Too Much, Too Fast

[USN Diesel]

This is my first post, but i've more or less been part of the community for years. I've played Command and Conquer since the beginning and visited the Den as long as it's been around. With that said.

I've never liked the Red Alert Series since Red Alert 2 came out. I liked the serious CNC like RA1 and the Tiberium games, not the campy kids side. Generals, was somewhat fun, but it wasn't Command and Conquer in my opinion.

EA made Tiberium Wars a great game. They brought back Joe Kucan, a wise move. They stayed true to the Tiberium story fairly well and they made an excellent game. I've heard people say they need to modernize CNC. Why? People buy CNC for a reason, it's a tried and true formula and people love it. I've heard far more protests of a population cap, no bases, no tiberium (a new economy in the game which is indirectly tiberium), and no playing if you don't want to play online. This is way too many bad moves in a row.

People LOVE the massive tank battles. They don't want a cap. I know people that build bases and units for days on end, just to see what they can do. That is why they buy the game. That is their fun. Taking away bases, who doesn't like building a elaborate base. That's fun. I don't like playing online. Every time i play online everyone is better than me and i always get massacred in 30 seconds. Let me play alone. I realize that i can, but why do i need the internet. It is like EA wants to lose money. Now if you don't have internet, you can't play it. Bad move.

I've heard the line, "we are trying to simplify it for beginners." It is the fourth game if your not counting the expansions in the Tiberium series. Most of these fans are already loyal and know how to play. Simplify when you start a series. In a book or a movie, is the exciting conclusion simplified, hell no. I don't know what EA is thinking here. It is obvious they can make CNC good, i loved Tiberium Wars, but i'm scared they are about to ruin a good thing right as they are trying to steal home plate.

I love the Tiberium series, test this new stuff out on a new game. Start a new series and test out your new toys. Or create a new CNC series even. People love CNC how it is, that is why they fly off the shelf. Sites like CNCDEN wouldn't exist if nobody loved the formula that already works. From the polls i've seen, most people don't want this already. Some of it might grow on them, but shouldn't this be sending off red flags at EA?

[HawkEye1102002]

Good first post I must say, and I (and probibly many others) agree with lots of things what you said (although I did enjoy RA2)

In my view, I am starting to wonder if C&C4 will be a DoW2 clone, don't get me wrong, I like DoW2, but C&C is NOT DoW2 and EA must realise that.

C&C sells because it uses the tried and tested formula that they evolved from what Westwood started, but they risk damaging the name "Command & Conquer" if C&C4 fails misrably with the PC Gaming magazines and websites.

If Command & Conquer is damaged beyond repair, EA will just brush the title aside or re-invent it by making another universe. With the long time fans of C&C, I belive that many of us hold what has become the Tiberium "universe" closest to their hearts, but people new to C&C since Generals will not care as much about the Tiberium "universe" and recognize "Command & Conquer" not as an epic story as Westwood intendid it to be (They were going to tie in RA2 with Nod, I remember seeing a compleated and skinned model of a Kirov airship with a variant of a Nod symbol)

What EA has done to Command & Conquer is nothing less than an injustice to the game in my oppinion, at first I felt that people was jumping the gun with the vision that EA is the devil and when C&C3 was releaced and, to me, how great it was and how much it evolved (with unit sizes more or less realistic), then came news about RA3, I was so confident that EA will finally tie in Red Alert with TD that when I read how the story was going to be, I felt let down, although the gameplay was good but not as good as C&C3:TW and the campaign was rather short, I also felt RA3 just got out of hand with the "sillyness" involved

Sorry about the rant, it is just me as a long time C&C fan that feels dissapointed with its new owners destroying it and not caring for what greatness it once was and what it represented as a game of innovation

[USN Diesel]

I fully agree. Part of me wonders, is this just a big EA gag, "Hey we got ya. Don't worry CNC4 really looks like this..." I doubt this is the case though. I would just like a petition to EA...it is early enough right now, listen to the people that are going to buy your game.

I can buy that Tiberium is so overrun that this new harvesting system may work. But don't take away traditional basebuilding. And PLEASE, don't put a population cap on it. I've played many RTS games, and i've always felt that gathering 5 resources (gold, steel, knowledge, etc) is overkill, and a population cap always holds a good game back from being great. Why do you think GTA and Saint's Row sell so well...they are open ended game play. The rules are relaxed. People get told what to do and how to play their whole lives, video games are releases from life, no rules.

I would sign a petition, or if someone from EA that was designing CNC saw this, please take this post into consideration.

[HawkEye1102002]

I think EA knows we are currently dissapointed and thinking they are too far into development to change it, so what do they do, insert Mammoth Tank & Mastodon Walker and think the internet will be rining out "C&C4 will r0x0r your s0x0r" from the older C&C fans.

As EA is a massive company, they can afford to screw up what was once the most respectable and epic title in gaming history to see "if it works"

Will I buy C&C4?
Time Will Tell

[EliteGi]

EA aren't going to listen to petitions, the most they would do is mildly change a couple of minor points in the game and claim it as a compromise. I myself, am quite glad they are changing so many things because IMHO, they should either stick to the true C&C formula (up to RA2), or completely change everything as much as they can. TBH I hated C&C3. I liked the storylines, a bit, but the gameplay is as fun as the bubonic plague, IMHO. I haven't played RA3 much but from what I have played of it, I hate it too. Terrible unit design, terrible acting, terrible style and generally pants. I didn't like generals either, that was bland and generic, though at least the gameplay was decent, just not to my taste.

Unless they go back to the real, original C&C formula or change it completely, chances are I'll hate the game.

