rush? kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think, and someone who can manage many will usually beat someone who can only manage a few.

17. if you are patient then why are you against something that can provide a better challange, against something which you have admitted may give someone half a minute more. i never said you had to sit and wait for someone to build up, you would have to survive that first attack to make walls ethier way would you not, but when that attack is stopped, its good to upgrade your base, not just your army.

18. an advanced community is not one that fights within itself for personal gain, an advanced community is one that can utilize stratigies and have fun without breaking up over a small problem or a technocalitily loss. The goal may be the same, but the way that the goal is carryed out is what is important.

19. i never said only online, i said mainly for online, which is what your responce, the singleplayer is only to train the player is an example of. singleplayer is to give players an experience and fun, while giving them tactics to use online. but online should be just as much a teacher for offline. the core of few games is online, the core is the story behind it, the reason why your blowing up that guy over there and online and offline are the elements used to further the experience and give the story. i phraised what i said wrong about board games being only for people without computers, what i meant was that it is a game that does not require a computer. and if a console is a computer then why should cnc be made by two different teams, by the sounds of it one version will work in all. it is seperate and lacks the abilities of a personnal computer. yes timesplitters could have been better, but the point is that a game doesen't have to be online to be good.

20. but you still do have to consider where it has to go, is it in the way of other buildings? in the build area? will it mess up room for more?. and it may take longer to find critical structures but a person who can manage can split their units into mutiple teams to seek and destroy, and more units can always be sent, but the time it takes you to break defences gives more time to make units, and anybody can manage their money to do so.

21. the point is not that they can, the point is that if they didn't then tiberian sun could be released in the sage engine and pull off looking like a new game. And thats the main thing that seperates it from games today, graphics, not story.

22. their is always an outer turret, it is the first turret, and you replace it, or you die because you let your defences be taken down one by one while focusing on the offensive. defence and offence must be balenced priorities. defences can also be their while units are moving to one attack and then another sweeps in the now less defended spot. iv'e mentioned this earlier.

23. but walls do not cost alot and are rebuilt quickly. i feel like im going over old arguements. walls do not dip that much into funds if you can manage yoyr economy

24.but i can build walls at those sites with defences so i can harvest money quicker

25. that defence turret can buy more time for a super unit being built in my factories and turn the tide of a battle, what if my barracks and war factory has been destroyed but only a few riflemen are left?

26. more money could be being spent to build units to push back the attack, that five seconds is the difference between a super unit and death. You don't need a huge base to produce many units, it's all how you manage.

27. did i mention units are dispatched to take care of the problem? plus once again walls do not cost a lot of money. and what i mean is a hole in detection, where stealh units could slip base, stealh detection counts as a defence.

28. what i mean by this is that you can't change a unit in one without changeing a unit in the other. You have to keep all systems in mind, you don't just forget about the other entirly. i believe that you would be a worse developer then me because you would try to make a game to what you think is good, not what everybody thinks is good.

29. i was just pointing out that your great online game that beat cnc first had usable walls in it. There was an option to use them if you played certain levels, kinda like the disable function put forward by another person.

30. A developer makes a game with the gamer in mind. you in what i think is an ignorant moment are saying that people don't know what they like and what they don't like. Were not talking about a new feature, were talking about something they have tried before and have liked

31. not listening works both ways. you refuse to believe that walls could ever have any purpose, yet purposes have been put in front of you. You are one of the few who have decided to argue your point and i respect you for that but the others have not even bothered to try hard enough. If we are argueing for our side more then they are for theres, then yes they have retreated. When you are outnumbered you are fighting an uphill battle, and through all your knowage you have yet to come up with a point that i have not countered. You are getting no further up then i am getting down.

32. sorry about the core statement, messed up my words when you said online was the core. what i meant to say was that if walls were able to make it in several liked games and there was no reason seen to get rid of them then, why would you get rid of them now.

33. they are good for stopping small raids, let me throw out a situation. a large band of riflemen and one or two tanks comes your way. reacting you despatch a few units to clean up but while they are dealing with that the real assualt rolls in on the weakened spot. enough infantry coming your way and you will call your emeny stupid, but dispatch several units to deal with it. while your dispatched units are dealing with the problem that assualt force is going to have an easier time breaking through because even 1 unit dispatched is 1 unit not firing on that assualt, and if it is big enough it will break through, and cause serious damage.yeah you push them back but Suddenly a second wave hits your base. i know what you are going to say, i would kill you before you had the chance. but what if you diden't, what if they kept just enough to ward off your attacks while placing a unit back here and there. things just got a little more complicated.

34. again its all about managing. you act as if money is the most sparce thing in this game and you have just barely enough.

35. but a no rules game is not a no rush game. Any map is an example not just the ones you deside are revalent because they are still playable.

36. not if the walls are built just before the artillary arrives and the walls have a few units to back it up. then the artillary can be used to keep more units back.

37. a backup plan is better then no plan. i'ed rather have more options if i coulden't reach a service bay in time then lose more units and money.

38. noobs are people and only the player desides who is a noob. but if you don't want to play against noobs you can always play offline can't you? wait the game is made specifialy for online, offline sucks, whats the point of buying the game then? looks like offline should be just as good as online.

39. but 1 computer can do better then many humans at chess. And chess is a move for move game. You cannot do two moves in a row so it is not the same as an online game. And any game is made to appeal to many people. Sometimes this is bad, yes but walls is not a life changing thing that would complety ruin the game.

40. yes you should strive to be the best. But their is no true best until there no longer can be a better one. but a game that comes after another game cannot be truly said to completly beat an older game, because that new game had more knowledge of what was liked put into it.

41. but those who would become noobs may become some of the best players. No one is encouraging people to become a noob, only the noob made hem/her self into a noob.

42. the point of a demo is to convince people to A. buy the game and B. find out what is wrong and needs to be fixed. That apc could be deemed needed to be fixed, and if everyone hated the demo then that could even delay the game while changes were made.

43. no you are only better then him early. if given time that player could stomp you into the ground. what if he sent his starting units in the wrong direction, right instead of left. That would obvisouly leave his very early base open to attack by even starting infantry if it was a small map.

44. yes every attack can be defended. That dosen't mean you have the units you need to defend that attack already done and lined up. this applies to any player.

45. i did say somewhere earlier that you wouild have to stop the earlier attack no matter what ,but once it is stopped,where do you go from there?
i never said delay the game with rules, you can make a no rules game last, if you want to and are good enough. that way the potential of early units and later units alike can are done to there fullest but if the game ends too early then the units do not get to be used to there potential.

46. yes in that situation the rusher would win. but what if the second player was not a noob but varyed between rushing and turtling tactics and used the best of both. then it is anybodies game. you will not always be playing against a noob.

47. but if it was about fast games, and walls were included, then why are they such a problem.

generals gave you a wide array of stratigies, great. But were talking about opening more, not closing others.

yes you are supposed to defeat the emeny but that should not be your true objective. It should be to survive and flourish by any means nessesariy. winning with just a tank left does not feel as good as totally stomping a challageing enemy.


"so far on the demo walls are a piece of s h i t,they don't stop anything" thats just because they are not slated to go into the game so they were not worked on to be balenced enough to have a certain amount of health to stop certain things while not being to hard to destroy.

[Apolo]

lol sorry if i said any thing that was all ready mentioned in recent posts on this thread cbf to read it all sorry guys.:redface:

[Lion]

WOW...I have enuf material on this thread to write a whole volume of books. :D

Great discussion guys...but if I was scoring, I'd have to say Derek is winning by a nose. Those of you who want walls will have them. We'll mod it in, and since many of you probably won't be playing online anyhow, it won't matter if ya have a modded game.

I'm as diehard a C&C fan as anyone here, and very old skool. Been at this for better than 10 years now. You have to keep an open mind for some change. Not having walls is not the end of the world. Just learn to adapt and all will be fine. Ok..I'm done. =)

[zach016]

WOW...I have enuf material on this thread to write a whole volume of books. :D

Great discussion guys...but if I was scoring, I'd have to say Derek is winning by a nose. Those of you who want walls will have them. We'll mod it in, and since many of you probably won't be playing online anyhow, it won't matter if ya have a modded game.

i just don't like the fact that the console version won't have walls at all because you don't give them in one version and leave it up to the players in the other, and the console version can't be modded. There is the possibility of downloadable content but the chances seem slim to me plus again those with no internet and dial up can't even have ethier. Also having to mod a game is an unnessiarly inconvience for just one building and does make those playing online have to search out games. The walls may also not be as balanced as they should.

[Derek]

Those of you who want walls will have them. We'll mod it in, and since many of you probably won't be playing online anyhow, it won't matter if ya have a modded game.
Exactly, you can mod in whatever you want and nobody will care. Its putting things in the official version that you have to be careful about.

i just don't like the fact that the console version won't have walls at all because you don't give them in one version and leave it up to the players in the other, and the console version can't be modded. There is the possibility of downloadable content but the chances seem slim to me plus again those with no internet and dial up can't even have ethier. Also having to mod a game is an unnessiarly inconvience for just one building and does make those playing online have to search out games. The walls may also not be as balanced as they should.
I've been telling you that the two games should be made seperately, so its ok to have walls in the console version and not have walls in the PC version, if walls serve a purpose in the console version. The main difference between the two is that you really can't micro your units on a console, if for some reason this means that walls are more useful than they can be fine, but walls are not useful and should not be in the PC version.

(BTW, I'll respond to the long thing above later, I have to do homework right now)

[zach016]

"Exactly, you can mod in whatever you want and nobody will care. Its putting things in the official version that you have to be careful about."

your forgetting again about those without internet, that not many mods are for one structure meaning they are bigger for those with dial up, that it is an inconvience to search out games online that have walls, that the wall may not be as balanced as it should and that the offical picture would look better and go better with the rest. all points i have made in the past. you have to think of everyone not just those with the same options as yourself.


"I've been telling you that the two games should be made seperately, so its ok to have walls in the console version and not have walls in the PC version, if walls serve a purpose in the console version. The main difference between the two is that you really can't micro your units on a console, if for some reason this means that walls are more useful than they can be fine, but walls are not useful and should not be in the PC version."


as i said above, you do not include something in one that is not in the other, although i will add, when they are released at the same time. and balanced right the wall is useful which has also been debated before and uses have been given.

[WNxAnthrax]

All i gotta say is LAWL @ Darek.

Someone needs to unplug from the internet for a whyle and go back to playing SP games. I'd feel very sorry if his parents stopped paying the internet cause he'd severly 9/10 end up slitting his wrists cause he couldent play online....

I fully understand the need for walls expessually for consoles as they are unable to mod the game. Looking at arguments in only one way and not both makes you end up like President Bush on Iraq. If Darek was president.. id assasinate him for the simple fact he'd be worse then bush x10 in only looking at arguments on a one side fence and not both sides. To understand an argument one must see both sides and not one. I don't understand Dareks claims at all as all his arguments for no walls seem to be based around a bias example. Pro walls slow them down but your argument is saying that walls wont slow them down and are pointless to build because they take 5 seconds to build and $100 to place down make them uberly expensive..... You do know not everything is online based right??? Go look a halo.... Its got a kicking SP but the online sucks! Single Player makes the game not Multiplayer... How the hell do you think Final Fantasy XII or any of the Final Fantasy's Excluding XI sell so well? They have absolutely NO multiplayer functions.. are 'strictly' SP oriented and sell so well... Sure its not a "RTS" But its still a game that is built around SP. Same can be said for FEAR. It's Single Player is 100x better then its Multiplayer and won Best FPS EVER to grace the PC. Multiplayer isn't everything and it shouldent be "Everything" Want Multiplayer based go play Sup-Com..... It has little to no SP.. Think it'd suit you better then C&C 3.

[Derek]

You do know not everything is online based right??? Go look a halo.... Its got a kicking SP but the online sucks!
Halo 2 is the most played XBox Live game. Clearly someone disagrees with you on the multiplayer issue.

Single Player makes the game not Multiplayer...
Good single player rarely lasts more than one or two play throughs and is always the same, good multiplayer is different every time and adds exponentially more replayability.

How the hell do you think Final Fantasy XII or any of the Final Fantasy's Excluding XI sell so well? They have absolutely NO multiplayer functions.. are 'strictly' SP oriented and sell so well...
Is FF an RTS? Is FF an FPS? Is FF a game in which you have two equal sides? No. Therefore FF is not a game where multiplayer would work. Multiplayer for most RPGs would suck (there are some exceptions, for example Pokemon fits the "two equal sides" rule, and who wouldn't want online Pokemon? (And its coming too! :D )).

