Jeremy Feasel Discusses C&C4 Population Cap

[Sonic 295]

One of the big things we heard about Command & Conquer 4 over the past couple of days is the fact that it will be the first Command & Conquer game to have a "Population Cap". This is either a good thing or bad thing depending on your point of view. Command & Conquer 4 designer, Jeremy Feasel, updated his original set of questions and answers, posted on the Official C&C Forums, to specifically address the "Population Cap" and how it works in Command & Conquer 4.

 

Q: Is there a population cap? What are the numbers (X/100) seen above the units on the UI?

A: The numbers shown above the units tab indeed represent a population cap. In C&C4, players are limited in the number of units they can make by Command Points, which allows the player to make smart decisions about which units they want to produce depending on the current state of the battlefield and limits single-unit spam and snowballing of attack power.

 

Q: Does the Crawler gain experience and level up during a match, like a hero?

A: While the Crawler can gain veterancy, just like a unit, all of the experience gained on the battlefield is gained directly by the player, allowing the player to unlock additional units, structures, powers, and upgrades, once the battle is complete.

It would appear the "Population Cap" has been adopted to put an end to the always dreaded tank spam issue. Click here for the original thread.

[Gben 20]

SC caused many a spam... so it doesn't stop it - it just changes it.

 

(I like pop-caps.)

[Sonic 295]

SC as in Starcraft?

 

Why do people keeping referencing that game likes its the holy grail of RTS gaming. Its a well made game, don't get me wrong, but if they are still patching it 10 years after release.... well I'll stop there.

 

As for the C&C 4 PopCap. I guess the devs are thinking this way. Controlled Economy + PopCap = Less Tank Spam.

[Gben 20]

I guess the devs are thinking this way. Controlled Economy + PopCap = Less Tank Spam.

 

These guys are real control freaks!

[Malevolence 6]

No more "Overkill uber spam" POTDs in C&C4?

[Luk3us 63]

Pop cap doesn't kill spam. Good game design does, if the game is well made, then just spamming one unit shouldn't enable you to win the game. Which is why C&C3 was soo bad, cause the counter system wasn't hard enough. Which they improved with RA3 greatly.

 

I think its more to do with most games having 10 players, and the engine won't cope if players can build as many units as they want. Of course this can be addressed in other ways.

 

I don't like pop caps, because everyone sits in their bases till they MAX out the number of units they can build. Then they go out and fight.

 

 

But we shall SEE what EA do with this.

[ghost_zero 0]

How are command points earned in C&C4? Is this like it was in C&C3..?

[Malevolence 6]

How are command points earned in C&C4? Is this like it was in C&C3..?

 

More confirmation will be revealed at a later time, these stuff may subject to further changes. RA3's earning point style + C&C3 money style combo would be excellent though.

[ORCaLoVeR 0]

First so many radical changes, and now even a population cap???

 

common seriously..............

 

Whats next?Ammo for each unit?

[Crusader1 0]

At times I think C&C4 sounds like a bit like Supreme commander in parts and a little bit of Dawn of war with the the population cap.

[Luk3us 63]

Thread cleaned.

 

Do not spam this thread, if you think this fails, then explain why.

[Nmenth 290]

At times I think C&C4 sounds like a bit like Supreme commander in parts and a little bit of Dawn of war with the the population cap.

Supreme Commander had pop caps too...

 

It is my understanding that the pop caps were not put into C&C4 to fight spam, but to fight lag (maybe with anti-spam as a bonus on the side). Nevertheless, I hate pop caps, not because I spam (I don't, ever, not even when I should), but because I generally make multiple battalions with each serving their own purpose.

Also, 100 seems like an awfully low pop cap, but they said (I forget where) that we would see why they exist as soon as we start playing. I don't have much faith in EALA, but to preserve my sanity, I'll have to trust them on this...

[Malevolence 6]

Somehow this feels like EALA dev team are kinda "control freak", first we have income restricted gameplay style, then we have number cap. I am really uncertain how this will turn out. One thing for sure, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm probably will be sad not to see LOL POTDs (probably skirmish or SP) with uber-spam C&C4 units.

[Inferno 22]

Pop cap is good, it stimulates the use of strategy

[Nmenth 290]

Pop cap is good, it stimulates the use of strategy

In theory, but not reality.