[Derek]

Terrible unit design,
lol

[EliteGi]

lol
Yes it's laughable. I'm talking about the bears, the vehicles that shoot infantry out of them etc. Absolutely rediculous, and a complete shambles when compared to the original Red Alert.

[Frost Phantom]

i dont realy mind unit caps cuz its just a different form of RTS that focuses more on unit control than unit numbers....i know from playing WC3 that against a player that is realy good at microing, you could actually lose a battle even if you got twice the number of units...

but yes, i'd prefer it if they stayed with old school cnc style and just let me throw 100 scorps at my enemy just to screw with them XD

[Statalyzer]

I'm talking about the bears, the vehicles that shoot infantry out of them etc

That's not bad unit design. It's over the top sillyness, but not bad design.

i know from playing WC3 that against a player that is realy good at microing, you could actually lose a battle even if you got twice the number of units...

True, but that's not a good argument in favor of caps.

[USN Diesel]

My point is this, it is the finale. The series ender. The big bang. Why alter everything SO much on the final chapter. People already know how to play. There has never been a population cap. Other games have population caps, people buy CNC because of how it is. For the last chapter, make a great story, great new units and so forth. Tiberium harvesting, i can let that go without much issue. But population caps and no bases are just too much. Halo Wars was similar and i looked forward to it greatly, but upon playing it, there were too many restrictions. Too small an army. You had to build buildings how they wanted you to. This is the same thing.

[Frost Phantom]

yeah, but EA dont realy care about classics and watnot, they know that the old CNC fans will buy this to find out the way the tiberium story ends, so they are just messing around with it to hopefully attract more players. and as someone has pointed out before somewhere, EA is a large enough company for them to be able to afford to screw up an entire franchise like the CNC one just to test out wat their target market likes....

and i think this is gonna be more like WC3 than anything else, from the stuff they've released, its gonna have a pop cap to force you to build smart rather than build lots, and then the battles are gonna be determined by wat kind of upgrades (or powers) you got and how good your microing skill is. which is pretty much the same as WC3

[HawkEye1102002]

Population caps only work on certain games such as Starcraft, it will not go down so well with C&C games, C&C games have the reputation of "TANK RUSH"

One thing I do hope C&C4 will not have is all this "second ability" stuff RA3 had, it looked good on paper, but in practice, it introduced an unnececery layer of micromanagment which distracted me on combat and missions.

Another pitty is that there is still no navy, RA3 naval support was fine but the addition of water maps went overboard (too many water maps) and I wasn't really fond of having so many amphibious buildings and units

[Daishi]

EA has made bad design choices and worse support choices for every RTS they released since Dustin Browder (lead designer of RA2, Generals, Starcraft 2) left to work for Blizzard. Given the time it takes the Evil Empire to release these patches, you'd think the devs would put a little more thought into them.

This was the fate of virtually everything in C&C3. When the initial feedback for C&C3 was "OH GOD IT'S TOO FAST AND TOO TANKSPAMMY", they nerfed tanks to hell while making every slow unit more worthwhile. When their poorly-implemented field system became a runaway economy, they decided to nerf the **** out of the economy and keep it simple in every future game instead of properly implementing the Exponential Tiberium Growth (big fields grow faster) that would have prevented stripmining from being a dominant strategy in the first place. When defenses started getting spammed and bases started creeping across the map, they failed to acknowledge that the problem was not spammable defenses, but COLOSSAL BUILD RADII. When imbalances started to occur early- to mid-game they normalized all the gathering rates and expansion speeds. This is not how you fix an imbalanced RTS, this is how you remove the few faction distinctions that were present at release.

Read an ancient review of Tiberium Wars. They praised the game for being extremely fast-paced. What's left? Nothing special, nothing engaging. And C&C4 is just picking up where they left off: they're developing this game as safely as they can imagine doing it, trying to drive the noobs further into the genre by making a simple, slow-paced modern RTS.

One thing I do hope C&C4 will not have is all this "second ability" stuff RA3 had, it looked good on paper, but in practice, it introduced an unnececery layer of micromanagment which distracted me on combat and missions.

In an RTS, the more micro potential a player's forces have, the greater the frequency of creative tactics and the more possible it is to overcome the economic odds through instances of focused execution. While I agree that it was distracting at first, I feel it gave the game a lot of replay value overall since the player had to function on so many scales at once in order to keep the initiative, and epic comebacks could be had regardless of economic strength, which wasn't the case in C&C3 (more money always won)

Another pitty is that there is still no navy, RA3 naval support was fine but the addition of water maps went overboard (too many water maps) and I wasn't really fond of having so many amphibious buildings and units

I wholeheartedly agree. The Navy in the RA series' multiplayer was never meant to be anything more than a means of keeping the enemy capital ships out of your territory; support units for your versatile ground force, much like your air units, but with less punch and more defensive staying power.

[Frost Phantom]

well, you can still tank rush even with a pop cap...just means you gotta do it faster...attack bike/seeker/pitbull rushs do still occasionally work...

[Dracaveli]

Whatever they put in this game, it can be no worse then RA3.

Hell, who would of thought I ended up liking the Tib Series over the RA series.:dismay:

[Childstar]

i'd have to agree with the OP...

[HawkEye1102002]

I wholeheartedly agree. The Navy in the RA series' multiplayer was never meant to be anything more than a means of keeping the enemy capital ships out of your territory; support units for your versatile ground force, much like your air units, but with less punch and more defensive staying power.

One problem I faced was I could easily win an RA3 game by simply doing a Destroyer spam if I make sure I have the resources for it, and submerged units was another way of "stealthing" a unit, RA3 could have had a much more developed and thought through navy if EA decided not to make it like some cartoon.