Same can be said for FEAR. It's Single Player is 100x better then its Multiplayer and won Best FPS EVER to grace the PC. Multiplayer isn't everything and it shouldent be "Everything"
Dude, FEAR: Combat rocked! Its probably the best multiplayer FPS I've played in ages, if not ever (better than Counter-Strike, by a bit). It perfectly integrates guns, grenades, and melees, so you don't have to always switch between them, you have one button for each. It really is incredible, I could play it for hours. The singleplayer is good (but not "Best FPS EVER"), but its still just singleplayer, you've seen it once then you've seen it all.

Want Multiplayer based go play Sup-Com..... It has little to no SP.. Think it'd suit you better then C&C 3.
I Beta tested SupCom, its good but it has virtually no micro. Can be kind of slow sometimes too. I'll pick up the game sometime and give the full version a shot, but CNC3 is looking better in the multiplayer department.

(response to long post still coming)

[WNxAnthrax]

Halo 2 is the most played XBox Live game. Clearly someone disagrees with you on the multiplayer issue.


Good single player rarely lasts more than one or two play throughs and is always the same, good multiplayer is different every time and adds exponentially more replayability.


Is FF an RTS? Is FF an FPS? Is FF a game in which you have two equal sides? No. Therefore FF is not a game where multiplayer would work. Multiplayer for most RPGs would suck (there are some exceptions, for example Pokemon fits the "two equal sides" rule, and who wouldn't want online Pokemon? (And its coming too! :D )).


Dude, FEAR: Combat rocked! Its probably the best multiplayer FPS I've played in ages, if not ever (better than Counter-Strike, by a bit). It perfectly integrates guns, grenades, and melees, so you don't have to always switch between them, you have one button for each. It really is incredible, I could play it for hours. The singleplayer is good (but not "Best FPS EVER"), but its still just singleplayer, you've seen it once then you've seen it all.


I Beta tested SupCom, its good but it has virtually no micro. Can be kind of slow sometimes too. I'll pick up the game sometime and give the full version a shot, but CNC3 is looking better in the multiplayer department.

(response to long post still coming)

(NOT to Darek but someone who wanted the petion here it is from the C&C 3 community: http://www.petitiononline.com/cncwalls/)

As for FF not being a Multiplayer...
Sure FFXII and others arnt.. but.. your missing one.
http://www.playonline.com/ff11us/index.shtml

I said FF isent a RTS, or FPS... but it STILL sells for just single player alone. With the exception to Final Fantasy XI:Online wich is strictly Online only with no Single Player in it. Storyline ect is woven into the multiplayer as you advance through the game so does the plot, storyline ect.

[zach016]

"Halo 2 is the most played XBox Live game. Clearly someone disagrees with you on the multiplayer issue."

he said halo 1 in which it sold clearly for it's single player.


"Good single player rarely lasts more than one or two play throughs and is always the same, good multiplayer is different every time and adds exponentially more replayability."

a good single player should last way longer then 2-3 playthroughs and mutiplayer is not always different every time, as you said there is one goal. especially when options are chiseled away

(put up a poll here and at gamereplays.org, everyone vote for what you want)

[Rolk]

Please refrain from insults in the discussion / debate. Its going good, each side has good points, however dont let it move to personal name calling and insulting.

[Wow Your Ugly]

I know I am late, but the awesome part about the CNC franchise is the single player. It is what got me so hooked, versus Starcraft which I started playing at the same time. I got engaged to the storyline, and the FMV cut scenes are awesome. Generals was not CNC by any means. It had zero storyline whatsoever, and yes, I know "tr00" gamers are all about the multiplayer, but it is the single player that gets this gamer hooked.

I love going through storlylines and playing missions, I feel as if I am playing through a movie. It's awesome! With Generals, I just felt empty. I know multiplayer and online is the future of games, so maybe I am just too caught up in the past.

Old School CNC for life.

[CO Valle]

... the awesome part about the CNC franchise is the single player.

Well said, I was just about to say that!.


Thats the problem, CNC emphasizes singleplayer too much.

Lets think it another way... like a book, the game is just a vehicle to tell a story (at least in this case), the MP capability is an added bonus (and a very well received one, I must say).
If there was none SP, C&C will be just another game in the row.


You take what is good from other games and apply it to your own. You don't stick with something bad just because someone else beat you to the good idea. Sony knows this, thats why the blatently ripped off the Wiimote for their own console. If other RTSs are doing something that works, and CNC isn't, then CNC will suffer, so it should copy these games.

Now, you got a point in there, you take what is good from the others, true. BUT it doesn't mean you have to forget about what makes your game different from the others, if you do so, you end up with just a copy of another game in an engine of yours.


They will suffer for their first few games online, thats unavoidable. But its very easy to get to a passably proficiant level. All giving them walls would do is delay their defeat by half a minute, if their lucky.

True, they will suffer (with or without walls), yes it just takes time to become a decent player, BUT that half a minute may allow for a mammoth (or any other unit) to come out of the war factory, now if the defense of that playes relies only on walls, well, he deserves to be destroyed.
Now, no one (I think) has said that walls are the only way of defense, I personaly build little defensive structures (only on key positions, and to give support to my vehicles), but a well placed wall may allow for a unit(s) to get in position.


Keyword there: AI. The AI will fall for strats like this easily, but a real person would never lose to it more than once.


Allow me to quote you:
"Keyword there: AI", you spoke well, however there is something that you are not taking in consideration: Human senses and reaction time, the AI has faster reaction times and doesn't have to detect the presence of an engineer(because the AI already knows the engie is there), and of course, if you try the engineer strategy without some sort of back up (like tanks and infatry) to get their defenses away, you will fail.
Humans rely on his senses to become aware of the enemy units present in the attack, and in the heat of the battle there is always room to miss something.


The only valid strategies are those that win games. If rushing is the only way to win games, then yes, it is the only valid strategy.


True the valid strategies are those that work!!, But only because (I presume) you have only mastered the art of rushing, it doesn't mean that it is the only valid strategy, in fact rushing is only a part of the strategy not the whole.


Quote:
Wrong!, walls are part of the C&C feel. I agree walls have little use in MP, but they do in SP, and, as I've said before, SP is at least as important as MP.

Then how come in all my years playing CNC (its been nine), I have never build walls to surround my base? Sure I surrounded my CY in RA2, but that was only because of the OP engineer rush. Walls have absolutely nothing to do with CNC, they're just an oddity that just happened to be in every game.


Since you underestimate C&C's SP, that is a dead point, so I'll stop it here (of course if you want to keep it going just say so).


Those of you who want walls will have them. We'll mod it in

Well said Lion, it won't be the end of the world. If EA doesn't make them buildable it's actually OK, because they are already part of the engine.


Good single player rarely lasts more than one or two play throughs and is always the same, good multiplayer is different every time and adds exponentially more replayability.

That is true in the case of a poorly SP oriented game like Generals/ZH. But let me say this, TS/FS has great SP (and for my taste it also has great MP) and I still play TS/FS, and I know that there is a lot more of people who think this way (in fact let me remember that TS is still being modded).


Dude, FEAR: Combat rocked!

Agreed!!!


Go look a halo.... Its got a kicking SP but the online sucks!

I personaly like Halo MP (and SP), but this is no place to discuss it (just hd to sid it).


Old School CNC for life.

Man, YOU SAID IT!!!!:cool:
*Just in case someone doesn't understand that quote, it means 'old school', it doesn't mean remake.

[wargrudge]

*ignore, not part of actual arguement*


Just to point out, Halo: Combat Evolved was made before Xbox Live, so it couldn't be made with such a feature. Many people forget this when they buy the game STILL. If it had a MP (online) ability, it would have sold more than it did. One reason Halo 2 sold so well was the spectacular online play. Ignore the random cheater, and it's a very good experience (I should know, been playing it online sine the day it released). Now, Halo for the PC had online gaming to please the PC users, but since it was first made on Xbox (which reminded, didn't have Xbox Live), there was no way to implement a GOOD MP experience into the game. SO OF COURSE IT SOLD FOR SP. So yeah, Anthrax, do a little research before you spit out some garbage about online sucking for Halo (PC), Halo wasn't even MADE to play online in the first place. There mere fact it has it(PC) is a plus. Now the Xbox version CAN play Halo online, using Xbox Connect (with voice), and it is quite popular during the weekend and school breaks. Just like Halo 2, just a bit "antique". If they redid Halo and stuck an Xbox Live feature, it'd be more popular online than Halo 2 (considered by many to be the MOST POPULAR XBOX LIVE GAME EVER).

[wthigon]

*coughfanboycough*


>_>

[wargrudge]

*coughfanboycough*
>_>
What can I say, I <3 the game.



Especially since I win money from playing the damn thing. :p

[zach016]

just a shout out, im going to throw cnc 3 wall polls on several web sites. if you have already voted on one on any webstite DON'T vote again on a different one:mad:. im going to merge the results in a few days, we''ll see whether walls are wanted or not yet!:)

[Mighty BOB!]

I know I am late, but the awesome part about the CNC franchise is the single player. It is what got me so hooked, versus Starcraft which I started playing at the same time. I got engaged to the storyline, and the FMV cut scenes are awesome. Generals was not CNC by any means. It had zero storyline whatsoever, and yes, I know "tr00" gamers are all about the multiplayer, but it is the single player that gets this gamer hooked.

I love going through storlylines and playing missions, I feel as if I am playing through a movie. It's awesome! With Generals, I just felt empty. I know multiplayer and online is the future of games, so maybe I am just too caught up in the past.

Old School CNC for life.


WYU sums up pretty much what my opinions on the aspects of the game are.

The kick-ass story of C&C95, and even as far as the universe the game takes place in, is what got me hooked on the series, and in fact on computers entirely. If I had not seen a friend playing it all those years ago, I have no idea where I would be today, because it basically defined my entire future (taking an interest in computers, learning about technology, playing games, buying all the C&C games and numerous other RTS games, attending college in California to get a B.S. in Game Art and Design).


Although I suppose so far my entire post has been Off Topic, so I'll just say that the campaign is a very important aspect of a healthy balanced game (that is, balanced between single and multiplayer).


So as for the actual subject of this thread, I'm pro-walls. There is never a game where I don't use them. It is true that probably 97% to 99% of the time the only thing I use them for is to wall up my Construction Yard, but I still use them because of those pesky instant-capture Engineers.

It doesn't make logical sense that EA would remove a widely-used feature that they already have finished and in-game. (both graphically and code-wise)(like the option of a "classic" mouse setup) The thing is, it will appeal to a broader audience if it has these features, and therefore it should theoretically get more sales which is what the entire goal of C&C3 is.

EA gets a higher profit return from appealing to the most possible people.


I fail to see how having walls will ruin the franchise (and by Derek's arguments, ruined the franchise from day 1) [just like "OGM PITBULL HSA NO ROOF WTF EA RUINED ENTIRE C&C FRNCHISE OMG!!!!"].

I recognize rushing as a legitimate strategy, but frankly, if it is the only strategy used I think the gameplay becomes stale and uniteresting. Spice it up with some variety you know? Mix it up, use different strategies sometimes. Even combine different strategies. Such as rushing as the primary assault mechanism, but sneak in some infantry in the back to take out power, and then the main rush force rolls in. Whatever it be, single-strategy-to-win is stale and uninspired i.m.h.o. It just doesn't utilize the game's multitude of possible tactics. (kinda like how on some console games you only need to mash a single button over and over again to win every time.)

A Real Time Strategy game is all about, well duh, obviously (self explanatory) the strategies used to defeat one's enemy. The more strategies available to a player, the more rich the possible gameplay.



Now for some more off topic (sorta). Whether or not Generals had/has the best online gameplay of any of the C&C games could be debated until the cows come home, but for the sake of arguement, let us just say that it does. Now I'm sure that also, the vast majority of the people who have played it will agree that it had essentially no storyline. (aka it sucked major *insert noun of choice*)
So, I'd say that if it had been made with a kick-ass campaign story like the other C&C games, it could have (*omg blasphemy alert*) theoretically been the best C&C game ever to date.