[Inferno 22]

It's better than nothing

[Koen 2]

I dislike fixed population caps - and game lag is not an argument for that. If the current games can do 3vs3, then limiting units to get to 5vs5 is weird.

I will make an exception: the Rise of Nations / Supreme Commander style, where each unit needs some "support" (from having a village or some kind of "energy generator") could be acceptable. Then, you can invest in increasing your popcap, when needed.

[hagren 0]

For me, it's the other way around- I hate having to build new farms/supply depots/houses etc. to be able to build new units, but I have nothing against finite caps, where you simply cannot train more than xy unit(s).

Edited July 29, 2009 by hagren

[Malevolence 6]

Population c®ap!

 

Mind explaining your dislike about that in detail?

 

 

 

Actually with restricted income strategy (RA3 style), I think its pointless for a pop cap, unless EALA found that the 5v5 tournaments do cause severe lagging and such covering their a** by stating that the pop cap is very important etc.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Malevolence

[Gben 20]

Good point Mal... restricted income has a natural pop cap enforced, so lag may be the biggest winner here. But even if Luk3us comment about waiting to max out pop-caps, surely the limit means an end to the waiting rather than an unspecified cold-war that lasts too long?

[Silverthorn 0]

Pop cap is fine by me, after all, that way may control the unnecessary tank spam including not to waste your pop cap just to create more harvesters to harvest faster.

 

I hope the pop cap start out at the max, if starts at the min is more like Starcraft 1, I hate those supply depots which I'm forced to spend unnecessary resources & waste space just to build some "useless" buildings. So I always play the "food for thought" cheat in order to play Starcraft 1, C&C style aka no pop cap.

[Malevolence 6]

Pop cap is fine by me, after all, that way may control the unnecessary tank spam including not to waste your pop cap just to create more harvesters to harvest faster.

 

I hope the pop cap start out at the max, if starts at the min is more like Starcraft 1, I hate those supply depots which I'm forced to spend unnecessary resources & waste space just to build some "useless" buildings. So I always play the "food for thought" cheat in order to play Starcraft 1, C&C style aka no pop cap.

 

I hope better not follow the starcraft's pop cap concept cr*p.

 

And there won't be tank spam when we have limited harvesting to begin with.

[Crusader1 0]

Supreme Commander had pop caps too...

 

It is my understanding that the pop caps were not put into C&C4 to fight spam, but to fight lag (maybe with anti-spam as a bonus on the side). Nevertheless, I hate pop caps, not because I spam (I don't, ever, not even when I should), but because I generally make multiple battalions with each serving their own purpose.

Also, 100 seems like an awfully low pop cap, but they said (I forget where) that we would see why they exist as soon as we start playing. I don't have much faith in EALA, but to preserve my sanity, I'll have to trust them on this...

I agree with you there, but if you have to aks me will I buy C&C4 I would say yes!!! 100% becouse I love C&C.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Crusader1

[Silverthorn 0]

True true, I also wonder if Battle For Middle Earth uses the pop caps that starts from max or was it minimum? I think it's minimum but it wasn't that bad compare to Blizzard's Starcraft & Warcraft games, don't you ever or really hate supply depots?

 

And it's true, with C&C grew in multiplay since Red Alert 2 and then down after Generals, and it skyrocketed back up when C&C3 came out. To control such tank spam, it's best that pop cap should be fine as long as we start on the max, not the lame minimum and requires Supply Depots if you want to get more pop caps.

 

Speaking of pop cap, I wonder why WCG rejects RA3, I begin to wonder in several questions :

 

1. Do they love spamming same units like Starcraft 1? Is spam better than pure brains & strategies?

2. Do they love speedy games like C&C3 & SC1? Is RA3 too slow for them?

3. Do they hate the lame (My assumption base on their opinion, I say the ore node is fine) RA3 ore node system compare to harvesters like C&C3 & SC1?

 

That's the future question whether if C&C4 will be accepted into the WCG, but we'll worry about that later.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Silverthorn

[Malevolence 6]

I believe the main reason for RA3's exclusion was the slow gameplay mechanic. As compare to C&C3, C&C3 gameplay tend to be faster, as one can build tons of refineries and harvesters, meaning huge income boom, and more spam, they probably want to see more action, which is possible with more spam scenes. Thats probably what they want.