I would have the navy only stay in the sea and only have some anphibious units (not the overkill EA had in mind), I would have had the Navy as offensive support (battleship, cruisers etc) and the first line of defense (Destroyers, cruisers etc to stop an invasion and stop air/naval assaults) and have the anphibious to transport forces over the pond as well as light support - RA3's navy has too much offense and very little defense - and way too much strong anphibious vehicles.

I never understood EA's decision not to keep the C&C3 mechanics and switch to a slightly updated version of the previous C&Cs (bar Generals), as far as I can see, C&C3 and Generals has the best mechanics of all the C&C series where you can position any building the way you like and wheeled vehicles has to move to turn, unlike RA3 where they can turn 360 degrees like a treaded vehicle.

One thing I must say is when I played the RA3 demo, everything seemed great (not brilliant), but when I played the full version, I did feel let down by the short length of the campaign, the cartoonish feel, and the playboy style of dressing of female characters could have been downplayed a bit

[Frost Phantom]

not that im against hot babes in skimpy cloth, but i also thought they wasted too much money on hiring hollywood babes for the roles when there are plenty of hot chics off the street willing to be actors for much less pay...

[Statalyzer]

Dustin Browder (lead designer of RA2, Generals, Starcraft 2) left to work for Blizzard

That explains a lot.

[HawkEye1102002]

not that im against hot babes in skimpy cloth, but i also thought they wasted too much money on hiring hollywood babes for the roles when there are plenty of hot chics off the street willing to be actors for much less pay...

And that is exactly why RA3 failed for me, EA was going after mostly wrestlers and well known hollywood actresses, too much effort was put in to hireing them for the FMV and "sexing" it up, while too little effort was going in for the gameplay, story and concept (I am pritty certain EA made some units have certain capabilities out of panic) - Westwood did nothing of the sort in Red Alert (Ok, they had a smaller budget but the FMV was still great).

Now back onto C&C4, EA has not listened to the fans one bit, here we are voicing our concerns about the game itself, the story sounds fine so far, I am still not buying the idea of removing bases and also removing harvesting for the sake of the so-called "casual" player and as I said, EA can affort to screw things up, and I do feel C&C4 is a guinia pig to see if people like the "changes" they have made for it

Westwood never had this luxury, even under the wing of EA, they failed in Renegade because from what I see, people were complaining about the ammount of time it took to be releaced and so releaced a half-baked game (to be fair, the campaign from the first level up to the cargo ship level was quite good, it went downhill afterwards) and once they released a game that had bad sales, EA closed down Westwood.

EA should not be dumbing down the game so that "inexperienced" gamers can play, what is their definition of inexperienced, someone who has never played a strategy game before?
That could mean almost anything like someone who has experience of FPS games and does not play strategy games - and there might be a chance that the player does not like strategy games - there are too many possibilities and it means there is no excuse to dumb down the gameplay.

Tutorials was put into the previous C&C games (and other strategy games) for a reason, and there is a reason that the first level of any game is more or less - easy.

[Cylon Crusader]

When Ea took over CNC, it was the end of an era. EA is the polar opposite of game companies that stand behind their games, EA releases new games/expansions for CNC almost every 6 months, not to mention countless updates and patches to keep the game going.

I was hoping for the best with RA3, and while some may agree it was a good game, it failed miserably in comparison to older CNC games. It was all flash and no substance, there was no story and some of the units were too overpowered.

CNC 4 is going to be the last hurrah from the tiberium universe, and i'd rather it not be a dismal failure.

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

The death of an epic series seems nigh.

[Derek]

I was hoping for the best with RA3, and while some may agree it was a good game, it failed miserably in comparison to older CNC games. It was all flash and no substance, there was no story and some of the units were too overpowered.
People who don't know what they're talking about really shouldn't say anything at all. :|

[Ivan_Moscavich]

People who don't know what they're talking about really shouldn't say anything at all. :|

Yes Derek, quite sound advice, wonder if you happened to take that.

On a side note, I won't be participating in this thread because I believe USN can and will say just about anything I would or will, though in a less confrontational and more diplomatic manner.

Carry on.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Oh sure, everyone stops as I appear in the thread.

Bastards...

[Frost Phantom]

yep, nothing speaks louder than silence :P

[Cylor]

I'm pretty much in agreement with USN Diesel. Personally, I love C&C3; I feel that it was a near-perfect mix of new and old styles. But I didn't like RA3 predominantly because of two things...one, most of the units looked like shiny plastic toys, and two, the gameplay felt like they were trying too many Blizzard-inspired elements into the C&C formula.

Now, I love Blizzard's RTS games, and hell, I even liked Generals. But RA3 felt slapped together and like a forced mixture of two things I love, but for totally different reasons, and it just didn't work. And it looks like they are going even further in that direction with C&C4. In which case...I really can't bring myself to care.

What EA should realize is that you can't be all things to all people. Given the choice, the people who want Starcraft II are not going to settle for a half-assed SC wannabe -- why should they? By the same logic, the people who buy C&C games are probably, I suspect, going to do so because they want to play Command & Conquer.

This is one of those universal truths of life that shouldn't be hard to figure out, and yet it seems like some are just unable to do so.

By the way, looking at the new screenshots (and I'm probably way behind the times, and I haven't been keeping up on all the news)...did the Scrin just leave, or what? 'Cause, to be honest, I'd be completely okay with it if they did -- I hate the Scrin with a deep and abiding passion -- but...that might be sorta tricky to explain, y'know?

[Camel]

:DWelcome to the DGNF, USN Diesel, feel free to post in other forum topics as well!:wave:

Edit: EA suck, period, not much can be done about them......