[zach016]

update on the poll front.

i have started polls on 8 different sites including this one. if you wish to see the individual results the links are:

1. http://www.gamereplays.org/communityindex.php?showtopic=207921

2. http://forums.cncnz.com/viewtopic.php?p=108054#108054

3. http://forums.filefront.com/showthread.php?t=305227

4. http://www.cncforums.com/showthread.php?t=1708

5. http://forums.revora.net/index.php?showtopic=46993

6. http://www.cncgamer.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28017

7. http://www.tiberiumearth.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=184

8. here

again, please don't vote twice, it corrupts the results. i already have to minus 1 from the yes pile for myself.

and thanks to WNxAnthrax for the petition link.

and finally, derek iv'e got another question for ya, if defences suck as much as walls, are just as useless and don't deserve to be built, why don't we get rid of them too? im sure everyone would love that.

[Derek]

WARNING: LONGEST POST EV4R.

Mark the time: 11:19


Important for Zach: In order to shorten this discussion some. I propse a reset of the debate with the following format: You propose all the potential strategies that you can think for CNC3 using walls, and I'll give you my answer to that. This will be much shorter and to-the-point then continueing these agonizingly long responses. If you don't want to do this thats fine, I have responded to everything below and you can continue with that if you wish, but I think this would make both of our lives easier.


One thing I would like to note, zach, could you please quote the parts you are responding to? Its really hard to follow your posts when I can't tell what part of my nine page post you're responding too. Also, I think sometimes you're forgetting what we're talking about yourself, if you quoted what you were responding to you would be able to remember what specific thread we were discussing and not jump off to some other unrelated thread.

Here we go...


1. a game that just does mutiplayer does not excel as much as it could. one more time, developers want as much profit as possible, and gamers want the best time possible even when they can not play online, which is a large portion of gamers. an all mutiplayer game loses out on dial up and no internet people, which there is many sadly with myself included.
I never said a game that just does multiplayer, I said a game that emphasizes multiplayer. Developers have a limited number of resources (man-hours, money, etc.) they can devote to a game, the have to balance the two things. For modern FPSs and RTSs, the greater emphasis needs to be put on the multiplayer, with the story mode as support. That said, there are still a lot of fantastic games that only have multiplayer, Counter-Strike and Unreal Tounament come to mind.

2. you don't steal from other games or you just make a repeat, kind of like repeating tiberian sun. people want new good games, not the same old thing with a coat of polish
You steal the good parts and combine them with the good parts of what you have. Thats how any sort of developement works, if someone makes something better than you, you figure out what makes their's so good, take that, and combine it with whats good about your's. With your logic games would not evolve any, because as soon as one person came up with a good idea no one else would be able to copy it. You'ld end up with a bunch of games that do one thing right, and everything else wrong, because they were afraid to copy their competitors.

3. the half minute that delays defeat gives half a minute to mount a defence, an offence, funds and a plan. Any gamer will suffer their first few games, thats no argument to get rid of walls. and for your two stratigies, walls are a defence, by the sounds of it you are just not willing to learn how to use them.
We're talking about newbs here, half a minute won't save them.

4. exactly, all you have played against in this game is AI, don't make assumptions on how easy it will be to take down a walled base, this is a new game with different units and abilities.
I've played enough to know that a walled base would fall fast. The units in this game do more damage and die faster than in any other CNC game I can recall, the walls would not be any different (and if they were it would jar with the gameplay), so you could expect them to fall over very fast.

5. copying your oppontent requires no thought. Its time people learned to think of their own moves, not others. And don't forget that their oppontent can copy their defence and it becomes a stale mate.
You can't make your own strategies until you've won some games with other people's strategies. You will never make the best strategy ever out of know where, strategies are developed and constantly refined over years of play. One person can't do this alone, its scores or even hundreds of people copying and refining each other's strategies that gives the best results.

6. a valid stratgy is one that hurts your oppontent and gives you a chance to win, their is no true valid stratigy because everyone reacts different, and rushing is not the only way to win games
Rushing is the only way to win gamse. Fact. If you don't rush or counter-rush*, you will lose to someone else's rush. If you lose, you can't win. So the only way to win is to rush or counter-rush. And this isn't a bad thing, it forces you to play to your best ability from the very start of the game, it weeds the good players from the bad better than any other method.

*A counter-rush is a strategy that does not intend to actually attack the enemy, but rather stop the enemy from attacking you. Building base defences is not an effective counter-rush because you can't build enough defences fast enough. A counter-rush consists of units very similar to a rush, but instead of sending them straight to the enemy base you use them to constantly check your flanks looking for the enemy's attack, then stop it once you find it. Then you attack.

7. if you have never used walls to their full effect, then how can you oppose them? its like saying you don't want to be cured of cancer because you have not had the treatment before.
I have used walls to their full effect, the fullest effect they have is surrounding CYs and Tech Centers. Thats it. There is nothing "fuller", there just isn't.

8. just because a game has more stratigies that people have SHARED does not make it better. and walls only give more stratigies
Yes it does. And walls would remove more strategies than they open up.

9. you may have to build them anyways, but you only have to rebuild them everytime they are destroyed and if you only have enough time to build one, then once they are destroyed your unit making capability is ruined until they are un and runing.
They don't get destroyed that often. They have a lot more health than walls would have, and since they are vital you will protect them more. All you are doing is being effecient by making structures serve to purposes (build units and protect your workers).

But all this is irrelevent because CNC3 does not have GLA Workers. So lets end this thread of discussion (we have too many going anyways).

10. no they are countered, and a countered attack can easily fail if it is countered in the right way, and you could still gather as much money as you need, iv'e used the word before and i will use it now MANAGEING
We were discussing how you would build an Iron Curtain when under constant attack (thats just a reminder, since you weren't quoting). In generals, to stop an attack of $X you need to spend $X. Yes, there may be times when your opponent launches a poorly planned attack, such as all tanks, that is easily stopped by a cheaper amount of hard counters, but a good opponent will attack you will a diverse force that can only be countered by an equally diverse force. Furthermore, if I'm on the offensive I will almost definately have more money than you (because I have more map control, and map control=money), so I can produce more units than you, and you will never save enough money to build an Iron Curtain.

11. units can count as a defence, and defences will be built anyways with units, a well mixed defence can stop any attack in its tracks. and your claims of useless walls are opinon, i have named several uses, you just don't want to hear them.
A well mixed defence can only equally match a well mixed attack. So the winner is who has the most money and can buy the most units, to do this you need to control the most tiberium fields, which requires you to be aggresive, not defensive.

12. rushing is only one option that everyone has, if you cannot utilize other options then that is a fault of yours. you have to explore possibilities, not stick with one tried plan, because that one plan can always fail.
I don't need any other options, I can choose a rush that is versatile and even if you stop it (and if you're good, then you will), I will not be at a disadvantage. On the flip side, turtling is not an option at all, because it just doesn't work.

13. noobs do not prevent a community from growing, people how can't learn to cope with people and be patient prevent a community from growing
Yes they do, because they keep good players away. Good players don't like to play with n00bs, and one good player is worth a hundred or more n00bs.

14. its challangeing to rush an underdefended oppontent? i sure thought wrong, i figured it would be harder to punch through line after line of units and defences, plus with the option of stealing other players better units, you may just make their defences even harder to penetrate.
You shouldn't be underdefended. If I can produce a tank, you can produce a tank in the same time for the same money. If I can produce 3 tanks and a jeep to rush you, guess what: You can produce 3 tanks and a jeep to stop my rush, therefore you should not be underdefended. Of course, if you're really creative you can build 2 tanks and 3 rocketmen, and win instead of tie the fight.

"had you actually played a serious game" did i mention i have dial up? thats why i heavily oppose people like you who focus on online and yet i still counter your arguments.
Its not my fault you're on dial-up, but the fact of the matter is someone who has played online games knows more than someone who hasn't. I sincerely hope that you can get a better internet connection soon and play online, then and only then will you learn how to really play. But until that time, I know more about the game than you, and there is nothing either of us can do about it.

why shoulden't you attack me early? i never said you coulden't, i said open possibilities for those games to last and to force players stratigic rush to fail in the face of certain players and force them to become better on the whole, not on one area.
Rushers are better on the whole. No rush n00bs can only play later game spam wars, good players (ie, rushers) can play early game, mid game, and later game without depending on massive amounts of cash.

rushing can just as easily be mindless as not. Im not saying all rushing is mindless but certain rushes will be, by people i do believe you call noobs.
Rushing is only mindless against someone who doesn't know how to stop it. Rushing against an equal opponent takes far more skill than anything else you can do in an RTS.

16. the only way to win no rush games is to rush? kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think, and someone who can manage many will usually beat someone who can only manage a few.
You mis-read me again. I'm going to re-quote the entire thing for references:
Its the only way to win no rush games. You can choose to spam defences instead, but spamming units will beat spamming defences. You can't actually use any real strategy because there are too many units to manage, so all you can do is give them generic commands. No strategy at all.the only way to win no rush games is to rush? kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think, and someone who can manage many will usually beat someone who can only manage a few.
Note that I never said that you win no rush games by rushing, I said you win no rush games by spamming units. Spamming is not the same as rushing.

someone who can manage many will usually beat someone who can only manage a few.
Yeah, but the armies in no rush games are so large that it is literally impossible to manage them, its beyond the limit of human multitasking, its not even worth trying. Thats why playing no rush games doesn't improve your micro.

17. if you are patient then why are you against something that can provide a better challange, against something which you have admitted may give someone half a minute more. i never said you had to sit and wait for someone to build up, you would have to survive that first attack to make walls ethier way would you not, but when that attack is stopped, its good to upgrade your base, not just your army.
Walls would not provide a better challange, because they wouldn't be used in high level games. And the best way to upgrade your base is to either tech up or to build more factories, not build walls.

18. an advanced community is not one that fights within itself for personal gain, an advanced community is one that can utilize stratigies and have fun without breaking up over a small problem or a technocalitily loss. The goal may be the same, but the way that the goal is carryed out is what is important.
The CNC community doesn't fit that description at all. The Starcraft/Warcraft communities do. The CNC community doesn't effectively utilitize strategies because people develop bad strategies for no rush games, instead of developing strategies that are actually useful in serious play.

but online should be just as much a teacher for offline.
How can online be a teacher for offline when online is a thousand times more difficult? (And I'm not exaggerating) By the time you've mastered online play, offline play is so laughably easy that you won't even bother.

the core of few games is online, the core is the story behind it, the reason why your blowing up that guy over there and online and offline are the elements used to further the experience and give the story.
Not for RTSs and FPSs, for these games the core component for almost all games has been online play for years.

and if a console is a computer then why should cnc be made by two different teams, by the sounds of it one version will work in all. it is seperate and lacks the abilities of a personnal computer. yes timesplitters could have been better, but the point is that a game doesen't have to be online to be good.
Because they have completely different controllers. Look at a mouse and keyboard. Now look at an XBox 360 controller. Do they look the same? No. Consoles don't have hotkeys, or the precision of a mouse. This makes it very difficult to effectively play an RTS. To compensate the game must be made around these limitations. So for example while a PC RTS should strive to maximize the use of hotkeys, a console RTS should strive to minimize this. While a PC RTS should have units that do little to nothing without a specific order, a console RTS should have units that do more without an order, because you just can't give as many orders at one time on a console.

20. but you still do have to consider where it has to go, is it in the way of other buildings? in the build area? will it mess up room for more?. and it may take longer to find critical structures but a person who can manage can split their units into mutiple teams to seek and destroy, and more units can always be sent, but the time it takes you to break defences gives more time to make units, and anybody can manage their money to do so.
All you have to consider is if the building actually fits there. Thats it. Blocking other structures? Nah, not likely enough to happen to give any thought to it.

21. the point is not that they can, the point is that if they didn't then tiberian sun could be released in the sage engine and pull off looking like a new game. And thats the main thing that seperates it from games today, graphics, not story.
But a re-released Tiberian Sun wouldn't be a good RTS anymore. Its been 9 years since TS first came out, and the RTS genre has become a lot more advanced since then. TS just wouldn't be a good game anymore.

22. their is always an outer turret, it is the first turret, and you replace it, or you die because you let your defences be taken down one by one while focusing on the offensive. defence and offence must be balenced priorities. defences can also be their while units are moving to one attack and then another sweeps in the now less defended spot. iv'e mentioned this earlier.
There is no outer turret if there are no turrets. In general, just don't build turrets. While you're attacking their base the only defence you need are the units that are being constructure while you attack, so you still don't need turrets.

