EA: No bases in C&C4

[Guest Stevie_K]

Totally agree with you Silver. An other reason C&C3 and RA3 is faster is the special powers you get.

When I play RA3 I just force the enemy attack me until the "Red Alert" button is generated, then it makes my units star rank and I can rush the enemy base and finish the match.

 

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

 

Well.. no. That's just slowing the time, but the opponent will do the same actions anyway. Try and play TS with full speed and you will realize it takes about the same time as if you play with normal speed.

It's about gameplay, build time and requirements for units and structures. A balanced match just takes longer, simple as that.

[Nmenth 289]

Well.. no. That's just slowing the time, but the opponent will do the same actions anyway.

Gives you more time to think. Against computer opponents, this is more important since they can think way faster than humans.

A slow, strategy significant game is like chess, C&C3 and RA3 are more like king of the hill.

[Malevolence 6]

Well.. no. That's just slowing the time, but the opponent will do the same actions anyway. Try and play TS with full speed and you will realize it takes about the same time as if you play with normal speed.

It's about gameplay, build time and requirements for units and structures. A balanced match just takes longer, simple as that.

 

Make it customizable then, that should be an excellent concept, if EALA dev could create such an option...

[Silverthorn 0]

Gives you more time to think. Against computer opponents, this is more important since they can think way faster than humans.

A slow, strategy significant game is like chess, C&C3 and RA3 are more like king of the hill.

 

Remember the last time in C&C3, the AI actually cheats. When I was playing skirmish, when I was going for Tiberian spikes, the AI already send buggies or APCs to kill my engineers, OR if I don't go for the spikes, there's no buggies or APCs AT ALL! I did my homework on scouting, but the AI NEVER scouts AT ALL! That is cheating and unfair! How about when I was creating an air force, the AI ALREADY prepared tons of anti-air, and what's worse, I don't see his scouts either (Even in smaller maps), the AI just already know what I was planning as though like he is God! Luckily the problem has been fixed in RA3 which I see scout units actually now scouts.

 

And that's why if you play in a slower speed, people can take time to think and watch the battle to see how it goes. If it's too fast, amateurs may not keep up and in the end, their defeat is near.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Nmenth 289]

If it's too fast, amateurs may not keep up and in the end, their defeat is near.

Well now, there are amateurs and there are stupid people and there are stupid amateurs, all three may appear to be the same in battle, but are not.

Stupid amateurs will become stupid people after playing long enough, but will never amount to anything more.

Smart amateurs play by strategy, and probably lose. Eventually one has to realize that there is no time for strategy, only If:Then. Once this is realized, the smart amateur graduates into a computer with predetermined tactics and countermeasures to be issued at high speed.

A human computer can hold more programmed tactics and more elaborate maneuvers than the standard AI while also being self-programming, allowing the human computer to beat AI, but they basically aren't that much different.

Because amateurs must first realize that strategy is overrated and then program themselves with their tactics, they will generally lose in the beginning.

This is unfortunate, because these games are called real-time strategy, not real-time pre-programmed procedures.

 

Therefore, I think slow speed is superior, because despite the speed setting, stupid amateurs will always lose, stupid people will generally lose, but a smart amateur should at least have a fighting chance. Rigging the game so only computers can win is not a good thing and only serves to satisfy the egos of a generation of non-thinkers.

 

You don't see it because you're already a pro player, I think.

No, I am not. Why? Because I never permit myself to abandon strategy over programming. I fondly remember a 2vs2 YR match in which my ally had given up early on and my opponents had spread across half the map. I took out all of one and 90% of another enemy's base in under two minutes with 10 units via strategy (I'd explain how, but this isn't the place for story telling), but I still lost the match because the enemy that survived had spammed a few dozen prism tanks and IFVs before my attack.

This is why I almost never play online, spamming units and holding resources is just not fun to me.

[Red Blitzkrieg 0]

Well I kinda like this. Least there'll be more fighting and action

[cnc_sage 0]

According to Sam Bass, EA wants to streamline basebuilding, 'cause many players just use a predetermined build order which is no fun for casual players.

 

According to Lion as well as comments at CnCDen, casual players like building a nice looking base.

 

You know... I had an idea earlier today. Wasn't there a "Pimp my base" contest a few years ago? Why dosen't the CnC community start another one to show EA how much they love their bases instead of just moaning and complaining?

[Malevolence 6]

May be a gaming n00b by asking this, because I hardly play new RTS games nowadays, how do you mean by "Steamline base building"?

[cnc_sage 0]

Just what EA are doing right now with CnC4. Before, you needed dedicated base facilities (i.e. barracks, vehicle manufacturing, ore/tiberium refineries, tech center, power plants/supply depots central building/construction yard, defences). The devs' idea of "streamline" basically is to stuff all of the aforementioned facilities into the Crawler so we don't have to follow a predetermined build order in order to win while on multiplayer.

Edited July 26, 2009 by cnc_sage

[Malevolence 6]

Oic, it may be a good thing and a bad thing though. Every tweak made will produce some unforeseen flaw or abuse somehow. Hoping to see results after the beta testing.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Seriously it's just going to be the same thing but on the Crawler. The hardcore RTS players will find a way to make a "perfect" build order on the Crawler. Something like:

• Immediately deploy crawler.
• Build a refinery (because you'll probably spawn next to a refinery node like how you currently start near a Tiberium field).
• Build 3 Pitbulls, 2 engineers, and 2 rocket squads.
• Undeploy crawler and move it towards the next closest Tiberium node.
• Send the infantry to capture the nearest desired tech structure.
• While on the way to the next node, buy upgrade A.
• Also build "cannon of death" on Crawler.
• Deploy at next node.
• Build another refinery.
• Build 2 Orcas and 3 Predators.
• Buy upgrade B.