[Frost Phantom]

but this is prolly why they are putting so much emphasis on the fact that it will be the last in the series.... i know im prolly gonna hate c&C4, but im still gonna buy it just to see the ending to one of my favourite game storyline. and so will heaps of other c&c fans.

the one thing i hate most is the fact that even though this will be the "last" of the tiberium series, i know for a fact that they will release more in the future in terms of expansions or "in between" storylines. its a typical marketing scam all the big companies use.

[Cylon Crusader]

I'm pretty much in agreement with USN Diesel. Personally, I love C&C3; I feel that it was a near-perfect mix of new and old styles. But I didn't like RA3 predominantly because of two things...one, most of the units looked like shiny plastic toys, and two, the gameplay felt like they were trying too many Blizzard-inspired elements into the C&C formula.

Now, I love Blizzard's RTS games, and hell, I even liked Generals. But RA3 felt slapped together and like a forced mixture of two things I love, but for totally different reasons, and it just didn't work. And it looks like they are going even further in that direction with C&C4. In which case...I really can't bring myself to care.

What EA should realize is that you can't be all things to all people. Given the choice, the people who want Starcraft II are not going to settle for a half-assed SC wannabe -- why should they? By the same logic, the people who buy C&C games are probably, I suspect, going to do so because they want to play Command & Conquer.

This is one of those universal truths of life that shouldn't be hard to figure out, and yet it seems like some are just unable to do so.

By the way, looking at the new screenshots (and I'm probably way behind the times, and I haven't been keeping up on all the news)...did the Scrin just leave, or what? 'Cause, to be honest, I'd be completely okay with it if they did -- I hate the Scrin with a deep and abiding passion -- but...that might be sorta tricky to explain, y'know?

Agreed without a shadow of a doubt.

[Avapodnaught]

Despite the typical Westwood story for Command and Conquer 3 with all the CABAL machine madness attempting to take over the world, I still think the designs are top notch and would have made an enjoyable game

I honestly believe despite the tacky storyline Westwood had, they could have still made a badass game with a serious atmosphere and great gameplay

I base this on RA3 being an enjoyable game with quite a few diverse units (in their abilities and all, making the main game play different for each faction when it comes to battle), even with its ridiculous storyline


I like the Scrin because of their design but their usage was too much of a counterpart of Nod and GDI...
While with the CABAL units, you could tell they would have had rather unique usage...

[Coldwar05]

EA should not be dumbing down the game so that "inexperienced" gamers can play, what is their definition of inexperienced, someone who has never played a strategy game before?
That could mean almost anything like someone who has experience of FPS games and does not play strategy games - and there might be a chance that the player does not like strategy games - there are too many possibilities and it means there is no excuse to dumb down the gameplay.

I reply to a realtive point of opinion to say this: "The best way to become a much better player is to do these of the following:
1. Lose to other players and SEE how they play.
2. Innovate ideas, tactics, build ques, whatever! To better your own game play.
3. Find a stratagy you can work with and use your loses to learn how to become a better player."

Believe it out not we all didnt start off as the best as we can do now. Making the game easier for the new guys... doesnt teach them how to play, you just limiting their defeats of ablity to show without restraints what you can do, by adding the rules EA has made, I think it will only go downhill in getting people who wish to show they ideas on the battlefield to beat someone's else attacks. I personally love enormous battles, because it takes some microing around the clock to pull out vicotorous, but limiting the numbers is bad because lets say u needed liek 10 more units, oh but whats this? How can we pull of the victory that could have been yours if you cant make the units you NEED later on? For what reason? I cant make them because of this **** unit cap?, EA is messing up the main core to the game, whiching how its played with lose a lot of people.
But this doesnt mean I am not gonna buy it... unluckly I am a hardcore C&C fan... I will more than unlikely buy all the C&C games cause to me it has good game play, but limiting to what we can do... may end my trust to C&C its self... this is over the line modifications that should be tested on a different game, any other game but the endings of a story line, worst time to try it.

[truefeel]

He has a point. I remember back in the days I was playing RA2. I won almost nothing the first few weeks. Infact I was a bad player for a year until I started focussing on my play, I got a bit better, played more actively, played better players, learned alot of stuff from them, got again better,... .

I think if you would focus on getting better, and use the right steps doing so, it would not take so much time, but again you need to be determined to get better; you actually need to forget the fun factor for it.

[Frost Phantom]

thats all good if your a serious gamer, but for the casual players, what would happen is that they will lose continuously, then get annoyed and stop playing.
mind you, limiting the playing strategies wouldnt help that issue though...

[Avapodnaught]

Frost, that sounds like a terrible way to invest in a game...
When one purchases a game, plays a few matches, and it has a skill ceiling that much higher than them they shouldn't just give in
In fact, they should either start playing games where their skill level is only against the CPU, or stop buying competitive (strategic) games altogether

I think that would say more about the player and not the game itself, despite its terrible features
It would not be worth their time to purchase a game they would not try and get better at, just because it could prove to have challenges

[Daishi]

Agreed. Any game not eventually played to its fullest is a bad purchase.

Unless you're a collector like me :3

[Frost Phantom]

yeah, but thats the typical viewpoint of a serious gamer. most casual gamers would just play for fun.

i do love the feeling of absolutely pwning someone online, but playing casual games against my rl friends and just building up MASSIVE armies to duke it out is usually more fun than the usual metagame build orders...

[Cylor]

Agreed without a shadow of a doubt.
So say we all! :D

[Daishi]

playing casual games against my rl friends and just building up MASSIVE armies to duke it out is usually more fun than the usual metagame build orders...

I don't really like dicking around in an RTS if I'm not somehow improving or at least challenging myself in the process. Don't cost yourself the game by doing something like that and you can make your first attack force as MASSIVE as you prefer. Whatever works.