23. but walls do not cost alot and are rebuilt quickly. i feel like im going over old arguements. walls do not dip that much into funds if you can manage yoyr economy
It doesn't matter, they cost something and take some time. It doesn't matter how little, a finite amount repeated over and over will eventually grind your economy to a halt, or at least slow it down enough that I can out produce you and overwhelm your base with units.

I know this well from personal experiance, I can't count how many times I've lost a USA vs. China game in Generals because I let a gatt guard my supplies for just ten seconds. It doesn't matter that in that ten seconds I could have only harvested a hundred or two dollars, that little bit of money can easily make the difference in the game. Because I don't get that money, I can't build another mdvee fast enough, so another gatt enters my base and guards my supplies for another ten seconds. This delays my next mdvee, and another gatts gets in. After this happens four or five times, the game is over. He has produced too many units for me to stop. Just because I let that one first gatt stop my harvesting for ten seconds. This is what would happen if you kept rebuilding walls, you would fall more and more behind, until you I just overwhelmed you. (BTW, I am not exaggerating about that ten second thing)

24.but i can build walls at those sites with defences so i can harvest money quicker
Only by buying a $1500 surveyor or by stretching numerous structures over the distance. All of which will cost you even more money.

25. that defence turret can buy more time for a super unit being built in my factories and turn the tide of a battle, what if my barracks and war factory has been destroyed but only a few riflemen are left?
It could, but it most likely won't. If the turret or walls buys you five seconds, and the super units takes thirty seconds to build, it has a 1/6 chance of saving you. Those aren't odds to stake the game on.

26. more money could be being spent to build units to push back the attack, that five seconds is the difference between a super unit and death. You don't need a huge base to produce many units, it's all how you manage.
Yes you do, you need multiple refineries on multiple tiberium fields, a bare minimum of two factories (the more the better), in addition to room for a crane, comm center, tech lab, and a lot of power plants. You need all this, or you will be out produced and lose.

27. did i mention units are dispatched to take care of the problem? plus once again walls do not cost a lot of money. and what i mean is a hole in detection, where stealh units could slip base, stealh detection counts as a defence.
Holes in detection are easy to avoid, you just keep a handful of stealth detecting units on the edge of slightly inside of your base. These types of units have pretty good detection ranges, you don't need a lot.

28. what i mean by this is that you can't change a unit in one without changeing a unit in the other. You have to keep all systems in mind, you don't just forget about the other entirly. i believe that you would be a worse developer then me because you would try to make a game to what you think is good, not what everybody thinks is good.
Yes, you can change a unit in one without changing it in the other. This is the only way to make the game good on both platforms.

30. A developer makes a game with the gamer in mind. you in what i think is an ignorant moment are saying that people don't know what they like and what they don't like. Were not talking about a new feature, were talking about something they have tried before and have liked
You would be surprised, people very often don't really know what they want, they only think they know what they want. And most people have never really "liked", they never even gave any thought about them until they heard that they would be gone. Had no one ever said that they were removed, I bet at least 60% of people would have never noticed or cared. (This isn't a testable statistic, mind you, its just my guess)

31. not listening works both ways. you refuse to believe that walls could ever have any purpose, yet purposes have been put in front of you.
I've presented counters to these points. I've yet to hear a strategy given that actually sounds like it would work.

32. sorry about the core statement, messed up my words when you said online was the core. what i meant to say was that if walls were able to make it in several liked games and there was no reason seen to get rid of them then, why would you get rid of them now.
Just because the games were liked doesn't mean they couldn't have been made better by removing something.

33. they are good for stopping small raids, let me throw out a situation. a large band of riflemen and one or two tanks comes your way. reacting you despatch a few units to clean up but while they are dealing with that the real assualt rolls in on the weakened spot. enough infantry coming your way and you will call your emeny stupid, but dispatch several units to deal with it. while your dispatched units are dealing with the problem that assualt force is going to have an easier time breaking through because even 1 unit dispatched is 1 unit not firing on that assualt, and if it is big enough it will break through, and cause serious damage.yeah you push them back but Suddenly a second wave hits your base. i know what you are going to say, i would kill you before you had the chance. but what if you diden't, what if they kept just enough to ward off your attacks while placing a unit back here and there. things just got a little more complicated.
No, I won't say I would kill you. This is a realistic scenario, it happened a lot in ZH, especially against GLA, which would love nothing more to than to send a techterror down one flank while quads attack from the other. Very nasty strat, hard to deal with, but not impossible.

The solution to your example is that as soon as you see the main attack you diver all but one tank towards the main attack. The one tank left runs over the infantry and then keeps the two tanks busy for a few seconds. On the main assault, we need to take into account numbers. Assuming we have equal economies, then we should have similar numbers of tanks. BUT, you have diverted two tanks plus a couple infantry (we'll assume they cost as much as one tank) as a diversion, so if I have X tanks then you have X-1 tanks and 1 tank's-worth of infantry, of those your infantry and two of your tanks and on the other side of your base, but only one of my tanks is over there. So now I have X-1 tanks fighting your X-3 tanks. I have a slight advantage (this is also ignoring any units I can build during an attack, this factor applies to any attack) the main assault. The relative strenth of a force is equal to the number of units in the force squared (explaining this would take too long, but its true), so my relative strengh is (X-1)^2, and yours is (X-3)^2. The exact result of this depends on X, but lets assume for the sake of arguement that X=10, therefore I have 9 units with relative streanth 81, and you have 7 units with relative strenth 49. With some more math the theoretical result of this (ignoring micro) is that I survive with 4 tanks (one at half health, this involves some more math that I won't explain), enough to finish off your diversion. Of course, things like micro mess this up, but thats why this is just an approximation.

This isn't to say that diversion are useless, but they only work with the element of surprise. Thats why you usually don't make a small diversion for a large force of generic units, you make a diversion of generic units for a small force of highly specialized units. For example, you could send a few tanks, and while I'm dealing with those move in one APC with a commando. One APC is a lot harder to spot than 7 tanks, and a force of say 5 tanks is a bigger distraction that 2 tanks and some infantry, so this is more likely to work.

All this originally had to do with whether walls were useful for stopping raids. Anyways, I think I suffeciantly showed that you don't need walls to stop a diversion.

34. again its all about managing. you act as if money is the most sparce thing in this game and you have just barely enough.
It is and you do. You want to spend your money as fast as you earn it, so it should always be scarce, no matter how fast you are collecting it.

35. but a no rules game is not a no rush game. Any map is an example not just the ones you deside are revalent because they are still playable.
Some maps are inherently bad and should not be used as example. Twilight Lame is one of them. And no rush games are ignored because thats not how any good player would play.

36. not if the walls are built just before the artillary arrives and the walls have a few units to back it up. then the artillary can be used to keep more units back.
Now you're getting really specific. And now why can't I just send my tanks around the wall and kill the artillery anyways? In past CNCs the most walls you could lay at one time was five squares, it doesn't take any time at all for a tanks to move around five squares and attack the artillery.

37. a backup plan is better then no plan. i'ed rather have more options if i coulden't reach a service bay in time then lose more units and money.
If you spend (hypothetically) $1000 to stop a rush that could do $2000 worth of damage, but only has a 1/5 chance of happening, you've just wasted an average of $600 dollars not worth it. In the case of walls, their cheaper, but you're still spending some amount of money, in addition to a fairly large amount of micro, when you could just build a service depot and solve your problem. Of course terror drones aren't in CNC3 so all this is irrelevent.

38. noobs are people and only the player desides who is a noob. but if you don't want to play against noobs you can always play offline can't you? wait the game is made specifialy for online, offline sucks, whats the point of buying the game then? looks like offline should be just as good as online.
The AI is a n00b (a hacker n00b to be exact), so no, playing online doesn't work. The better option is to just discourage n00bs from developing, so that more people online are good. If I couldn't get a good online game because there were too many n00bs, I would go to a different game with less n00bs (any other RTS series has less n00bs than CNC).

39. but 1 computer can do better then many humans at chess. And chess is a move for move game. You cannot do two moves in a row so it is not the same as an online game. And any game is made to appeal to many people. Sometimes this is bad, yes but walls is not a life changing thing that would complety ruin the game.
They are both games of strategy. Yes a computer is better than a lot of people at chess, but you still only play against the computer to learn because you don't get more satisfaction out of beating a real person. In the same way, you get more satisfaction out of beating someone online than beating the AI for the millionth time.

41. but those who would become noobs may become some of the best players. No one is encouraging people to become a noob, only the noob made hem/her self into a noob.
Walls and bad options encourage people to become n00bs. If you force them to play well from the beginning by not giving them a crutch, then they will become good. If you give them a crutch, they will become so used to it that they will refuse to play without it.

42. the point of a demo is to convince people to A. buy the game and B. find out what is wrong and needs to be fixed. That apc could be deemed needed to be fixed, and if everyone hated the demo then that could even delay the game while changes were made.
It won't be. How do I know? Because there is nothing wrong with the APC. The APC would only be changed if A) It was too strong and need to be nerfed (we're discussing buffing the APC, not nerfing it) or B) Something else was too strong and the APC had to be buffed to counter this. Well what are APCs meant to counter? Infantry, do they do this well? Very. So they won't be buffed.

43. no you are only better then him early. if given time that player could stomp you into the ground. what if he sent his starting units in the wrong direction, right instead of left. That would obvisouly leave his very early base open to attack by even starting infantry if it was a small map.
If you're better than him early then you are better than him. If he is good in the late game it doesn't matter if he can't even survive into the late game. In Zero Hour the SW gen was a perfect example of this, the Aurora Alphas were amazingly strong late game, and if SW gen could get a couple of those in the air he had pretty much won the game, but his early game was so weak that he would almost always lose early, thus he was actually one of the weakest generals in the game.

If you are playing on a 1v1 map (and a 1v1 game should always be played on a 1v1 map, for obvious reasons), then you can't send units in the wrong direction.

44. yes every attack can be defended. That dosen't mean you have the units you need to defend that attack already done and lined up. this applies to any player.
If the game is balanced, then you should have the units already ready.

45. i did say somewhere earlier that you wouild have to stop the earlier attack no matter what ,but once it is stopped,where do you go from there?
i never said delay the game with rules, you can make a no rules game last, if you want to and are good enough. that way the potential of early units and later units alike can are done to there fullest but if the game ends too early then the units do not get to be used to there potential.
Are you saying that if I have rushed an opponent and I'm about to beat him because he couldn't stop my attack that I should back off and give him a second chance? :wtf:

46. yes in that situation the rusher would win. but what if the second player was not a noob but varyed between rushing and turtling tactics and used the best of both. then it is anybodies game. you will not always be playing against a noob.
Turtling never beats rushing, if he is a good player he knows this and won't turtle in the first place.

47. but if it was about fast games, and walls were included, then why are they such a problem.
Because we are pushing CNC3 to a high level of competetive play, past CNCs were at a very high level of play, so there was only so much damage walls could do. But if we want CNC3 to be on part with games like Starcraft, Warcraft III, and Zero Hour (and we do), then we don't want walls.

generals gave you a wide array of stratigies, great. But were talking about opening more, not closing others.
Walls can close strategies too.

yes you are supposed to defeat the emeny but that should not be your true objective. It should be to survive and flourish by any means nessesariy. winning with just a tank left does not feel as good as totally stomping a challageing enemy.
Are you kidding me? The closer a game is, the better. There is nothing more satisfying than a game where you and your enemy have depleted all the resources on the map and you're sending your last units to attack, you know you won't be able to buy more. You micro as much as you can and in the end you come out just barely on top, and then move in to kill his last factory (you and he both sold everything else to buy as many units as you could). Steamrolling your enemy with a horde of tanks is boring, he never stood a chance. A close game that is down to the wire is much better.

"so far on the demo walls are a piece of s h i t,they don't stop anything" thats just because they are not slated to go into the game so they were not worked on to be balenced enough to have a certain amount of health to stop certain things while not being to hard to destroy.
If the walls were that strong they would ruin the "Fast, Fluid, Fun" gameplay.


Time check: 12:59.

Next person:



Lets think it another way... like a book, the game is just a vehicle to tell a story (at least in this case), the MP capability is an added bonus (and a very well received one, I must say).
If there was none SP, C&C will be just another game in the row.
You've got it backwards, MP should be the focus of the agme, SP is the added bonus. And if you look at it, the majority of the "just another game in the row" (for any genre) are either singleplayer entirely or predominantly. Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III are some of the best known FPSs, and none of them have a singleplayer component outside of killing bots over and over again.