And so on and so forth. This is what those people live for. Breaking down a game into its basic components and developing closely-timed formulas to exploit those components in the most efficient way possible. Case in point:

Why the hell would a real commander ever sell their Construction Yard (if they were real)(or any structure) in the first moments of battle just to get a bit of extra money and a few infantry? They wouldn't. It's an exploit in the system that it is cheaper and faster to just get a squad of infantry from a building sell-off than it is to actually spend money training them and waiting for the training timer. That shouldn't be possible.

 

These are the same kind of people that come up with very elaborate aggro-management systems during raids in MMOs so that the big ugly boss monster concentrates entirely on the "tanks" and ignores the healers and other weak characters. No intelligent enemy would ever concentrate on the biggest and toughest guy and let the puny scrawny healer keep him alive. The monster would one-hit every weak character it could. The only problem is that some MMO developers have gotten it into their head that aggro-management is actual gameplay and have fostered its development. It is not. It's just taking the unpredictability entirely out of a fight and making it "you do this in this order and like this every single time you encounter an enemy or everyone dies a horrific death."

[Nmenth 289]

Everything you said, Mighty BOB!, is exactly what I've been thinking about it.

I really thought the bases' perfect build order was a seriously meager excuse to change C&C from its long-lived style.

[Malevolence 6]

Seriously it's just going to be the same thing but on the Crawler. The hardcore RTS players will find a way to make a "perfect" build order on the Crawler. Something like:

• Immediately deploy crawler.
• Build a refinery (because you'll probably spawn next to a refinery node like how you currently start near a Tiberium field).
• Build 3 Pitbulls, 2 engineers, and 2 rocket squads.
• Undeploy crawler and move it towards the next closest Tiberium node.
• Send the infantry to capture the nearest desired tech structure.
• While on the way to the next node, buy upgrade A.
• Also build "cannon of death" on Crawler.
• Deploy at next node.
• Build another refinery.
• Build 2 Orcas and 3 Predators.
• Buy upgrade B.

And so on and so forth. This is what those people live for. Breaking down a game into its basic components and developing closely-timed formulas to exploit those components in the most efficient way possible. Case in point:

Why the hell would a real commander ever sell their Construction Yard (if they were real)(or any structure) in the first moments of battle just to get a bit of extra money and a few infantry? They wouldn't. It's an exploit in the system that it is cheaper and faster to just get a squad of infantry from a building sell-off than it is to actually spend money training them and waiting for the training timer. That shouldn't be possible.

 

These are the same kind of people that come up with very elaborate aggro-management systems during raids in MMOs so that the big ugly boss monster concentrates entirely on the "tanks" and ignores the healers and other weak characters. No intelligent enemy would ever concentrate on the biggest and toughest guy and let the puny scrawny healer keep him alive. The monster would one-hit every weak character it could. The only problem is that some MMO developers have gotten it into their head that aggro-management is actual gameplay and have fostered its development. It is not. It's just taking the unpredictability entirely out of a fight and making it "you do this in this order and like this every single time you encounter an enemy or everyone dies a horrific death."

 

Sounds like GR or something, and I guess you really don't like them very much because they took the fun away.

 

[Silverthorn 0]

True, Bob, normally I don't like the tactics of selling base defenses just for quick infantry and use it for scouting or even sell the ConYard, Joshi style for extra cash. I rather wait for the extra cash through my refinery income. Or build 2 refineries and sell off one of them just to get closer to the further expansion where your ConYard can't reach or don't like to waste time undeploy & redeploy your MCV (Not to mention you also get 1 extra harvester).

 

I can see those running tactics are pretty common for pro players, but casual players sometimes just don't like the looks of this kind of tactics.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Silverthorn

[chitzkoi 0]

Well in Mighty Bob! Everything you said is spot on!

 

Good point about MMO boss fights, so true! Uber predictable! 'Zombiefying' games isn't it?

 

I was never really a 'rusher' or 'runner', tho at times I do like to rush but I like to make my bases perfect and strategically placed, walls, defense, key or explosive structures not next to each other in case of a sup or special weapon going off Build my base, then attack with many strategic forces, steamroller I guess, build then attack.

 

*And what DD said about another Sci-Fi RTS with Tiberium, very true my friend I hope it doesn't go that way.

 

Again I can't judge too much as I haven't played the game, but what they are doing continually builds up my 'scare factor' so to speak. End of Kane, End of Tiberium, Limited base building, almost too fast gameplay?, no harvesting, possible POPCAPS. eek

 

I'd like a bit slower speed, because we are fighting a battle, there should be a bit of struggle, back and forth, attack - defending, rushing - retreating, atleast I think there should be Massive battles and fun tactics, cool bases and funky tricks. There is always strategy in these games, even spamming one unit and then rushing is a strategy, maybe its bad and maybe it won't work, but a strategy nonetheless

 

I think that maybe limiting the players and fans to one structure will kill the chances of having a harvesting outpost or secret production center, you know? Those few buildings clumped together in a random unexpected spot to give you a bit of edge or survivability or whatever?

 

(pant, pant, pant)

 

I hope EA nails this one!

 

Peace!

Edited August 4, 2009 by chitzkoi

[Malovolpe 3]

I love how some people are so mad about no base building when we have not seen a single minute of gameplay.