Look at it this way. The game doesn't need to be over in 10 minutes. You don't even need to attack during that period of time. But the faction balance in every C&C game so far has been based on timing. One army was always at a disadvantage if it lost the initiative and one army was unstoppable if it ever gained it. This has been true in every core title yet released, meaning the only way to stand a chance in any kind of battle was to keep the enemy on his toes and punish him for every vulnerability he creates for himself.

[truefeel]

Yeh, like Daishi said: initiative is key. You don't necessarily have to attack your opponent; it's the same as in every game: if you play the right way you don't have to attack your opponent, but if you play sloppy begin game just to have a massive army late game, you just ask for things like being rushed. Play like you will get rushed and you normally will NOT get rushed. Show you are in a strong position and the opponent will not even think about trying to take the game length to a minimum.

[Frost Phantom]

you guys are all failing to grasp the fact that playing the same build order over and over purely for the sake of winning isnt everyone's idea of fun.

messing around with friends to see all the stupid things you could do or allying against some computers then randomly force attacking ur friends just to screw with them is usually more fun than playing purely competitively online....

yes winning is awesome, but its isnt always fun, i get bored of most RTS really fast cuz after a month, online play pretty much becomes either build things in this order or lose.

its all about perception, casual gamers arent gonna be as die hard about winning, as long as they have fun playing.

[EliteGi]

They don't play the same build orders all the time. I played TS to a good standard but never used specific build orders, that was part of the fun. I'd build whatever I felt like building and trust my economy management to be more than good enough to carry me through the game, since that was a very strong part of my game.

Even at a competitive level, you should be having bags of fun though. You should have playing partners and buddies who also play at a good level, and there's no reason you should be having less fun than those goofing around with bases and huge armies. At least that's how it's always worked for me, I would have never played TS for so long otherwise.

[truefeel]

you guys are all failing to grasp the fact that playing the same build order over and over purely for the sake of winning isnt everyone's idea of fun.

Wow, you couldn't be anything more wrong then that. Firstly every position at every map almost always has a different standard used BO. Second you can easily use a different BO. Ok, you can't change that much if you want to be competitive, but a small change like sell mcv after radar or no radar at all can make a huge impact.
And admit it: when you play a game -against an AI or human player- you play to win don't ya, no matter what rules you lay down or not. Nobody here has fun with deliberately loosing.

messing around with friends to see all the stupid things you could do or allying against some computers then randomly force attacking ur friends just to screw with them is usually more fun than playing purely competitively online....

Yeh of course such things are fun. But would they be for instance fun when you play a match against opponents who or more less equal to your team, then in the middle of a battle your friend force attacks you? I don't think so. You ussually mess around b/c you obviously have the upperhand.

yes winning is awesome, but its isnt always fun, i get bored of most RTS really fast cuz after a month, online play pretty much becomes either build things in this order or lose.

Winning is not fun when you easily can defeat your opponent. Making rules which favour your play only works that in the hand. If you play against a tuff player and you win against it after a hard battle or even loose against him, given you played to win, then you will know what fun is!

And yeh, you need to follow standard things to get up with better players, but there's still so much room for creativity and EA did a hell of a job with RA3 to do expand that room. Also: if you can compete with the good players, not a single match is the same, no matter what.

Besides, isn't building mass armies not the same as you described? Yeh, you build first alot of miners and tech up to the high tiers units and then you build your army. Dunno about that, but that's really boring. With no rules you atleast can choose: Am I going to rush or am I going to focus more on defending and economy early game. Would I take the risk of going early middle tier or should I first expand to get more resources. Mind you that you infact CAN vary alot with your BO, as long as you can keep your opponent from doing any serious damage.

its all about perception, casual gamers arent gonna be as die hard about winning, as long as they have fun playing.

but the die-hard players also play for fun, but only without rules, which makes it extra fun. Do you think that I didn't messed around when I played RA2 at a high level? Lol, when games got long I did alot of crazy stuff together with teammates, like messing around with crazy ivan IFVs, or chrono'd curtained kirovs. Hell, I even force fired my nuke reactor when my enemy was near it. I did that at a high competitive level of RA2. So think again if there's no room for messing around.

[Frost Phantom]

which is y i said earlier that there is more to a game than coming first online. and you lot started shooting it down because apparently its impossible to have fun without winning and it would be pointless to get a game.


and by messing around, i mean stuff like as your ally is about to enter combat with a massive group of opponents, throw a nuke on his army just to annoy them.

and regardless of how many "differnt" BOs there are, they're all based around the same concept of spam refineries and tanks. keep moving your base around to new patchs of tib, attack with large number of tanks. harrass enemy economy, etc.

[truefeel]

Yeh, and the big job of your opponent is to keep you from doing that, so don't think it is that simple. or boring.

[Daishi]

which is y i said earlier that there is more to a game than coming first online. and you lot started shooting it down because apparently its impossible to have fun without winning and it would be pointless to get a game.
That's not what we implied at all. Are you asking us to respect gamers that don't even TRY for the win conditions?

The point is to do your best. If you don't want to improve or win, at least give your opponent the respect he deserves as a fellow gamer, and provide him with a little effort. But if you don't even pursue that game-defining victory and choose instead to endlessly dick around in-game, you're the equivalent of the Warhammer 40k tabletop fanbase that would rather paint and trade figurines than actually touch the damn game they're used in. Such people cannot be factored into the metagame and consequently must be excluded from any serious discussion involving the game.

Nevertheless, these people buy the game and the materials needed, and the top selling titles of today THRIVE off of these pseudo-gamers. Since they have such a big impact on sales, the game developers will inevitably place emphasis on what they love most about the game instead of the complex or at least challenging framework that defines an interesting, original game.

