Too Much, Too Fast - Page 6

Frost Phantom · 10-23-2009, 01:45 AM

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 · 11-02-2009, 02:23 PM

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 · 11-03-2009, 01:35 AM

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 · 11-04-2009, 01:35 PM

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 · 11-04-2009, 02:22 PM

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 · 11-04-2009, 09:39 PM

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 · 11-10-2009, 01:43 PM

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 · 11-13-2009, 10:10 PM

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 · 11-13-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ill-lushtrator

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 · 11-14-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

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.