Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:57 am Post subject:
it's a simpler game from a simpler age.
Nowadays RTS games get stuffed with features that just get plain annoying (like special abilities for all units... wtf). I like C&C1's simple control system. EVA tells you when a construction is complete. You should have enough brainpower to deduce from that that you need to click the icon again if you want to make another tank. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject:
Yes, we should, and I believe that I do. But brain power is not the issue.
IT'S THE CONSTANT CLICKING! Especially for Minigunners. Ohh, carpal tunnel, I'LL KILL YOU! Leave me be. Let me play the games that I want to play. Thats why I play console games; less strain.
And no, I'm not like 30 years old. Hell, maybe its not even carpal, but I'm feelin' something, something... unpleasant, in the hands. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
A que is not about aiding idiots, it's about making smaller, cheaper units more viable. If you could que 10 minigunners and a few rocket dudes wouldn't you me more inclined to use those instead of the 4/5 light tanks? _________________ Yes, work on MV continues. It is not forgotten. QUICK_EDIT
I remember clicking like hell to continuously train infantry, lmao...
I guess the queue will have to wait, for a long time. I have _totally_ no knowledge on UIs. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Small question though, should I enable Nod to build MCVs in the last mission, just like GDI?
The process is easy as pie... all I need to do for that is edit the mission files to have the buildlevel set to 15 instead of 13, and enable the conquer.ini option I created to make the campaign read the buildlevel setting instead of taking the mission number. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject:
Oh so your enabling the MCV on the last missions, while still forcing GDI players to get to their last missions, and not 13?
Awesome! Could we build Chem Sprayers, maybe Commandos too?
Yeah, I usually just make groups of 5 infantry for transport, or make a few for defense. But in RotD, with the buildqeues, when the money was good I had alot of infantry to support my tanks, and take ground. It was just nice to have alot of infantry. I still microed them to keep them alive, gotta protect my investments. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject:
wtf? 13 IS the last Nod mission. That's the only reason Nod can't build the MCV in their final mission. Because the buildlevel of the MCV is set to 15 to prevent GDI from building it in their last 3 missions. (well, 2, since the player has no base in GDI mission #14)
And forget it, I'm not putting it on 98. You want to mess around with that, go ahead, editing mission ini files isn't that hard. But I won't put something like that in my patch. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:05 am Post subject:
... wait, what? Can't you only get the MCV in the last GDI mission(s)? And Nod doesn't get it 'cause their last mission is 13 not 15, but now the mcv can be built on mission 13, right? 'Cause thats what I was saying. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:58 am Post subject:
no. The buildlevel setting of the MCV stays on 15. I'm raising the buildlevel setting of the LAST NOD MISSION to 15. Just like you have custom buildlevels in Covert Operations missions, I made them possible in the campaign. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You know that "PATSUX" Passworded mission in the playstation version...I wonder if you can get that mission on the computer version. Hmm, maybe i could try duplicating it with CCMAP. Last edited by burton6747 on Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject:
What on earth are you talking about? My "Hmm?" in the above post is a fricking link to the missions. They were extracted form the PS disks by Rusty Le Cyborg ages ago, and I recently did the same for the N64 ones _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Sorry for going off the topic, but since I've seen many complaints about units in C&C95, I'd like to grab on that convo:
1. The Nod SSM. If possible, it should get a boost on firepower, since one can't even take out a silo (with that damn long ROF) Also, it should be available on lower tech (8, 9?), since AFAIK, it only requires a Comm Center.
2. Chem Warrior. Same thing as with the SSM. Lower the tech so its available as soon as the player build's his temple (was it level 10?). Oh, and maybe, if possible, make it not explode as violently as the Flamethrower, since the chems it spreads aren't explosive
4. Helipad available without GDI's cons. yard (what's the point, really), and at the same tech level as GDI's.
5. Like discussed earlier, GDI's MLRS needs to be available at lower tech, without building an ACC.
6. Nod Light tank vs GDI medium tank. The medium tank costs only 200 credits more than the light tank, yet it owns the Light tank in everything; speed, firepower, strength, etc. Should Light tank's speed be increased? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:00 am Post subject:
Helipad is some sort of internal exception. I haven't found out how to change that. I'd have to find the system responsible for giving construction options to fix it. For the rest, balancing is up to Reaperrr.