What does this mean to you? An intrinsic property of the "casual video gaming" crowd is that they buy games based on what appeals immediately to their senses and imagination. Because they put virtually no effort into learning the intricacies of the game, the developers will remove what is unimportant and destroy the complexity (http://insomnia.ac/reviews/pc/teamfortress2/) - the lasting appeal of a game - to make it more interesting the first few times it is played and ensure that the sequel will satisfy the fans' desire for more. This resulted in today's games being an endless supply of rehashes, the title having been developed before with twice the intricacies on a primitive, albeit solid engine.

And back in the day, a game didn't have to be dumbed down to the point of degeneration to be easy to pick up and learn. It just had to have a simple premise and captivating mechanics. That's all changed in the xbox era, and when complaints come for when a vital factor is removed, the developers always reply "CUT THAT OUT MAN, THINK OF THE NOOBS." (http://www.cncden.com/index.php?start_from=&ucat=22&subaction=showcomments&id=1248541061&archive=1249315484&)

and by messing around, i mean stuff like as your ally is about to enter combat with a massive group of opponents, throw a nuke on his army just to annoy them. This utilization of superweapons and support powers has been a staple of the C&C series since its conception, especially at the higher levels of play.

and regardless of how many "different" BOs there are, they're all based around the same concept of spam refineries and tanks. keep moving your base around to new patchs of tib, attack with large number of tanks. harrass enemy economy, etc.I don't understand why you need to shoot down the very fundamentals of RTS design* to make your point. Everything that is possible for ANYONE playing a C&C game stems from those very concepts you listed - including the pseudo-gamers (that you are defending) that buy and play games passively.

Alternatively, if you think full-out expansion/tank mass is the basic goal of every BO, you missed a few excellent C&C titles. Screw that, you missed like 90% of the genre.

*(if it didn't have economy it would be an RTT, if it didn't have a harassment it would be a repetitive war of attrition, if it didn't have assault forces then it would be the first RTS of its kind)

[Frost Phantom]

well last time i played kanes wrath online, scorpion tank spam was still the most popular strategy. and that is the most boring strategy ever cuz the only part of it that requires skill is microing... there isnt any though put into countering your opponent's units, just spam scorpys at them and keep pressuring them till they stuff up. in other words, usually boring. obviously if you have a really good opponent then it might make the game a bit more interesting, but still after playing the same BO over and over for 5/6/7/8 hours in a row (yes i get bored sometimes and play for a day straight), it gets repetitive and annoying.
whereas i play dota casually with my friends fortnightly and i've yet to get bored of that.

which is why playing the game purely to get better at it and win more isnt in the interest of casual gamers. but thats not to say they shouldnt get the game. just because they suck at it, doesnt mean it cant be fun. sure they will try to get better at a game, but not on the same level as those of us that are insanely addicted and play for hours daily. i doubt many casual gamers would bother to dl the replays of tournament matchs and study their strategies and play styles to refine their own strategy. i do it cuz i think its fun to get insanely good at something to pwn others and make fun of them.

[Daishi]

well last time i played kanes wrath online, scorpion tank spam was still the most popular strategy. and that is the most boring strategy ever cuz the only part of it that requires skill is microing... there isnt any though put into countering your opponent's units, just spam scorpys at them and keep pressuring them till they stuff up. in other words, usually boring. obviously if you have a really good opponent then it might make the game a bit more interesting, but still after playing the same BO over and over for 5/6/7/8 hours in a row (yes i get bored sometimes and play for a day straight), it gets repetitive and annoying.
whereas i play dota casually with my friends fortnightly and i've yet to get bored of that.

C&C3's current state, as you just illustrated, is the prime example of everything wrong with the genre. From the imitation of Starcraft to the simplification of micro and macro to the relative lack of faction distinctions to the lack of viable build orders and countless unit redundancies.

Which brings me to a good point. If you don't like a game, stop playing it and be wary next time you see a nice game from that developer. No one is forcing you to go crazy about the game if you don't want to. I personally don't mind TF2.

which is why playing the game purely to get better at it and win more isnt in the interest of casual gamers. but that's not to say they shouldn't get the game. just because they suck at it, doesnt mean it cant be fun. sure they will try to get better at a game, but not on the same level as those of us that are insanely addicted and play for hours daily. i doubt many casual gamers would bother to dl the replays of tournament matchs and study their strategies and play styles to refine their own strategy. i do it cuz i think its fun to get insanely good at something to pwn others and make fun of them.That's all fine and dandy and you have my respect for it.

Effort is the key to the increased enjoyment of any game. Skill is never as necessary - you need to play hard before you can play any title well.

And the fact is that everyone's playing competitively. Everyone is putting some effort towards reaching the intended objective of the game, no matter what the game can be classified as. Otherwise you're not PLAYING the game, you're USING it for something else. You can't be called a gamer if you're not actually playing.

I was being obtuse in blaming the mainstream crowd for the almost absolute lack of worthy sequels in the last 5 years. It's not any action by the players that's directly causing the games to diminish in quality, it's the lack of confidence of the production companies that their games can sell well to this dwarfed elite of gamers if they tried. The existence of different audiences for these games has caused a few complex and engaging titles to survive for over 5 years after their full release. But most money today is made on games that aren't designed to be fun for that long. Mini-games, microgames, no-lose games, half-assed cliffhanger campaigns that leave you wanting more...

And if its a multiplayer game, just make it so that players can't get TOO good at it and it'll ensure people won't play it for too long. How do you do that? Remove complexity, add some fake depth in the form of weak game modes and redundant mechanics, then slow it all down.