Allow me to quote you:
"Keyword there: AI", you spoke well, however there is something that you are not taking in consideration: Human senses and reaction time, the AI has faster reaction times and doesn't have to detect the presence of an engineer(because the AI already knows the engie is there), and of course, if you try the engineer strategy without some sort of back up (like tanks and infatry) to get their defenses away, you will fail.
Humans rely on his senses to become aware of the enemy units present in the attack, and in the heat of the battle there is always room to miss something.
Late game engineer rushes won't work very well, the damage will be too insignificant and with tanks all over the battlefield it will be too hard to pull off. The point is that the AI will fall for an early engineer rush over and over and over, because the AI doesn't change. A human may fall for it once or twice, maybe even three times, but he will learn how to counter it (assuming a counter exists, and in this case it does).

it doesn't mean that it is the only valid strategy, in fact rushing is only a part of the strategy not the whole.
It does if it is the only one that wins (and it is). You're right though that it is only part of the strategy, the rushing period only lasts for the first few minutes before the game moves into the middle game period.

That is true in the case of a poorly SP oriented game like Generals/ZH. But let me say this, TS/FS has great SP (and for my taste it also has great MP) and I still play TS/FS, and I know that there is a lot more of people who think this way (in fact let me remember that TS is still being modded).
Yeah, I only played the TS campaign once. And it took me around 7 years to finish it (I only finished it last summer). Why? Because I got bored too fast and moved on to other games. I finally beat it last summer because I'm more patient now than I was when I first played the game, but it wasn't nearly as fun as a multiplayer game of ZH.

get more sales which is what the entire goal of C&C3 is.
Not this time, I don't think so. I think EA is truly trying to make a good game, not just a game that will sell well. Thats why they're pushing "RTS as a Sport" so hard, that really won't sell a whole lot of games, but it will make the game a lot better. If they follow through on their promises then CNC3 will have a multiplayer interface that would make South Korean Starcraft pros drool. The average consumer doesn't care about this, but the pros do, and I think thats what EA is trying to target.

I recognize rushing as a legitimate strategy, but frankly, if it is the only strategy used I think the gameplay becomes stale and uniteresting. Spice it up with some variety you know? Mix it up, use different strategies sometimes. Even combine different strategies. Such as rushing as the primary assault mechanism, but sneak in some infantry in the back to take out power, and then the main rush force rolls in. Whatever it be, single-strategy-to-win is stale and uninspired i.m.h.o. It just doesn't utilize the game's multitude of possible tactics. (kinda like how on some console games you only need to mash a single button over and over again to win every time.)
Rushing isn't a single strategy, its a class of strategy. Any strategy that tries to attack the enemy (any part of the enemy) as soon as possible is a rush. The example you gave of sneaking in infantry while distracting with a main assault is a rush, if you do it fast enough. Don't confuse rushing with just building one unit and sending it to battle as fast as possible, thats only one (ineffective) way to rush. There are inumerable possible ways to attack your enemy early, some of which work better than others. But don't think "rushing" will get stale, because there is no such thing as "the" rush, both my opponent and I can choose from a variety of rushes, and the resulting decisions shape the beginning of the game.

So, I'd say that if it had been made with a kick-ass campaign story like the other C&C games, it could have (*omg blasphemy alert*) theoretically been the best C&C game ever to date.
We'ld surely have less people complaining about it singleplayer was Generals one weakness, but it was more than made up for by multiplayer. I've played Zero Hour more than all other CNC games combined.




Final time check: 1:15
Total time: 1 hour, 56 minutes.

Total length (w/ quotes): 13 pages.

Good night.

[nilloC]

There's too much nitpicking going on for me to really read all of these posts. And this isn't some pissing contest where the longest post wins. It really, really confuses me :p

Anyways, all I wanted to ask was... For those who don't want walls in (resetting back to the original topic at hand), why don't you want them in? You aren't going to use them. And you know as well as I do that by not building them they aren't going to be detrimental to your online gameplay. Hell, you should hope they allow walls because then some of the so called "noobs" will waste their resources on building "ULTRAL33t" walls instead of worthwhile units.

Anyways.... In closing. Long posts are ridiculous. :p

[SgtRicko]

I'm quoting this.
For no good reason.
Why, you might ask???
Because I'm evil.
That is all.
Good day.:devil:
EDIT: Ok, maybe I DO have something to say after all... Derek, we really can't judge potential strats until the game has finally been released with all three sides available, and all final fixes and changes applied. The debate you're suggesting had best be held off unitl then, when we can mod the game to use walls and REALLY try out some strats.
DOUBLE EDIT: BTW Derek, how badly are your fingers aching after that marathon you just pulled? I gotta know!!!:chin:

[MercZ]

Someone should consider giving Derek some sort of reward for posting such long and persuasive posts.

As for me, I don't care for walls. I'll probably get a mod to use them for skirmishes.

As for online play, I think they're detrimental to play. When I played TS online, I didn't care what people did with walls. If they wanted to take the time and resource to wall of their base while I pooled it into an attack force and destroy them, that's their problem.

[sterio]

There's too much nitpicking going on for me to really read all of these posts. And this isn't some pissing contest where the longest post wins. It really, really confuses me :p
Anyways, all I wanted to ask was... For those who don't want walls in (resetting back to the original topic at hand), why don't you want them in? You aren't going to use them. And you know as well as I do that by not building them they aren't going to be detrimental to your online gameplay. Hell, you should hope they allow walls because then some of the so called "noobs" will waste their resources on building "ULTRAL33t" walls instead of worthwhile units.
Anyways.... In closing. Long posts are ridiculous. :p

Instead of making this thread more complex than it is, I'm just going to say I agree with Nilloc :p

[CO Valle]

Quote:
Lets think it another way... like a book, the game is just a vehicle to tell a story (at least in this case), the MP capability is an added bonus (and a very well received one, I must say).
If there was none SP, C&C will be just another game in the row.

You've got it backwards, MP should be the focus of the agme, SP is the added bonus. And if you look at it, the majority of the "just another game in the row" (for any genre) are either singleplayer entirely or predominantly. Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III are some of the best known FPSs, and none of them have a singleplayer component outside of killing bots over and over again.


I think you're wrong. Counter-Strike and UT (I didn't like QIII) are some of the best FPSs, that is true, but you know that those a entirely MP oriented. C&C was born (In my opinion) as a SP game, then evolved adding MP; as many people have already stated, they became attracted to C&C by its SP mode, the story (or SP) mode, is the one (in my opinion) that most people (I dare to think) around the community is looking forward to. MP is also a great issue (perhaps as important as SP), but must not become more important than SP.
As you have stated Generals/ZH has great MP, but has a very poor storyline; if C&C3 was to be like another Gen/ZH everyone in the community will start again to complain against EA for selling out the franchise, and that my friend is something that EA don't want. EA is trying (and succesfully) to make another "true" C&C, and both SP and MP must stay balanced.
Having said this I think the best option (so far) is to have that enable/disable option for walls in MP.


Late game engineer rushes won't work very well, the damage will be too insignificant and with tanks all over the battlefield it will be too hard to pull off. The point is that the AI will fall for an early engineer rush over and over and over, because the AI doesn't change. A human may fall for it once or twice, maybe even three times, but he will learn how to counter it (assuming a counter exists, and in this case it does).


I don't mean a later game engie rush, It can be done in the first minutes of the game, lets put it this way, along with a standard first rush team you send that APC with the engie, if your oponent can't defend agains you his death, but if he manages to survive your strike using that engie will leave him in a worst position (even if you are forced to capture another building and not the CY.


It does if it is the only one that wins (and it is). You're right though that it is only part of the strategy.

You said somewhere that either you rush or you counter-rush, and those are different (altough similar) tactics, aimed at different objectives.


the rushing period only lasts for the first few minutes before the game moves into the middle game period.

Now you are talking!!, having said that, you gain credibility (at least on my side), I initialy tought that you were a "I only know how to rush" but I'm glad you're not.

Anyway, I believe we've found some common ground here, now, onto the next:


Yeah, I only played the TS campaign once. And it took me around 7 years to finish it (I only finished it last summer). Why? Because I got bored too fast and moved on to other games. I finally beat it last summer because I'm more patient now than I was when I first played the game, but it wasn't nearly as fun as a multiplayer game of ZH.


Now that explains a lot!, many of our differences reside in that I happen to love SP (as many others around here), and you are the opposite, you just love MP.

This one wasn't directed at me, but any way...

Not this time, I don't think so. I think EA is truly trying to make a good game, not just a game that will sell well. Thats why they're pushing "RTS as a Sport" so hard, that really won't sell a whole lot of games, but it will make the game a lot better. If they follow through on their promises then CNC3 will have a multiplayer interface that would make South Korean Starcraft pros drool. The average consumer doesn't care about this, but the pros do, and I think thats what EA is trying to target.


Think so too, EA is making a great game.
Now, for what I happen to see, is that you are concerned with the survivability (at least to non SP lovers) of the game in the years to come (like starcraft, you want this C&C to persist) that's good, BUT on doing so you MUSN'T sacrifice other aspects of the game, like SP. I don't know if your people (I'm not from US, you know) have a phrase like this: "make fame and go to sleep".
As I said the game was born in SP, with a story to be told, if you betray that part of C&C you will only get another Gen/ZH. Just for the fact that you don't like SP (at least as we do) it doesn't mean walls have to pay the price for it.

WE WANT OFFICIAL WALLS!!!, but either if EA gives us them or not, we are getting walls!, one way or another.
So, again, (sounds like I'am becoming an "enable/disable option" activist :lmao: ) an option like that one would keep both wallers and anti-wallers happy.
Anyway, walls or no walls n00bs are still going to appear.

Now, in order to make my post larger I have to agree with Derek, we must change the way this post is going, or this thread will die without getting somewhere, either because of XXXXXL post that no one will have the time to read, or will become boring. Derek's idea is a start, anymore suggestions anyone?

[Gaucho8788]

Thats just way to much reading, esecially when you have to start from the begginging. But anyways, does it really matter, in all honesty. I wouldn't care one way or another but between the people replying and the ones reading these god awfully long posts, I think this may need to be drawn to a close soon for all of our sakes.

[Mighty BOB!]

Rushing isn't a single strategy, its a class of strategy. Any strategy that tries to attack the enemy (any part of the enemy) as soon as possible is a rush. The example you gave of sneaking in infantry while distracting with a main assault is a rush, if you do it fast enough. Don't confuse rushing with just building one unit and sending it to battle as fast as possible, thats only one (ineffective) way to rush. There are inumerable possible ways to attack your enemy early, some of which work better than others. But don't think "rushing" will get stale, because there is no such thing as "the" rush, both my opponent and I can choose from a variety of rushes, and the resulting decisions shape the beginning of the game.


Then perhaps we of this thread (and perhaps the majority of the "anti-rushers"?) are having a definition problem? Some people (myself included) equating "Rushing = (single?) unit spamming" ?

[SgtRicko]

Then perhaps we of this thread (and perhaps the majority of the "anti-rushers"?) are having a definition problem? Some people (myself included) equating "Rushing = (single?) unit spamming" ?

I don't think so. Whenever I think of rushing, I think of the zergling/hydralisk rush or the mdvee/commanche rush.

[zach016]

(polling results below)

Mark the time: 3:02 am


"Important for Zach: In order to shorten this discussion some. I propse a reset of the debate with the following format: You propose all the potential strategies that you can think for CNC3 using walls, and I'll give you my answer to that. This will be much shorter and to-the-point then continueing these agonizingly long responses. If you don't want to do this thats fine, I have responded to everything below and you can continue with that if you wish, but I think this would make both of our lives easier."

while i argee we needed to shorten this posting stratigies will not work. any stratigie can be countered and knowing the other players stratigies only allows you to counter them. it is the unpredictibility of humans that makes gaming online succesfull


"One thing I would like to note, zach, could you please quote the parts you are responding to? Its really hard to follow your posts when I can't tell what part of my nine page post you're responding too. Also, I think sometimes you're forgetting what we're talking about yourself, if you quoted what you were responding to you would be able to remember what specific thread we were discussing and not jump off to some other unrelated thread."

will do just for you

"I never said a game that just does multiplayer, I said a game that emphasizes multiplayer. Developers have a limited number of resources (man-hours, money, etc.) they can devote to a game, the have to balance the two things. For modern FPSs and RTSs, the greater emphasis needs to be put on the multiplayer, with the story mode as support. That said, there are still a lot of fantastic games that only have multiplayer, Counter-Strike and Unreal Tounament come to mind."

as i have said in the past, they have to be made equal. Not all of the market lies in one. don't bring up old arguments.