As for Liam's progress request, well, some stuff is being experimented with on the graphical side, but for the rest I first have to finish patch 1.06b, and after that do a lot more research.
At the moment I've managed to expand the music and units lists. I need to do the same for the projectiles and weapons before we can implement all the planned TDX changes. I got exams coming up soon though so I prefer taking care of shool work first.
Expanding such a list is mostly a simple matter of copying it to a place where I got space to add new ones to the end and then changing the code to use my new list instead. That part is peanuts.
The real work is finding all places that have a value for the LENGTH of the list, and fixing those so they all use one central stored value that's easy to adapt. Both the 'finding all length values' and the 'adapting the code to use an external value' parts are pretty hard work. _________________ Last edited by Nyerguds on Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:28 pm; edited 1 time in total QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:12 pm Post subject:
Crimsonum wrote:
1. The Nod SSM. If possible, it should get a boost on firepower, since one can't even take out a silo (with that damn long ROF) Also, it should be available on lower tech (8, 9?), since AFAIK, it only requires a Comm Center.
There are only 7 TechLevels in TD, and it actually needs an Obelisk
But yeah, the low firepower and ROF make it rather useless, this will be fixed.
Crimsonum wrote:
2. Chem Warrior. Same thing as with the SSM. Lower the tech so its available as soon as the player build's his temple (was it level 10?). Oh, and maybe, if possible, make it not explode as violently as the Flamethrower, since the chems it spreads aren't explosive
The TechLevel of both the Temple and Chem Warrior is 7, but I'll probably make some changes to make it more useful.
Crimsonum wrote:
4. Helipad available without GDI's cons. yard (what's the point, really), and at the same tech level as GDI's.
WW probably did that because GDI has worse AA defenses so Nod players would have it a bit easy in singleplayer, but yeah, if Nyerguds finds that exception rule we'll change it.
Crimsonum wrote:
5. Like discussed earlier, GDI's MLRS needs to be available at lower tech, without building an ACC.
6. Nod Light tank vs GDI medium tank. The medium tank costs only 200 credits more than the light tank, yet it owns the Light tank in everything; speed, firepower, strength, etc. Should Light tank's speed be increased?
Yeah, these 2 have been bugging me as well, especially the light tank. Will be adressed, light tank will probably get higher speed and higher rate of fire. QUICK_EDIT
@Reaperrr: Then what makes it so that you can't build Chem Warriors and SSMs other than in multiplayer and fan-made missions, if they require the same tech level as a Temple? _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject:
Crimsonum wrote:
@Reaperrr: Then what makes it so that you can't build Chem Warriors and SSMs other than in multiplayer and fan-made missions, if they require the same tech level as a Temple?
ah, because multiplayer TechLevel and singleplayer BuildLevel are two separate things
So you meant making Chems and SSMs buildable in singleplayer, Chem yes, SSM not sure, since it outranges anything else on the battlefield, which might give the player too much of an advantage over AI if we increase the firepower as well.
SSM not sure, since it outranges anything else on the battlefield, which might give the player too much of an advantage over AI if we increase the firepower as well.
But that's a matter of testing.
Good point. Though, don't units in Guard -state automatically hunt & counterattack their foes?
If we're talking about infantry here, well, I don't think they'll ever get a chance to counterattack _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject:
Unless there's a lot of groups; it has a slow as hell RoF.
Is it possible to redo Line of Sight? I've always wanted to try experimenting with LoS, to make it realistic - infantry would have the moderate LoS, you can rely on them to scout and spot targets, although they are kinda slow, but dirt cheap too.
Scout vehicles, I'd either give them the longest range, or the same as infantry, because scouts are already much faster than infantry. Aircraft should have the largest LoS, and it would be sick if they could travel through shroud, like Harriers in RA2. Tanks and artillery have shit LoS, the worst; there aren't many windows. Finally, the one and only ship (excluding the hovercraft) would actually have the largest LoS, what with all the communication equipment on board.
Realism, and making infantry awesome, are the goals of my idea.
Other than that to consider, is it possible to extend the range of building placement? If that can be done, is possible to disable constructing buildings off of walls, and defense structures? _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
Well, the game has always been a bit strange considering the tanks have a great sight range, while inf and scouts have quite bad and aircraft cant see at all, but it builds the basis of the game, not sure I want to see it change. On the other notes.