These are all trends that - if we all had the sort of insight that longtime gamers boast - we could put an end to. This is the reason I've got contempt for the pseudo-gamers that won't even try to attain it and continue to feed monsters like EA, oblivious that to the problem that they alone can solve.

[Frost Phantom]

yes, modern rts games may not be able to compare to RA2 (my all time favourite rts), but its all about having fun, and even if that only lasts for about a month or two, if the player had fun during that time, they will prolly buy the next game in the series. and since gaming is no longer seen as something thats purely for nerds, there are more and more casual gamers, meaning companies like EA have to tend to their needs.... seriously, even big titles like Modern Warfare 2 are pandering to the casual gaming crowd. They've removed dedicated servers for even the PC version and just gone with match making.... all because dedicated servers promote elitism amongst the regular players which would turn casual gamers away from the game.

[Daishi]

All's well that sells well.

Not to say that good games aren't coming out, it's just that they're not getting any of the attention they deserve because they're not so goddamn accessible.

[Derek]

even big titles like Modern Warfare 2 are pandering to the casual gaming crowd. They've removed dedicated servers for even the PC version and just gone with match making.... all because dedicated servers promote elitism amongst the regular players which would turn casual gamers away from the game.
Wait, they did that? Oh dear god.

This is why I hate hardcore console games. Its nothing personal, but they're ruining the equivalent (and otherwise better) PC games. There are still a few good PC developers, but they're becoming much rarer.

[Frost Phantom]

yeah, but like i said, the casual gaming crowd is now much bigger than the hardcore gamers. so companies now value the opinion of average joe who doesnt know anything about competitive gaming more than the opinions of those that have played seriously for years.
sad fact, but true.

its prolly why i hated ra3 so much, i dont really care which hollywood actress is briefing me on my missions, but i would like a proper ore/tib field instead of this ore node crap. screw the whole slowly gaining a steady income bs, i'd much rather get lots of money form first ore/tib field, rush + move to second field, if rush 1 failed, send rush 2. if rush 2 fails, attrition + harassment.

[Coldwar05]

I have to disagree with you frost, the ore node I thought solved my problem of waiting for the ore/ tib to come back... which saved me time. ( I am a heavy eco boomer, trust me I expland to as many ore nodes as possible, as build a army). Yea it might be a bit slowly and possibly less money income but in the long run your going to save more than to waste for it to "spawn" back.

Related to the topic though, I am not to thrilled about the commander points either, thats kind of pushing of the game play of the story line I know.

[Frost Phantom]

is the commander points system gonna be like the generals powers? cuz that was annoying...

anyways, the way i play, waiting for the tib to spawn back was never an issue, the enemy would usually be dead by then, or i'd be on the verge of dieing because my rush failed epically... and yes, im one of those players that just rush every game no matter what...

[Coldwar05]

no the command points are gonan be like this:

you start off with lets 500 points
then
buy some units... (any)
then
kill the enemy's base / units
equals
more command points to spend.

Plus! the more you command points you get / EXP you unlock new untis to use :/, but i hope this info is correct.

[truefeel]

Sounds like a rip-off from Age Of Empires 3: You can gather points with fighting, building, etc. with which you can buy cards which delivers resources/units/etc (which is next to the normal way of creating units and gathering resources) AND those points also go into a seperate index. If you gather enough points you can add new cards to the additional ones you already have.

And they call that innovative? oh plz... .

[Frost Phantom]

god that sucks....
how is that going to help new players anyways?
they'll still be a disadvantage because the reason new players cant go up against pros has nothing to do with what units they are using, its purely in the tactics and skills. limiting the tech on both sides will prolly make it even harder for new players since they'll have to rely on their micromanaging skills with basic tanks rather than trying to defeat a better player by sending say mammys against their opp's scorps

[Coldwar05]

Lol sorry, There is more than want I posted.

Depending on the amount of players = to number command points for each player at start.This was posted before on CNC-247: for a 5 v 5 macth the command points at start would be 50... Plus I would think the unit unlock is for campain, not online, which I think their point of view of helping the nubs is by preventing the pros go going extreme eco boom and smash the nubs in 5 mins.

From Ask A Developer Q&A 1:
Does the population cap change depending on how many players are in a match?

Depending on the mode, yes. There are several ways to play C&C4 which allow you to play with a large numbers of units, such as Custom Match and Campaign. Currently, in a 1v1 match, a player has access to 250 command points, which is equivalent to around 50 tanks, or 80+ light units. As you can imagine, holding a battlefield with a force that large will test even the best micromanagers’ abilities. "

Ill get you guys the informantion on the Command points and post a new thread for you guys that are intereasted :)

[ill-lushtrator]

I believe EA could have make use of some suggestions that can be easily implemented into the game.

How about variations between Single Player mode and Multiplayer mode?

Let me quote an example from Quake 4:

In Quake 4's Single Player mode, players can upgrade weapons, and need to reload weapons after a clip of ammo is used.

In Quake 4's Multiplayer mode, players cannot upgrade weapons, but don't need to reload weapons.

So let me go back to C&C4 for the suggestion.

How about in C&C4's Single Player mode, allow players to have resource gathering AND disable a population cap?

Also, how about in C&C4's Multiplayer mode, allow players to work with limited resources BUT enable a population cap?

What I'm saying is, allow variations between Single Player and Multiplayer modes, so as to ensure a varied player experience. Allow players to have different styles of gameplay, as opposed to a single, fixed template to work with.

Right now, I am seeing that the way the new C&C4 game is going to be played, it does sound more like "capture-the-flag" than "commanding armies" and "conquering the enemies".