"You steal the good parts and combine them with the good parts of what you have. Thats how any sort of developement works, if someone makes something better than you, you figure out what makes their's so good, take that, and combine it with whats good about your's. With your logic games would not evolve any, because as soon as one person came up with a good idea no one else would be able to copy it. You'ld end up with a bunch of games that do one thing right, and everything else wrong, because they were afraid to copy their competitors."

we have things called copyright laws. you make your own good things and make it different. you can take the core good things but basing a game on old things makes it an old game. it is possible to get sued all too easy in this world.


"We're talking about newbs here, half a minute won't save them."

were talking all players, and half a minute can save anyone. at first release EVERYONE will be newbs and everyone could learn to use walls.


"I've played enough to know that a walled base would fall fast. The units in this game do more damage and die faster than in any other CNC game I can recall, the walls would not be any different (and if they were it would jar with the gameplay), so you could expect them to fall over very fast."

youve played generals mainly online, diddn't have walls. walls can be balenced and no it would not jar the gameplay. if you can't wait five more seconds for a win, you need to take some long me time.


"You can't make your own strategies until you've won some games with other people's strategies. You will never make the best strategy ever out of know where, strategies are developed and constantly refined over years of play. One person can't do this alone, its scores or even hundreds of people copying and refining each other's strategies that gives the best results.'

anyone can make their own stratigies, they are just tested online and again, any stratigy can be countered


"Rushing is the only way to win gamse. Fact. If you don't rush or counter-rush*, you will lose to someone else's rush. If you lose, you can't win. So the only way to win is to rush or counter-rush. And this isn't a bad thing, it forces you to play to your best ability from the very start of the game, it weeds the good players from the bad better than any other method."

rushing is not the only way to win, it is the only way anyone has bothered to explore. a rush can be stopped dead at an enemies gates, not just at a counter rush.

"*A counter-rush is a strategy that does not intend to actually attack the enemy, but rather stop the enemy from attacking you. Building base defences is not an effective counter-rush because you can't build enough defences fast enough. A counter-rush consists of units very similar to a rush, but instead of sending them straight to the enemy base you use them to constantly check your flanks looking for the enemy's attack, then stop it once you find it. Then you attack."

again, units set aside can count as your defences too. and if they suck, why don't we get rid of them too? not everything has to be countered rushed.


"I have used walls to their full effect, the fullest effect they have is surrounding CYs and Tech Centers. Thats it. There is nothing "fuller", there just isn't."

if this is your perspective then it is just that, yours. others see walls in a different light and have explored their uses, not disregarded them as crap.


"Yes it does. And walls would remove more strategies than they open up."

if rushing is the only viable stratgie then what stratigies are we closing, you can still rush.


"They don't get destroyed that often. They have a lot more health than walls would have, and since they are vital you will protect them more. All you are doing is being effecient by making structures serve to purposes (build units and protect your workers)."

units can be built beside them and as you should know, every piece of health counts. the less time you spend rebuilding more expensive things, the more money for units.

"We were discussing how you would build an Iron Curtain when under constant attack (thats just a reminder, since you weren't quoting). In generals, to stop an attack of $X you need to spend $X. Yes, there may be times when your opponent launches a poorly planned attack, such as all tanks, that is easily stopped by a cheaper amount of hard counters, but a good opponent will attack you will a diverse force that can only be countered by an equally diverse force. Furthermore, if I'm on the offensive I will almost definately have more money than you (because I have more map control, and map control=money), so I can produce more units than you, and you will never save enough money to build an Iron Curtain."

in generals, in generals, in generals, their was no iron curtain in generals so that is no arguement.


"A well mixed defence can only equally match a well mixed attack. So the winner is who has the most money and can buy the most units, to do this you need to control the most tiberium fields, which requires you to be aggresive, not defensive."

but someone who balances both is more likly to win because when their attacks fail they are not left with nothing.


"I don't need any other options, I can choose a rush that is versatile and even if you stop it (and if you're good, then you will), I will not be at a disadvantage. On the flip side, turtling is not an option at all, because it just doesn't work."

turtling doesen't work if you can't make it work, same as rushing. you are a rusher, you haven't tried to turtle.


"Yes they do, because they keep good players away. Good players don't like to play with n00bs, and one good player is worth a hundred or more n00bs."

you act if every player is a noob. a man who knows how to make a well defended base and hold it is someone who can play and knows what they are doing, it just takes more time for them to make their move, which may be far worse then anything you can throw at them.


"You shouldn't be underdefended. If I can produce a tank, you can produce a tank in the same time for the same money. If I can produce 3 tanks and a jeep to rush you, guess what: You can produce 3 tanks and a jeep to stop my rush, therefore you should not be underdefended. Of course, if you're really creative you can build 2 tanks and 3 rocketmen, and win instead of tie the fight."

but i don't know you are making a tank, i could be making a warmech but don't get the time to finish it. humans are not physihic.


"Its not my fault you're on dial-up, but the fact of the matter is someone who has played online games knows more than someone who hasn't. I sincerely hope that you can get a better internet connection soon and play online, then and only then will you learn how to really play. But until that time, I know more about the game than you, and there is nothing either of us can do about it."

i have played online games, i may have dial up myself, that doesen't mean i don't have access to high speed somewheres else. and that gives me all the more reason for me to argue for a better single player game that i will like, not an online game i can't play very often.


"Rushers are better on the whole. No rush n00bs can only play later game spam wars, good players (ie, rushers) can play early game, mid game, and later game without depending on massive amounts of cash."

you can not argue when you only rush yourself. other people work different ways, and utilize the same things differently.


"Rushing is only mindless against someone who doesn't know how to stop it. Rushing against an equal opponent takes far more skill than anything else you can do in an RTS." so if i can make one of this walls that cost so much and take so much time to build, and still win, then it would take less skill to not do it at all?

"Yeah, but the armies in no rush games are so large that it is literally impossible to manage them, its beyond the limit of human multitasking, its not even worth trying. Thats why playing no rush games doesn't improve your micro."

only disorganized people cannot work with everthing they have made at once. sort them into groups and switch between them.


"Walls would not provide a better challange, because they wouldn't be used in high level games. And the best way to upgrade your base is to either tech up or to build more factories, not build walls."

but they cost so much and take so long to build. only to be easily destroyed. guess only a crappy player could use a wall and still win.


"The CNC community doesn't fit that description at all. The Starcraft/Warcraft communities do. The CNC community doesn't effectively utilitize strategies because people develop bad strategies for no rush games, instead of developing strategies that are actually useful in serious play."

not everyone is at eveyother persons throat. were not here to take over mexico, its a game, people play games different, and that includes online. if so few players are "serious" players then shoulden't the game focus more on fun, and pleasing the larger crowd


"How can online be a teacher for offline when online is a thousand times more difficult? (And I'm not exaggerating) By the time you've mastered online play, offline play is so laughably easy that you won't even bother."

this is for you, not everyone, a commputer plays differently then humans, means it reacts differently then humans too. my startigy that works so well online may not be so hot offline, just as an offline stratigy may not be so hot online.


"Not for RTSs and FPSs, for these games the core component for almost all games has been online play for years." the core commponent has not been online. it has been the story. the online is just an accessarly for when the story has done its job.


"Because they have completely different controllers. Look at a mouse and keyboard. Now look at an XBox 360 controller. Do they look the same? No. Consoles don't have hotkeys, or the precision of a mouse. This makes it very difficult to effectively play an RTS. To compensate the game must be made around these limitations. So for example while a PC RTS should strive to maximize the use of hotkeys, a console RTS should strive to minimize this. While a PC RTS should have units that do little to nothing without a specific order, a console RTS should have units that do more without an order, because you just can't give as many orders at one time on a console."

lol, if you try to order your walls around, well then i don't even know what to say. should we start giving tiberium silos hotkeys and put them in squads? couple of those fiesty bastards should be able to do some wonderous damage.:nuts:


"All you have to consider is if the building actually fits there. Thats it. Blocking other structures? Nah, not likely enough to happen to give any thought to it."

one blocked structure can = death. some viruses are rare but have vaccines. should we not care to get the vaccine just because it is rare now? that vaccine is what makes it rare.


"But a re-released Tiberian Sun wouldn't be a good RTS anymore. Its been 9 years since TS first came out, and the RTS genre has become a lot more advanced since then. TS just wouldn't be a good game anymore.'

okay well'l polish up the features as well, the stories still good, don't have to change the units or tech trees, might have to change a few features here and there, give a better ai but it's certainly less then a new game.


"There is no outer turret if there are no turrets. In general, just don't build turrets. While you're attacking their base the only defence you need are the units that are being constructure while you attack, so you still don't need turrets."

if we don't build turrets, why don't we get rid of them? maybe get rid of riflemen, they suck too, hell all of the scrins starting units are not supposed to be great, lets get rid of them too.


"It doesn't matter, they cost something and take some time. It doesn't matter how little, a finite amount repeated over and over will eventually grind your economy to a halt, or at least slow it down enough that I can out produce you and overwhelm your base with units.'

but less time and money then effective units, turrets and the rest of your base. they are some of the cheapest things you can find.

"I know this well from personal experiance, I can't count how many times I've lost a USA vs. China game in Generals because I let a gatt guard my supplies for just ten seconds. It doesn't matter that in that ten seconds I could have only harvested a hundred or two dollars, that little bit of money can easily make the difference in the game. Because I don't get that money, I can't build another mdvee fast enough, so another gatt enters my base and guards my supplies for another ten seconds. This delays my next mdvee, and another gatts gets in. After this happens four or five times, the game is over. He has produced too many units for me to stop. Just because I let that one first gatt stop my harvesting for ten seconds. This is what would happen if you kept rebuilding walls, you would fall more and more behind, until you I just overwhelmed you. (BTW, I am not exaggerating about that ten second thing)"

you can build units at the exact same time as walls and switching between them and back takes 2 seconds of the ten.


"Only by buying a $1500 surveyor or by stretching numerous structures over the distance. All of which will cost you even more money."

but the money i can harvest can greatly overcome how much i have spent, according to you the more you expand, the more room for structures, the more buildings to make units.


"It could, but it most likely won't. If the turret or walls buys you five seconds, and the super units takes thirty seconds to build, it has a 1/6 chance of saving you. Those aren't odds to stake the game on."

you tell me that every game you lost because you "fell behind" and coulden't make units fast enough.


"Yes you do, you need multiple refineries on multiple tiberium fields, a bare minimum of two factories (the more the better), in addition to room for a crane, comm center, tech lab, and a lot of power plants. You need all this, or you will be out produced and lose."

you don't make a seperate piece for every space, two can cover up to nine spaces and are not pencil thin.


"Holes in detection are easy to avoid, you just keep a handful of stealth detecting units on the edge of slightly inside of your base. These types of units have pretty good detection ranges, you don't need a lot."

youre too much in the heat of battle to hear your detection units, and most of your units are rushing. a large enough force can slip in unnoticed and with a unit killed every five seconds, one more message doesen't mean much.


"Yes, you can change a unit in one without changing it in the other. This is the only way to make the game good on both platforms."

alright lets make the nuclear trooper on one, the uber tank on the other. no im serious, i truly think these changed units would make the game alot better.


"You would be surprised, people very often don't really know what they want, they only think they know what they want. And most people have never really "liked", they never even gave any thought about them until they heard that they would be gone. Had no one ever said that they were removed, I bet at least 60% of people would have never noticed or cared. (This isn't a testable statistic, mind you, its just my guess)"

weve been over this before, this is a game, not wheter we should nuke iran or give an imate the death penality.


"I've presented counters to these points. I've yet to hear a strategy given that actually sounds like it would work."

as i have said eariler, any stratigy can be countered, when you know what that stratgy is. humans as a whole are too unpredictable to be able to assume how everyone who does the same thing approahes it.


"Just because the games were liked doesn't mean they couldn't have been made better by removing something."

who asked for walls to be removed? who felt that they should be scrapped? only certain people. well lets use your arguement against you. "some people only think they know what they want" this can apply to anyone,anywhere at anytime.