Light tank, it SHOULD be like this. The light tank is not for attacks, its for taking hits so that ALL the other suff nod has can mop up with its over the top fire power (bikes to hit out armour witht the missiles, and flame tanks for toasting inf and buildings, and so on). Changing this will just pull t he tactics OUT of nod, what I want to see, is more diversity in GDI as well, because as it stands they have a tank, a rocket launcher and a BIG tank that can shoot rockets as well.
I was thinking, maybe inf should be cheaper to try and get more of them in the game, I find they are only used for early rush's and stuff, but maybe I dont know how to use them. I think I DONT like the engineer, they're just cheap, lol, no proper tactics involved, just a bit of luck and an apc. what are the thoughts on this?
On the SSM, should it have less firepower to compensate for the fact that its range is the best in the game? should it be a replacement (better version of, more relliable but more expensive) then the artillery and MRLS, or something different? and on the note of the artillery, can it be made to be affective agianst everything, but still be weak and slow and inacurate, I think that may make it useful, the only thing ive found for it is to protect against early inf rushs.
-Liam QUICK_EDIT
I was thinking, maybe inf should be cheaper to try and get more of them in the game, I find they are only used for early rush's and stuff, but maybe I dont know how to use them. I think I DONT like the engineer, they're just cheap, lol, no proper tactics involved, just a bit of luck and an apc. what are the thoughts on this?
I don't think you should decrease their price. Come on, what will happen if Rifle Infantry cost 50 credits?
I, myself, use quite a lot of infantry, actually. I always take Rocket Infantry (they are quite effective in TD) along tanks, and maybe some grenadiers/flamethrowers to take out annoying infantry.
Quote:
On the SSM, should it have less firepower to compensate for the fact that its range is the best in the game? should it be a replacement (better version of, more relliable but more expensive) then the artillery and MRLS, or something different? and on the note of the artillery, can it be made to be affective agianst everything, but still be weak and slow and inacurate, I think that may make it useful, the only thing ive found for it is to protect against early inf rushs.
Considering the SSM uses napalm warheads, I would imagine each missile to be equal to one of the A-10's napalm bombs. Nod doesn't get such secondary superweapon, and one bomb doesn't make too much damage. Mostly on infantry and buildings. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 24 May 2004 Location: Flanders (Be) Posts:300000001
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 2:18 am Post subject:
DoMiNaNt_HuNtEr wrote:
Aircraft should have the largest LoS, and it would be sick if they could travel through shroud, like Harriers in RA2. Tanks and artillery have shit LoS, the worst; there aren't many windows. Finally, the one and only ship (excluding the hovercraft) would actually have the largest LoS, what with all the communication equipment on board.
Realism, and making infantry awesome, are the goals of my idea.
No thanks. Realism seriously sucks sometimes. C&C doesn't rely on scouting as strategic element that much. To prove this point... units fire at anything inside their weapon range, even if it's outside the scouted area (easy to test with artillery/SSM). So making pre-scouting for tanks a strategic element is utterly useless. For artillery it already is a bit necessary but that's mostly because the artillery units are defenseless without backup.
Also, if you give ORCAs the largest LOS possible (which is 10), you can scout the entire map in minutes. It's overpowered. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:25 am Post subject:
Well, it doesn't have to be 10, could be like 6.
Then again, you're right - scouting isn't really an issue, especially with no Fog of War, just the initial shroud.
And the Light Tank is fine the way it is. The only thing I would consider modifying is it's speed, 'cause sometimes it seems pretty slow, but aren't tanks for the most part slow? _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
Instead of having a global Buildlevel/Techlevel for a map, couldn't you have more customization in that department? So that certain units are available whereas others aren't even though the level requirements have been met? Like a way of cancelling units out?
If this idea is too ridiculous then you should properly outline what areas require brainstorming, most people don't know what is feasable and what isn't, beyond a certain limit it has nothing to do with common sense anymore, but with knowledge and familiarity. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject:
Even WW themselves indirectly acknowledged that the light tank was underpowered, because in RA1 they left the medium tank and mammoth cannons untouched, while the light tank received a significant reduction of the reload time by 1/3 (from 60 frames to 40 frames).