[Derek]

How about in C&C4's Single Player mode, allow players to have resource gathering AND disable a population cap?

Also, how about in C&C4's Multiplayer mode, allow players to work with limited resources BUT enable a population cap?
Oh god this is horribly backwards. Why would you want a pop cap when you have limited resources, but want no pop cap when you have unlimited money? The first is doubly limited, the second is doubly unlimited.

[ill-lushtrator]

Oh god this is horribly backwards. Why would you want a pop cap when you have limited resources, but want no pop cap when you have unlimited money? The first is doubly limited, the second is doubly unlimited.

How is it horribly backwards? How is it doubly limited/unlimited? Maybe you can elaborate more on why it's as such. However, I do have reasons to the suggestion. But like I'd said, it's just a *suggestion*. So whether if it gets through or not, I'm not terribly concerned. Just my thread of thought. ;)

In that suggestion, the motivation for the SP suggestion is so that it allows players to try multiple strategies and experiment with all the different Crawlers, so that they won't necessarily stick to one kind of Crawler, and be encouraged to experiment with the other classes - and use the different unit combinations with these Crawler classes.

On the other hand, in Multiplayer, the idea behind that suggestion posted up is to allow more competitive gameplay and increase to a faster pace. That way, players would have to adapt to different strategies in each MP session. Like making different choices of attacking, more dynamic.

[Derek]

I don't know, I guess what I was mostly reacting to was your wording: "allow players to work with limited resources BUT enable a population cap". "BUT" implies that these two things are in opposition, which is false, a limited economy and a population caps are both limiting factors. As for the doubly part, I was just saying that each part compounds the other, in the second case, likely make each other irrelevant (if you don't have money a pop cap doesn't matter, if you're at the pop cap limit, money doesn't matter).

On further thought, its not really bad, its just not what I would have expected.

[kwark]

In SC there is a pop cap and a given amount of recourses on each map, and it is one of the best RTS out there. So whats the big deal about the population cap....

[Daishi]

I think the problem C&C fans have with the population cap is that freedom from maximums has been a staple of C&C titles for 7 straight titles, and despite that, EA intends to wrap up the most legendary timeline by changing all that for the sake of forcing the aggressive expansion playstyle on the clueless sit-in-your-base, mass-an-army noobs instead of fruitlessly hoping they'll adopt the normal style of play.

That said, it's not a bad idea. The strategic possibilities you're abandoning are a small price to pay for the game's overall friendliness to RTS newbies. sarcasm

[Avapodnaught]

My heart weakens everytime I look at the suggestions for this game's gameplay...

[Frost Phantom]

sure most people dont have to use a crap load of units in MP to win, but if the game goes into a stalemate a pop cap removes any chance of just overwhelming your enemy, instead you have to camp and wait till the other player is out of money before going in for the kill.

[Daishi]

sure most people dont have to use a crap load of units in MP to win, but if the game goes into a stalemate a pop cap removes any chance of just overwhelming your enemy, instead you have to camp and wait till the other player is out of money before going in for the kill.

I think C&C4's design is completely opposed to the occurrence of stalemates.

[Statalyzer]

In SC there is a pop cap and a given amount of recourses on each map, and it is one of the best RTS out there. So whats the big deal about the population cap....

The pop cap is expandable, that's different.

The cap for a numbered group of units is one of the few flaws of the game...

[Frost Phantom]

every strategy game is opposed to stalemates... doesnt mean it wont happen.
it wont take long for the experienced players to figure out what strategies work, and when that happens, people will fall back into the good old habits of recycling the same tactics and counter tactics, thus stalemates.

also having a population cap means you cant fake a certain type of strategy then use another. eg you cant send say 20 scorps towards their main base drawing their forces away and at the same time send a small group of attack bikes to harrass harvy and 2 or 3 flamers with purifying flame upgrade to rape the expansion... chances are, you'll be at the pop cap already with the scorps and harvies.

[truefeel]

every strategy game is opposed to stalemates... doesnt mean it wont happen.
it wont take long for the experienced players to figure out what strategies work, and when that happens, people will fall back into the good old habits of recycling the same tactics and counter tactics, thus stalemates.

That will only happen if you got 2 players or teams that are equal to eachother. Most of the time there will be a sufficient difference of skill inbetween the players to avoid a stalemate.

[Statalyzer]

As long as you play with the right map and settings. Example: RA2YR East vs Best or Tour of Egypt with no Yuri and no Superweapons = begging for a 3-hour stalemate that will probably be decided by crate luck.

[truefeel]

As long as you play with the right map and settings. Example: RA2YR East vs Best or Tour of Egypt with no Yuri and no Superweapons = begging for a 3-hour stalemate that will probably be decided by crate luck.


Depends on how many (idiotic) rules you create. if you can for example attack at any time (so no stupid "no rush" rule) I don't think it will get to a stalemate. Of course if you are gonna add so many rules that it completely limits the skill of the better players, you are creating an artificial stalemate.

A good example of a natural stalemate would be Sedona pass 6 player FFA without SWs; you might get some actions early game, with 1 or 2 player dropping out, but after that it ends up with everybody nicely camping at their place, being afraid that if they attack they'll get backstabbed by others. Games will ussually crack open when somebody does attack eventually.

[fedraljack]

Now is your opportunity to be a part to the development of Command & Conquer 4 by participating in this exclusive Beta program!
Choose your class and command more units than EVER in a C&C game, as you team up and take on your opponents in 5-on-5 online battles!
Strategize with your teammates or talk smack to your opponents over VOIP in fast, fun, and furious C&C action.

[Thumper]

The cap for a numbered group of units is one of the few flaws of the game...


yes. very few flaws in cnc4... :rolleyes: