The Crawler

[hagren 0]

http://commandandconquer.filefront.com/new...e_Crawler;43057

[Malevolence 6]

Sounds different for a C&C game, not too sure if I'll be used to the exp points in this new game.

 

And not too sure how the rest of the fans will react. *peeping at official forums for some LOLs.*

Edited July 21, 2009 by Malevolence

[Silverthorn 0]

I also don't know if it's going to be a good game, after all, I think the devs really struggle about the too many refineries & harvesters problems in C&C3 and they can't apply the RA3 one harvester per ore node into C&C4 (Especially not on Tiberium). That's why the crawler system might be in use to replace basic bases?

[Gben 20]

Why not just limit the number of refineries/havies, like they do with SP?

 

EDIT: Sorry not SP, I meant SW... Super Weapons.

Edited July 21, 2009 by gben

[Luk3us 63]

I'm not sure what to think of what I just read...

[Silverthorn 0]

Although I heard this one is going to be our ultimate MCV with all the facilities in one package, so I have no further comments of what to say about it. Usually I prefer separate bases which serves separate purposes, but the crawler with everything in it? Don't know what to say, so I just keep quiet and wait for further details & a gameplay demo.

[Malevolence 6]

Although I heard this one is going to be our ultimate MCV with all the facilities in one package, so I have no further comments of what to say about it. Usually I prefer separate bases which serves separate purposes, but the crawler with everything in it? Don't know what to say, so I just keep quiet and wait for further details & a gameplay demo.

 

Patience, more answers will be revealed about such new gameplays.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Hmm, it has to deploy to train infantry. Does it also have to deploy to make vehicles? I would think it would be the other way around, although they didn't mention vehicles so it might need to deploy for both, so, not speculating on that.

 

I don't like the instant-respawning crawler idea at all. However, your ability to switch crawler classes at the time of respawn means you technically have access to every available tech tree, just not all at once, which is actually a little similar to my preference of having all tech available and having it be decided by your upgrade/teching choices. But, some people have pointed out that this might encourage players to build a bunch of tanks, sacrifice their crawlers to the enemy or even force-fire and destroy their own crawler, and then switch classes when the new one instantly spawns. We don't yet know if there are penalties for losing such an "important" unit.

[hagren 0]

I've changed it to units to clarify. As far as I understood the babelfish translation, the deployment is necessary for every unit.

 

As for balance issues, we'll have a beta.

Edited July 21, 2009 by hagren

[Gben 20]

You know for some reason, I had in mind that the crawler would produce units like the AT-AT (storm-trooper squads) from Petro's EAW... it's only dawned on me last night that it might need to deploy into a "mcv" static structure.

 

This diminishes my complaints about the size of the crawler.... because the conyard is substantially bigger than the mcv in C&C3.

[Malevolence 6]

You know for some reason, I had in mind that the crawler would produce units like the AT-AT (storm-trooper squads) from Petro's EAW... it's only dawned on me last night that it might need to deploy into a "mcv" static structure.

 

This diminishes my complaints about the size of the crawler.... because the conyard is substantially bigger than the mcv in C&C3.

 

So far what was revealed was that only infantry building required it deployed, I wonder will building tanks required it to be deployed as well?

[Gben 20]

Hags said above that it needs to deploy for every unit.

[Malevolence 6]

Hags said above that it needs to deploy for every unit.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Actually the Crawler concept fit these franchise well because in C&C3 we've seen players packing their MCV and rolling to somewhere else, such phenomenon became pretty popular in RA3, so I think its definitely great to see the old concept of the MCV "evolve".

[Gben 20]

Sure... good point about evolving... an armed mcv is an obvious improvement. But the fact it deploys, probably, into an all-in-one structure is that part that bites.

 

I would prefer an un-armed mcv, just like I would prefer unarmed engineer.

[Guest Stevie_K]

It's good to read that it has to deploy. I feared that the Crawlers would just be walking breeders.

[Malevolence 6]

Sure... good point about evolving... an armed mcv is an obvious improvement. But the fact it deploys, probably, into an all-in-one structure is that part that bites.

 

I would prefer an un-armed mcv, just like I would prefer unarmed engineer.

 

I was wishing for a main crawler building infantry crawler for infantries and tank crawler for tanks, that sort of thing. We'll see how this one goes.