"No, I won't say I would kill you. This is a realistic scenario, it happened a lot in ZH, especially against GLA, which would love nothing more to than to send a techterror down one flank while quads attack from the other. Very nasty strat, hard to deal with, but not impossible.'

exactly, it can be countered, but what if it can be counterd easier, when you don't know it is coming. not when its thrown at you in a "what would you do" senerio.

"It is and you do. You want to spend your money as fast as you earn it, so it should always be scarce, no matter how fast you are collecting it."

a man with no money who gets attacked when he has the fewest units and options will die faster then a man who can counter a larger force if his attack dies.


"Some maps are inherently bad and should not be used as example. Twilight Lame is one of them. And no rush games are ignored because thats not how any good player would play."

a map is a map and any map is an example. im sure there are several people who would call many different maps the worst things they have seen in thier life. its their opinion.


"Now you're getting really specific. And now why can't I just send my tanks around the wall and kill the artillery anyways? In past CNCs the most walls you could lay at one time was five squares, it doesn't take any time at all for a tanks to move around five squares and attack the artillery."

when it blocks the only bridge and you get caught with your pants down and no aircraft, you'll see why.


"If you spend (hypothetically) $1000 to stop a rush that could do $2000 worth of damage, but only has a 1/5 chance of happening, you've just wasted an average of $600 dollars not worth it. In the case of walls, their cheaper, but you're still spending some amount of money, in addition to a fairly large amount of micro, when you could just build a service depot and solve your problem. Of course terror drones aren't in CNC3 so all this is irrelevent."

again, come crying back to me every fifth game when you did nothing to stop it from happening.


"The AI is a n00b (a hacker n00b to be exact), so no, playing online doesn't work. The better option is to just discourage n00bs from developing, so that more people online are good. If I couldn't get a good online game because there were too many n00bs, I would go to a different game with less n00bs (any other RTS series has less n00bs than CNC)."

(edit)i took a look at your definition. someone who doesen't know what they are doing and wont admit it. well i can just see how walls makes you not no how to play the game. saying it will develop noobs under your "definition" is no arguement in the first place. walls don't stop you from learning to play the game or even hinder you. they just allow you ways to play it slighty different and get a change in pace. helps it from getting older even quicker then it has too because you have more options. don't even mention noobs again because i can't see it as a viable argument at all.

"They are both games of strategy. Yes a computer is better than a lot of people at chess, but you still only play against the computer to learn because you don't get more satisfaction out of beating a real person. In the same way, you get more satisfaction out of beating someone online than beating the AI for the millionth time.'

but with so many noobs in cnc it sounds like that satification is short lived ethier way. i can't beat the first level of halo 2 on brutal diffucalty yet i can own many games online or at least be in the top standings. the computer can be better then people just because it can be programed to be a crack shot, something not all people can do everygame online.


"Walls and bad options encourage people to become n00bs. If you force them to play well from the beginning by not giving them a crutch, then they will become good. If you give them a crutch, they will become so used to it that they will refuse to play without it."

a newb is a little kid with a broken leg, don't give him a crutch and the process of healing just becomes that much more complicated for everyone involved. thrust a soldier with no training or weapon into a war and he will die. give that soldier a weapon and he can defend himself. train him to use the weapon and he can survive. walls can just be used as a training tool all the way up to a viable defence.


"It won't be. How do I know? Because there is nothing wrong with the APC. The APC would only be changed if A) It was too strong and need to be nerfed (we're discussing buffing the APC, not nerfing it) or B) Something else was too strong and the APC had to be buffed to counter this. Well what are APCs meant to counter? Infantry, do they do this well? Very. So they won't be buffed."

an apc (amoured personal carrier) is meant to get troops from one end of the battle field to another alive, not to counter infantry(all sides have infantry for this purpose) so if it can't do that job then it does need to be buffed.


"If you're better than him early then you are better than him. If he is good in the late game it doesn't matter if he can't even survive into the late game. In Zero Hour the SW gen was a perfect example of this, the Aurora Alphas were amazingly strong late game, and if SW gen could get a couple of those in the air he had pretty much won the game, but his early game was so weak that he would almost always lose early, thus he was actually one of the weakest generals in the game."

again, nope. you can squese my funds early to protect my base but whence things are up and running then my funds can be redirected for more, devivious purposes

"If you are playing on a 1v1 map (and a 1v1 game should always be played on a 1v1 map, for obvious reasons), then you can't send units in the wrong direction.'

when you don't know the map then you can send your units in several wrong directions. im sure youv'e heard of such a thing as a dead end.


"If the game is balanced, then you should have the units already ready.'

adding walls will not unbalance it because all sides would recieve them and they would stop the same things.

"Are you saying that if I have rushed an opponent and I'm about to beat him because he couldn't stop my attack that I should back off and give him a second chance? :wtf: "

never said that. i said you had to beat the first attack. but that doesen't mean i can't dig in from there.


"Turtling never beats rushing, if he is a good player he knows this and won't turtle in the first place."

opinions,opinions,opinions. you may have never been beaten by a turtleler, congratulations, your not everybody.


"Because we are pushing CNC3 to a high level of competetive play, past CNCs were at a very high level of play, so there was only so much damage walls could do. But if we want CNC3 to be on part with games like Starcraft, Warcraft III, and Zero Hour (and we do), then we don't want walls."

again if you can't wait five more seconds for your kill, youv'e got issues


"Are you kidding me? The closer a game is, the better. There is nothing more satisfying than a game where you and your enemy have depleted all the resources on the map and you're sending your last units to attack, you know you won't be able to buy more. You micro as much as you can and in the end you come out just barely on top, and then move in to kill his last factory (you and he both sold everything else to buy as many units as you could). Steamrolling your enemy with a horde of tanks is boring, he never stood a chance. A close game that is down to the wire is much better.'

but if this is so fast paced then when the hell are you finding the time to depelete the resources? and can't walls make a game even closer? letting me save units to battle your last base units for the final attack while my turrets mop up. and doesen't that mean i have more to sell= more units=bigger battle=bigger explosiopns which is what we all want to really see.


"If the walls were that strong they would ruin the "Fast, Fluid, Fun" gameplay."

thats why they get balanced to be just right


Time check: 4:23 Am

"You've got it backwards, MP should be the focus of the agme, SP is the added bonus. And if you look at it, the majority of the "just another game in the row" (for any genre) are either singleplayer entirely or predominantly. Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III are some of the best known FPSs, and none of them have a singleplayer component outside of killing bots over and over again."

tell that to me straight up and i will personally kick you. as ive said before not everyone has the same options as you, dosen't mean we should suffer. at the place where i live faster internet is completely unaviable unless youv'e got an extra 120 to spend each month. check my age, do i look like ive got 120/month just for internet. a games story can make or break it just as much as online.


"Late game engineer rushes won't work very well, the damage will be too insignificant and with tanks all over the battlefield it will be too hard to pull off. The point is that the AI will fall for an early engineer rush over and over and over, because the AI doesn't change. A human may fall for it once or twice, maybe even three times, but he will learn how to counter it (assuming a counter exists, and in this case it does)."

the ai may fall for an early engineer rush, but what does that have to do with a late engineer rush? think things through


"It does if it is the only one that wins (and it is). You're right though that it is only part of the strategy, the rushing period only lasts for the first few minutes before the game moves into the middle game period."

if rushing only works for the first part of the game then what do you call the rest? if rushing is the only way to win and thats over at the first then what do you do in the middle period? think


"Yeah, I only played the TS campaign once. And it took me around 7 years to finish it (I only finished it last summer). Why? Because I got bored too fast and moved on to other games. I finally beat it last summer because I'm more patient now than I was when I first played the game, but it wasn't nearly as fun as a multiplayer game of ZH."

if it takes you 7 years to deffeat a campaign in something that is supposed to be all so much easier the you really ought to rethink some of your arguments. the campigns were not long enough to get that boring.


"Not this time, I don't think so. I think EA is truly trying to make a good game, not just a game that will sell well. Thats why they're pushing "RTS as a Sport" so hard, that really won't sell a whole lot of games, but it will make the game a lot better. If they follow through on their promises then CNC3 will have a multiplayer interface that would make South Korean Starcraft pros drool. The average consumer doesn't care about this, but the pros do, and I think thats what EA is trying to target."

it is the average consumer that will be mostly playing the game, not the small group of people who have enough time on their hands to become the best or just have been playing that long. if you want to play a sport, go outside. i personnally run track and cross country.


"Rushing isn't a single strategy, its a class of strategy. Any strategy that tries to attack the enemy (any part of the enemy) as soon as possible is a rush. The example you gave of sneaking in infantry while distracting with a main assault is a rush, if you do it fast enough. Don't confuse rushing with just building one unit and sending it to battle as fast as possible, thats only one (ineffective) way to rush. There are inumerable possible ways to attack your enemy early, some of which work better than others. But don't think "rushing" will get stale, because there is no such thing as "the" rush, both my opponent and I can choose from a variety of rushes, and the resulting decisions shape the beginning of the game."

rushing is also not the only stratgey, and an emeny can be attacked at any time plus a rush is: a forward charge at an opposing force on the battlefield. the rest is just tactics mixed in with the rush.


Final time check: 4.37


poll results are in:

total voters- 122

yes- 63 - 51.64%

no- 46 - 37.70%

undecided- 6 - 4.92%

only if they could be disabled online- 7 - 5.74%

note: poll results can not be regarded as 100% accurate, people could have voted twice on different sites or there could have been calulation errors. this poll in no way represents the complete cnc community.

[SgtRicko]

It has been a couple of months since the release of C&C3, and we've all had some time to see how the game works with all the details that were missing in the demo (mainly, the Scrin and maps other than SmallTown USA). And now that we have, I feel it's high time that this debate be revived, so as to see the opinion of the players on this forum now.

Personally, I now believe that EA did the right thing by removing the walls in the game, because the pacing and speed of most of the units now make the walls mostly impractical. The only real times I have seen where walls may have come in handy have been against the Scrin's early game units, and for Turtlers who wish to continue to fortify their bases to the point where they no longer have to worry about defending their base anymore(which really isn't possible anymore, even against a comp).


I have said my part. Now, what do you guys think as of now about walls???

[drgNz~]

no_walls.

[Daishi]

I like the idea of walls, but it'd increase the effectiveness of camping strategies.

[Gaucho8788]

Walls to me was just something I did when I was playing against the comp. I would beat him down, then just build a massive base, wall off sections and such. Anyways I can live without them, but just for nostaulgic reason I would like to have them back, thats about it.

[SgtRicko]

I like the idea of walls, but it'd increase the effectiveness of camping strategies.

Given how UP defensive strats are in this game, that really can't be that bad of a thing to implement, really (but it wouldn't much against pros though).

[zach016]

i agree with ya all, walls would be useless online, but i coulden't give a crap, just make them an option, yes an option that could be turned on or off for offline, fun purposes. Ya don't want them, don't turn them on, and if ya want too, ethier make them not buildable online completly or make them to be able to be disabled and incorperate it into a search function so there is absolutly no way it can interupt your life for more then the five seconds to switch to the games with it disabled. in the wise words of staples "that was easy".

[M2M]

how many warning points has derek got already?

[drgNz~]

how many warning points has derek got already?

Regardless, he still makes better posts than you.
Shuttup now.

[M2M]

Regardless, he still makes better posts than you.
Shuttup now.

I see I've made some reputation as well... LOL

[drgNz~]

How about posting on-topic or not posting at all? Your weak flame looks like nothing more than a weak cry for attention. Please refer to the second line of my previous post.

[M2M]

How about posting on-topic or not posting at all? Your weak flame looks like nothing more than a weak cry for attention. Please refer to the second line of my previous post.

flame? nah, go away...

and as for the walls, I think there should be a switch to allow walls or not, they can make an asset though, walling one entrance down so that it is easier to defend two entrances to your base, I say yeah!, just hope they don't do the walls like in ra1, where you have to place every single wall piece :D

ps. about the attention, if I wanted attention, I would go to my gf...

[Daishi]

I don't mind people playing with whatever rules they want in whatever style they want, but when they start dominating the stat system and multiplayer lobbies in unbalanced matches (easily won as long as you pick the faction that your rules turn OP, which for some strange reason not everyone does) it brings out a deep hatred of those matches in me, especially since that's how ZHOL died.

[drgNz~]

Put them in skirmish, that way all the cool base-building super commanders can have their fun offline, whilst the real games go untouched.

flame? nah, go away...I actually might do that, seeing as you're not worth the time nor effort it would take to argue your useless posts.