Besides, it's not my intention to turn the light tank into some uber fighting machine, we're talking about a moderate adjustment that makes it a bit less useless. I mean come on, it's so weak it loses a direct 1on1 duel vs. a flame tank...[/i] QUICK_EDIT
Even WW themselves indirectly acknowledged that the light tank was underpowered, because in RA1 they left the medium tank and mammoth cannons untouched, while the light tank received a significant reduction of the reload time by 1/3 (from 60 frames to 40 frames).
Besides, it's not my intention to turn the light tank into some uber fighting machine, we're talking about a moderate adjustment that makes it a bit less useless. I mean come on, it's so weak it loses a direct 1on1 duel vs. a flame tank...[/i]
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:
@Nyer: Yeah, don't worry, I won't touch the flame tank
Sindri wrote:
TD =/= RA1
I know that
And I'm not planning to make the light tank as strong as the RA1 counterpart.
Something like slightly faster and slightly lower reload delay (10% or something like that), just so the price of 600 is somewhat justified. QUICK_EDIT
I still dont know if I like the idea that your making nod STRONGER. I think GDI needs more stuff to deal to nod (unit wise). The only way I see GDI winn is through base expantion using the Advanced GT. they just cant stand up to anything flamey + recon bikes in the field... and you want to give nod a better tank? Sure your only tweaking it, but why? I'm lost, I thought eh point of the light tank was that it DIDN'T do much power, so it would be used to take hit for all the other nod stuff dealing the massive damage...
an explanation?
and does anyone agree with this statement?
-Liam
My thoughts are this, GDI needs a unit that can deal with masses of units (buggies + Bikes). I thinkt eh MRLS is supposed to do this, im not sure. But of course its unecsessible until u get Ion, nod, on the other hand, can get what they need as sonn as the stip is down, and the rest of anything once it has comms. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Location: North America Posts: You cannot comprehend...
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:42 am Post subject:
Dude, don't worry, it will all work out; the Light Tank changes will balance out with GDI's unit changes. _________________ Destroy to create. All for the hunt to dominate!
Huh, btw, am I the only one who thinks the MLRS was the anti-personnel unit of GDI? It was excellent against swarms of Nod infantry, who would otherwise be an annoyance to your tanks. Sure, you've got Humvees that can't deal with a couple of Bazooka soldiers, and a Mammoth Tank that you need to turn around so it can fire its missiles (which, usually, miss the target completely). _________________ QUICK_EDIT
so, no one knows?
Heres the issue, nod builds bikes/buggies + flame things, how does GDI cope if it's away form its base (like protecting harvisters for exapmle)?
What can they build that could POSSIBLEY beat that.
-Liam QUICK_EDIT
GDI has humvees, so buggies are removed, and by the time a noddie has a flame tank a gdi guy should have a medium tank. The bikes are a good example of giving nod a chance-sonce most of their units are inferior to their gdi counterparts, their units are cheaper. Therefore NOd should have more units than gdi, however if gdi is able to expand unchecked in the early game, then they will be able to produce more units than nod, therefore winning on both the lines of quality AND quantity. _________________ Please, read the signature rules of the forum. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject:
Lt Albrecht wrote:
$500 for a fast moving, heavier armoured double rocket soldier?
not double. it has 2 rocket pods, but it fires only 1 rocket and has same reload time as a rocket soldier. 2 rs have twice the firepower compared to the bike. but yeah, it's much faster and better armored.
btw, rocket soldiers will receive a boost in TDX. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 19 May 2008 Location: Scotland, starting a Revolution Cameo: metricon. Posts:???
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject:
acording to the official guide to command and conquer
the only reason thay gave gdi a rocket soldiers
Quote:
to help round out the weaker gdi infantry
(i got the guide for christmas, is 3 times a thick as the newer game guides,its 2nd hand, the mission maps are hand drawn (not screenshots)and its for DOS) _________________ Creator of TS:BoB and some other things that might be good when finnished. QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Location: Somewhere in Germany
Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject:
Nyerguds wrote:
man I've wanted that thing for ages
Lt Albrecht wrote:
$500 for a fast moving, heavier armoured double rocket soldier?
...heavy armour? What have you been smoking? Bikes die almost as fast as bazooka soldiers.
yup, bikes are almost totally useless once GDI has some AGTs and infantry.
So they have to wait for the light tanks and flame tanks, which somewhat reduces their speed advantage. Bikes are only good for hit&run attacks and scouting. QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Also, it should be available on lower tech (8, 9?), since AFAIK, it only requires a Comm Center.
