• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

1 Follower

About Lauren

  • Rank
    Nod Priestess
  • Birthday 22/06/89

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Command & Conquer Profile

  • C&C:Online
  • Favourite C&C
    Kanes Wrath

Recent Profile Visitors

5,821 profile views
  1. Why not just check if the player owns one of these buildings in the OnCreate?
  2. I found Croatia to be a lot easier with 1.9, never had problems getting the MCV out, though it could also be that's just because I improved since I played the campaign on 1.0
  3. Well it could as you have to limit the size. You have to do that anyway or you will only be able to use flat maps.
  4. If you just want the mission without secondary objectives you can just use planning mode to capture all at once.
  5. I have to disappoint you but Gens/TW has a lot more variety in strategies then TD/RA/TS/RA2. In fact if you built more then 2-3 Power Plants in TD/RA/TS mp match you're dead. RA2 was a little better off because of the increased Harvester loads which enabled you to get light infantry killers faster. Guess why "no rush 10 mins" was so much more popular in older CnC games and less and less starting with Gens. Generals was able to cut down on extreme early game rushes because it reduced the early game income a lot and decreased early infantry damage quite a bit because of its stronger rock/paper/scissors counter system, but it mostly just shifted it a bit further into the game to people using Humvees and Missile Soldiers + Search and Destroy for USA, or a small mix of Battlemasters/Scorpions + Gattling Tanks/Quadcannons for China/GLA. Also getting at least a second supply center was crucial because of the decreased income. There were all-in rushes, but they aren't really viable vs someone who spotted them soon enough. TW had much more varied options which were also very much dependent on the map (while previous CnC games played mostly the same regardless of the map). On some it's more viable to grab early spikes. On others you rather expand. Again on others you could do either and not have a massive disadvantage. While these eco boom strategies were the most solid ones there were also extreme all-in rushes, but they were also really hard to execute, you had to really have the timings down or you basically just shot yourself into the foot. While extreme turtling was patched out quite soon a more passive strategy wasn't an instant loss in TW compared to any of the previous CnC games. I also have to agree with Nmenth, RA3's system was just crap, it looks clean and nice on paper, and for extremely competitive players it works quite well, but it just doesn't allow much variety in strategies. Its forced building placement took away a lot of the basebuilding which made Gens/TW interesting. In Gens as GLA you basically walled off your supply workers with your structures so they couldn't just be crushed, while USA/China had options to build more aggressive or passive expansions. In TW this was even a lot more important because of the build radius. Do you build your refinery in a more open but aggressive spot so you have a Warfactory/defenses directly on the front lines, or do you build it in a more passive location for the extra protection but longer routes for your reinforcements. In short TW had the most options to engage and adapt to what is happening out of all CnC games. If you say it's all about rushing to the middle and getting 10 harvesters you clearly never played much of it. Also harassment has nothing to do with rushing and should be encouraged. There is a difference of keeping your enemy in check, so their economy doesn't just explode, and outright destroying them as soon as possible. It gives players things to do and creates engagement with the game. Not having harassment is just watching timers and plopping down buildings for x minutes. This is not SimCity. This is not about being competitive but how, on a basic level, CnC is played. When playing a shooter, where your goal is to shoot your enemy, you wouldn't whine that your enemy shoots you immediately all the time and doesn't give you enough time to aim, but instead just learn how to get better and react faster. So why not with RTS games? When your goal is to destroy your enemy why whine that your enemy first doesn't give you a huge amount of time of unchecked growth to destroy them?
  6. Boo, grab the pitchforks! Hope you'll be able to sort your rl issues soon Sonic.
  7. Tbh I would have taken TT over it any time. At least that felt somewhat consistent in itself. Even in the early CommandCom demo we got to play.
  8. The game would also have needed major redesignes to be even considered mediocre. A single player campaign wouldn't have saved it.
  9. If you'd ever played it you would know.
  10. You need bones from where stuff will shoot. Just look at the hierarchy of EA units.
  11. Is the script called by the squad or squad members?
  12. You sure you want to do worst case 14 iterations of the compare for each object pair? I mean it's using a script, which takes a lot more time to execute than other code. Also > is greater, < is lesser. Your table states the opposite.
  13. lol On consoles aliasing is worse as the resolution is ****tier.
  14. Cloned units also don't "die" so the death bomb won't trigger.