EA: No bases in C&C4

[Silverthorn 0]

They were pretty stubborn when they sacrificed traditions by creating Generals. And in the end, it was totally bad and they admitted they did the mistake including provoking China, we & them will never forget what went wrong. And most of all, I'm glad the next C&C is not Generals 2 but C&C4 Tiberian Twilight itself.

[Castleman12 0]

Im going with everyone on the not going to assume anything without seeing it with my own eyes. Plus, like it was said, trying the beta. And if the no base building part doesnt work, theres always the chance of modding the heck out of it.

[ErikKiller 0]

You have a point there Castleman.

Oh and Silver, you already hoping of it becoming C&C4:TT eh? Me too, buddy, me too.

[Sonic 293]

what do you mean about "we" I couldn't get my hands on that damn RA3 collecters edition..

I'm picking there will be other ways to gain access into the beta test.

[Nmenth 289]

I'm picking there will be other ways to gain access into the beta test.

Yeah well, with RA3's beta, I had the key from buying KW and I registered five months before cut-off, but EA never activated it. Then I went a acquired a second beta key from a giveaway, and couldn't get that one to properly download the beta... so betas aren't for everyone...

[Gben 20]

I'd rather the Crawler be something like a support power. Tech up high enough and gain access to mobile base.

Don't want Crawler, don't get it, simple as that. Now that would be best of both worlds, I think (and is what I expected when first news hit).

 

I would guess here, that the appeal of the crawler is for fast, fluid gameplay... so making it the ultimate support power, makes it kinda redundant and more like an epic unit not an "iron hand" forward base... or whatever that thing was called from RA2 mod.

[Nmenth 289]

so making it the ultimate support power, makes it kinda redundant and more like an epic unit

I would prefer a redundant epic unit over no bases.

[Gben 20]

I would prefer a billion dollars a harem of beautiful women at my beck and call...

[cnc_sage 0]

Yup, I call it "The best of both worlds" concept. Wonder if anybody else approves of this idea?

I second this idea! Or third! Or fourth! Or... well you get the idea.

[Malevolence 6]

I second this idea! Or third! Or fourth! Or... well you get the idea.

 

Thanks. I was looking to the comments and realized a number of these fans are so against the very concept of crawlers, its like an abomination of some sort, even I tried suggesting having both classic and the new crawler mode, the comments were like "nooo...... me wants classic only". Gee.

[cnc_sage 0]

Fanboys are stubborn like that. Though a crawler would have to be rather collosal if it's to fit an entire base in there, with a barracks, vehicle production facility, comm center, helipads, defences, etc... but who cares about realism?

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Fanboys are stubborn like that.

I know right? These rabid people don't make sense.

 

Fanboy: "Omg noes walls will ruin teh game!!"

Logical person: "Okay then we'll just add a button so that you can turn walls off and other people can turn them on if they like."

Fanboy: "NOES! It will still ruin teh game!!!!~!"

Logical person: " "

[Malevolence 6]

I know right? These rabid people don't make sense.

 

Fanboy: "Omg noes walls will ruin teh game!!"

Logical person: "Okay then we'll just add a button so that you can turn walls off and other people can turn them on if they like."

Fanboy: "NOES! It will still ruin teh game!!!!~!"

Logical person: " "

 

Lol, second that. :lol:

[Inferno 22]

Just make them relatively expensive and slow to build, that way spamming them is a lot harder

 

 

And realism definitely doesn't always improve the gameplay. In fact, I find it's usually the other way around.

[Malevolence 6]

Just make them relatively expensive and slow to build, that way spamming them is a lot harder

 

 

And realism definitely doesn't always improve the gameplay. In fact, I find it's usually the other way around.

 

I don't know if that will please everyone, some would complain that would be too slow and they won't like slow gameplay.

[Inferno 22]

I like slow gameplay

[Silverthorn 0]

I like slow gameplay

 

Me too, I prefer not to go too fast, the regular one or two harvester per refinery is fine enough, but like pros who use too many harvesters & refineries are crazy as I don't want to do something like that because each harvester & refinery are very damn expensive, so I don't want to spend them just to harvest faster.

 

And yeap, slower gameplay for me, as slow as in Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2.

[Guest Stevie_K]

I like slow gameplay

 

That's exactly why I loved the old C&C games. You could take it slow and still fend off the opponents units but that has not been possible since RA2 imo.

[Nmenth 289]

That's exactly why I loved the old C&C games. You could take it slow and still fend off the opponents units but that has not been possible since RA2 imo.

Very true. I don't care for the pace of the latest games, no time to stop and blow up the roses.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

no time to stop and blow up the roses.

LOL. Awesome.

[hagren 0]

That's exactly why I loved the old C&C games. You could take it slow and still fend off the opponents units but that has not been possible since RA2 imo.

RA2 was pretty fast as well. And RA3 slowed down the pace of CnC3 a bit.

[Guest Stevie_K]

RA2 was pretty fast as well. And RA3 slowed down the pace of CnC3 a bit.

 

Yeah, but RA3 is still all about getting first to the money, and with enough money RA3 is just as spammable as C&C3 imo

I know... your'e thinking : "But isn't all C&C about getting money?" - Well yeah but the money difference between players have never been as big as it is now.

[Nmenth 289]

RA2 was pretty fast as well. And RA3 slowed down the pace of CnC3 a bit.

RA2/YR was snail's pace to RA3, and everyone says C&C3 was even faster, personally I don't see it. C&C3 does involve grab the money, spam the unit, win the game, but RA3 is also very fast and I think it is possible to end a RA3 match faster than C&C3 (although my experience in online battles is not extensive).

[Malevolence 6]

Maybe EA should implement the game speed adjustment knob seen in older C&C games. That should solve these questions.

[Silverthorn 0]

RA2/YR was snail's pace to RA3, and everyone says C&C3 was even faster, personally I don't see it. C&C3 does involve grab the money, spam the unit, win the game, but RA3 is also very fast and I think it is possible to end a RA3 match faster than C&C3 (although my experience in online battles is not extensive).

 

You don't see it because you're already a pro player, I think. Imagine if you compare playing Tiberian Dawn in the usual default or slower gameplay speed & the faster game, Starcraft 1.

 

AND C&C3 does have gameplay that lasts for a few minutes while RA3 has been extended to at least twice the gameplay time, the reason of the change is the reduction of spamming, most particularly the many numbers of refineries and harvesters you build. Slow games usually only have a few refs & harvesters, AND even slower when build time units are as slow as like in the older C&C games. Like in TS, I remember building a Titan only takes 20 seconds while KW takes on 10.