[M2M]

Put them in skirmish, that way all the cool base-building super commanders can have their fun offline, whilst the real games go untouched.

I actually might do that, seeing as you're not worth the time nor effort it would take to argue your useless posts.

what is it with all those peepz who seem to pray to online games... there is just as much fun in games in an offline match, why else did they build a single player mode and a skirmish mode?

[Daishi]

what is it with all those peepz who seem to pray to online games... there is just as much fun in games in an offline match, why else did they build a single player mode and a skirmish mode?
To teach you how the game is played and make it possible to have fun without a decent internet connection.

[Rolk]

KEEP IT CIVIL. Once again, I say that, I've said it once before in the topic and people still don't ready it. Alright, refrain from attacking the person for their opinion or their post. And I've edited those massive quoting posts due to the ridiculous size.

[M2M]

KEEP IT CIVIL. Once again, I say that, I've said it once before in the topic and people still don't ready it. Alright, refrain from attacking the person for their opinion or their post. And I've edited those massive quoting posts due to the ridiculous size.

sir allright mr supermoderator sir!

and about the walls, lets' just make it allowable like the supplyboxes, and keep 'm out of the official ranked ladder, so that those online-guru's can have it their way :D :D

M2M out

[Daishi]

Agreed. I don't see why it had to get so complicated in this thread. :nuts:

[Derek]

Actually the thread was dead, everyone had gotten tired of 13 page posts, but then SrgtRicko revived it. Bad idea really, I'm not going to get involved in this just because I don't have the time, but all my previously-stated points still stand.

[zach016]

Actually the thread was dead, everyone had gotten tired of 13 page posts, but then SrgtRicko revived it. Bad idea really, I'm not going to get involved in this just because I don't have the time, but all my previously-stated points still stand.

my points also still stand. And Derek, you only think it is a bad idea because you know i will just get in another large argument with you.(plus i got last word in)

[Star Wars Man]

Walls are not in Command and Conquer 3. You hear me? THEY'RE NOT IN CNC3!!! GET OVER IT!!!! Please, quit arguing over this useless topic. This really, really should be locked and thrown in the bin. You don't like it? Deal with it, and mod the game when the SDK gets out.

End of discussion.

[drgNz~]

^^ agreed.

[BlackStorm]

So I guess that the OVERWHELMING numbers of the poll mean....nothing?

[Daishi]

Yep.

There's always the expansion. :)

[CO Valle]

... I wanted to say something but it could start the I'll-die-before-I-finish-to-read-that-post thing again (perhaps not but I won't take that risk), so I guess I'll keep that to myself.

So I'll just say that my points also stand firm.

Perhaps a moderator should close this thread, and if the need arises another thread on this topic will appear... don't take me wrong, I mean no offense but I saw a few weeks back that someone got his new thread on walls closed before it could start, I agree that if threads for a topic are already taking place those are the ones that should be used but after such long post like in this thread I think a fresh start would be better, because no one is going to read all those big post to get the idea on what is going on on the thread...

All I say is that a fresh restart sometimes help.

[Star Wars Man]

The problem with your suggestion is that there isn't going to be a fresh restart. Because walls aren't in CNC3. They're not in it. They're never going to be in it. You think EA's going to come to your house and personally put walls back into your game? Then keep dreaming. It's not going to happen.

End of discussion. (Again. :rolleyes:)

[zach016]

The problem with your suggestion is that there isn't going to be a fresh restart. Because walls aren't in CNC3. They're not in it. They're never going to be in it. You think EA's going to come to your house and personally put walls back into your game? Then keep dreaming. It's not going to happen.

End of discussion. (Again. :rolleyes:)

wow, that's why EA make magical things called patches, where they can change the game however they please. XBOX live marketplace is another example of where things can be added into games by developers to change their games, but your right, it's a stupid idea that everyone hates, lets get rid of it. There is also a thing called demand. It's not one person who wants them. But no, this thread should probably be stopped, im saying that and i made this thread and have been through every post. There also won't be a restart, because then things just get repeated and all point is lost. Now theres some true reasoning for you to think about, not a there won't be a restart just because i said so.

[Soviet779]

The anti-wall arguements in this thread are pointless the people have spoken! 29 votes vs 4, there is no contest here, the pro wall people win!

Walls will be put in cnc3 at some point in some form, i am confident of that. People who dont like walls... well we can laugh in their faces when they are implimented. :D

[Star Wars Man]

Please, I beg you, let this thread and anything about walls die. Just let it die.

[Derek]

The anti-wall arguements in this thread are pointless the people have spoken! 29 votes vs 4, there is no contest here, the pro wall people win!
29 to 4 on a forum where most of the people have no clue how to play RTS right. There was a similar poll at GR.org, where people actually know what they're talking about. You don't want to know the results.

Walls will be put in cnc3 at some point in some form, i am confident of that. People who dont like walls... well we can laugh in their faces when they are implimented. :D
This stage is called "Denial."

[Star Wars Man]

Now we can let this thread die. (Anyone who revives it deserves kick in the face. ;))

[zach016]

29 to 4 on a forum where most of the people have no clue how to play RTS right. There was a similar poll at GR.org, where people actually know what they're talking about. You don't want to know the results.


This stage is called "Denial."

Oh derek im just sure your the only person who knows how to play the game, guess we should all just crawl under a rock and die, give it up, your not the almightly of rts games, i don't care how good you are or how much you know because it obviously isn't enough. And just because you think GR is the only true gaming site doesn't make it that way. I conducted that poll on several sites, and GR.org is the only one where the no's outnumbered the yes's, stop trying to fall back on them, Again just because you say it's so, dosen't make it so, so stop with the crap how noone know's how to play an rts. It's a game and the rules are simple, win. Not that complicated and were not idiots.

[Star Wars Man]

Let. The. Thread. Die.

Let it Die! Quit Posting About Walls!!! THEY'RE NOT IN! YOU HEAR ME? NOT IN! :gnasher:

[zach016]

Let. The. Thread. Die.

Let it Die! Quit Posting About Walls!!! THEY'RE NOT IN! YOU HEAR ME? NOT IN! :gnasher:

the thread will die when it dies, why do you keep coming back, just don't visit the thread. Some people may want walls and have something to discuss about it, you don't have to read it if you don't want too. Plus just because they are not there, doesn't mean they can't go there. Nothing ever got done by sitting around and doing nothing. If man wants a river in his back yard then if possible(river nearby) he can make that river, but first he has to get up and do it, not claim it's not there why should i bother.

[Star Wars Man]

But you don't understand. EA isn't going to put walls into Command and Conquer 3. It's already out. What, are they going to recall all the games in order to put walls in? I don't think so. Besides, if people want walls, they can mod the game. Simple as that.

And I wish a mod would lock this thread. It's pointless now.

[Derek]

Agreed. This is getting stupid. Please lock this.

[Soviet779]

Let. The. Thread. Die.

Let it Die! Quit Posting About Walls!!! THEY'RE NOT IN! YOU HEAR ME? NOT IN! :gnasher:

Are you a moderator? no, then shut your piehole unless youve got somthing to contribute rather than winge about a thread you dont like, your last 3 PUHLEEZ LET IT DIE OR ILL CRY type posts havent furthered your goal of having this thread die.

Also your point about walls is bullcrap, they could put walls in EASILY, theyve already said so. Ever heard of a patch? no? google it.

[zach016]

Agreed. This is getting stupid. Please lock this.

again, you don't want to hear about it just don't post or visit, stop trying to lock a thread down just because you think it's stupid. You're going at that, everyone should listen to me and only me thing again, and thats what started this thread in the first place, don't forget you asked for it, i provided, now it's out of your hands and you can't stand it.But you don't understand. EA isn't going to put walls into Command and Conquer 3. It's already out. What, are they going to recall all the games in order to put walls in? I don't think so. Besides, if people want walls, they can mod the game. Simple as that.

And I wish a mod would lock this thread. It's pointless now.


i want you to try something called READING THE POSTS JUST AFTER YOU STARTED. You'll find that i already provided the answer, don't rush into something already covered easily. Plus people shoulden't have to mod walls in, that just takes time away from people starting up the greater mods that add in complete new sides or conversions plus we still have yet to get the tools to do so while EA could do it in two minutes. They know there game inside and out, we don't.

[Star Wars Man]

I did read your posts. What I saw was pointless whining about walls not being in CNC3. So, I decided to whine about you complaining about walls, so you could easily understand me. But now that you've gotten your point across (More times then we'd like), and the game is out with no walls, arguing about this is now useless and flame-bait. Yet you continue to whine, complain, and bicker, using false hope and denial as your motivation. You are a classic example of what happens when a young child is walked by a toy store, and wants something, but has to continue on. Instead of going peacefully, you kick and scream until you're blue in the face.

I would continue on, but then I'd sink to your level. So that's all I'm going to say.

[Apolo]

:wave: I may not be a significant member of the den community but can't you guys stop this argument for all time sake at the end of the day it's just a game were all intrested in no point going bannans over this lol:)

(im sure this has been mentioned all ready but i just felt like saying it agin)

[Star Wars Man]

It's the point I tried to get across a long time ago. Now it's just flaming in this thread. I just wish this would stop until the SDK come out.

And whoever neg repped me, have the guts to sign your rep. You know who you are.

[zach016]

It's the point I tried to get across a long time ago. Now it's just flaming in this thread. I just wish this would stop until the SDK come out.

And whoever neg repped me, have the guts to sign your rep. You know who you are.

and you are just as dirty handed as the rest of us. I can tell you didn't read the posts i told you too. They were answers on how they could be incorparted, not why they should or shoulden't be. Yet you hit back with the were all winers post. Some of us still want walls, it is still possible to recieve walls, and every argument throughout this thread has had reasoning behind why or why not. Then you came in and told us to shut it down with no reason except there not there. You get nothing by sitting around and doing nothing. This may have gone far, but not that far to insult us. This is no child screaming, there's a thing called true reasoning behind it and it's your lack of reasoning and complete screaming, something nobody else had that may have got you neg. reped.(i didn't neg rep you though, but somebody neg reped me too with no sig, your not alone on that for this thread.)

[Star Wars Man]

Zach, I am going to tell you this as calmly as I possibly can: Walls are not in CnC 3. The only way that they are going to be in is when a modder puts them back in when the Software Development Kit comes out, which will hopefully be soon. Once that happens, walls will be in. And that is the only way walls are going to be in. EA will not release a patch or anything like that that will put walls back in. As far as they're concerned, the only thing they have to do is bug fixing. That's it. So, basically, the only thing we can do is wait for the SDK.

I will tell you one thing, though. I am experienced that XML coding (which is the base of CnC3's files). As soon as that SDK comes out, I will try to put walls back in, ok? That way you do not have to wait for someone else to do it first. That way, you can have your walls and be satisfied. But as far as this thread is concerned, walls aren't in.

[zach016]

Zach, I am going to tell you this as calmly as I possibly can: Walls are not in CnC 3. The only way that they are going to be in is when a modder puts them back in when the Software Development Kit comes out, which will hopefully be soon. Once that happens, walls will be in. And that is the only way walls are going to be in. EA will not release a patch or anything like that that will put walls back in. As far as they're concerned, the only thing they have to do is bug fixing. That's it. So, basically, the only thing we can do is wait for the SDK.

I will tell you one thing, though. I am experienced that XML coding (which is the base of CnC3's files). As soon as that SDK comes out, I will try to put walls back in, ok? That way you do not have to wait for someone else to do it first. That way, you can have your walls and be satisfied. But as far as this thread is concerned, walls aren't in.


i hate to repeat this and i like your offer but if you would please actually read my posts around when you started to ask this thread to die you would notice a few things important.

1. how they could be put in

2. Why EA could easily do it and why they should(bit farther back)

3.why they should be put in(whole thread)

4. i agreed that this thread should die off a bit back, but my opinon turned when you woulden't stop with the let it die posts.

5. my comp can't actually play cnc3, i play it at my friends all the time and want them to be put in both the comp and 360 versions, not just one

[Derek]

They're not going to put walls in the game. Is it that hard for you to understand? There are no walls in CNC3. There never will be. Give it up, you lost.

[Soviet779]

They're not going to put walls in the game. Is it that hard for you to understand? There are no walls in CNC3. There never will be. Give it up, you lost.

How do you know? Your not part of the dev team.

[Camel]

:rolleyes: Repetitive argument...thread closed!:p