The mindset of the developers and their business plan

[DeHeerser]

Subject:
Westwood created a long-lasting success from a few thousand bucks. EA had millions to spend and still failed. How come?

Description:
The emphasis should not be on online ladder competition or expensive fancy cutscenes, but on the campaign. 75% of people who play RTS games never bother to compete online. Instead they want to build up their base, see it rise from scratch as they customize it with a turret here and a gate there, then explore the map, conquer the AI, beat the mission and see the story unfold. EA invested so much into high-ranking competition because they thought this would popularize their game. But they were wrong, because they failed to recognize the group they focused on (competitive players) is small, picks up a game quickly and lays it aside just as quickly. Whereas the large fanbase of C&C plays it because they love the feeling of being a Mastermind-Strategian, the story, gameplay and atmosphere. Online play was all about "keep the units rolling and overwhelm quickly!" whereas a traditional C&C player loves action but also loves to bide his time while weakening his enemy and waiting until the moment is there to strike.

EA thought the C&C player is a fluid rusher who pours out units right from the start, and once he sees his force is superior is already aching to begin the next match.

But that is not so; the C&C player is one who constructs his base with attention to details and carefully considers the placement of his structures. He doesn't want to immediately deliver a decisive blow but he wants to see the enemy crumbling beneath his attacks one step at a time.

Positive Effect:
The game will have a campaign with a lot of replay value, sub-missions, different possible approaches, a smart AI. After four days of intensive play, people will feel proud and think: "Wow this campaign was really fun! Now let's see what there's to do online". And if the developers spend another year creating an expansion (like Firestorm did), this will be relatively cheap for them (since they'll only need to add new missions, plus a few units and dialogues maybe) but people will be guaranteed to buy that expansion.

In the campaign of the Tiberian Sun your units might discover a lonely subterranean dwelling in some corner of the map. Upon contact, local militias declared their support and joined your force. Not that it really mattered much (the units were weak) but the playthrough was non-linear and the player felt attention was given to details. Perhaps they would send some extra civilian support a few missions later. Or you could send your spy on a sidetrack to find a hidden building to infiltrate, which in the next mission would reveal to you a part of the map. You could sense this was made by people who loved the imaginary world they created. In contrast, EA threw a bunch of millions around to create a campaign which felt unrefined and obligatory in many ways.

C&C 3 and 4 contained only few units and everything had to be functional: Infantry, Anti-vehicle infantry, Anti-infantry-vehicle, anti-air-vehicle, anti-vehicle-vehicle, anti-vehicle-air, anti-structure-air. That was it. Whereas Tiberium Sun and Firestorm contained more out-of-the-box units; Carryals, Cyborg-Reapers, Mobile Missile Hovercrafts, Mobile Stealth Generator, Subterranean APC, Devil's Tongue, Mobile EMP Cannon, Jumpjet Infantry, Limp Drone, Mobile Sensor Array, etc. Players want a great variety of units at their disposal that they can experiment with. A greater amount of units, even if some would not be used every match, would be more appreciated by them than let's say a large amount of skirmish maps or unlockable additional character info. Cover for this by giving them the tools so they can use their imagination and easily create some extra maps themselves.

Also, consider an extremely user-friendly map/mission editor. To create custom scenarios - this will make it more fun to play online, it will create more variation, and people will also be triggered to play online more often (because most want to play online but don't like the pressure of being immediately killed off by some expert). (Age of Mythology came with such an editor {much easier to use than for example that of Starcraft II} with which it is very simple to create your own minigames, a few thousand people still play it although microsoft disbanded the studio which created it. Age of Mythology was in that aspect a bigger success than AoEIII.) The map editors that were released for C&C3 were still way too difficult for users. Custom maps and scenarios is what you need if you want a thriving community in which there is also room for less competitive forms of play. The ladder-focusedness of most online RTS modes scares off the users. I know for a fact people would love to build a map with a big computer-controlled base and then work together with their friends to destroy that base.

EA thought they could rival the online success of Starcraft with C&C3 and 4. Echoing Dawn of War, they tried to make C&C into a game which abandoned economy and focused on micro.

But this was doomed to fail because this is not the mindset of the C&C player. What the C&C player wants is not a straightforward linear obvious approach (Rush or be superweaponed! Turtle or be rushed!) but freedom to establish his base as he sees fit and time to decide his strategic approach. C&C should hold a middle ground between Dawn of War (emphasis on micro) and Supreme Commander 1 (emphasis on large scale) in that respect. EA thought that because Starcraft 1 was such an online competitive success, they could use the C&C franchise and get its audience to get that going as well. They were wrong because in order to lure people online they changed the gameplay into something that didn't fit the frame of mind of the C&C player.

Negative Effect:
Players who want to buy this game and enter serious online ladder competition to get to the top ladder would have less resouces on their thing. (Since most of the team's resources would be on developing a great variety of units and a campaign containing many sub-missions and alternative approaches).

To be honest, I think the far majority of C&C players like to compete against others but they by nature want to take their time and not be under massive pressure from the very first minute. So they would play casual games more often than ranked ladder games.

[GeneralSGJist]

Agreed with all of it,
Balance is easy in a single unit single function system, but we also like multifunction units, but then balance becomes more difficult.

We shall see what VG can come up with.

[RA3-Hogo]

You have that 100% spot on, C&C has always been about the campaign and building bases over time then finally over throwing the enemy with your massive army.
You are also correct about most players never going online, games like C&C & Supreme Commander are all mostly played by people wanting to do single player this has been shown throughout the years of results being released of how many people have accessed the game and never registered online.

I fully SUPPORT this.

[isko]

I'm with you :)...

[WimeSTone]

Agree, we don't need another Starcraft. C&C got to remain C&C. I'm not against multiplayer, it should be like you're playing campaign, with deatails and etc DeHeerser said. This type of playing needs some time for player to prepare, so developers could implement a simple, but effective solution - add "peace" timer. Until it reaches zero, players can't attack each other, can't use any special powers that cause damage to players (not civilians, etc.) or do anything that can harm opponents. Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends, I need to apologize for stealing this idea, but I think it solves ultra-early-rush problem, gives player time to think in C&C way. :D

[justluke3]

I Agree multiplayer is fun to experiment with if youve completed the campaign and want to see how good you are against others online but for me i tend to stick to single player campaign. it will be nice to get another cnc game that mainly focuses on campaign story line and how to make it re-playable such as side missions and unlockable altanate story lines. hopfully VG are reading and taking notes of your post. DeHeerser

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

typical misconception by people who dont understand rts... again, sigh

where exactly do you get the notion that cnc is about sitting in your base turtling with units for hours and then bashing the ai?
technically ANY rts can be that way you know... all it takes is a dumb ai/opponent that allows that style of play to be viable.

you could play starcraft and enjoy 'carefully' placing down your buildings and turrets in your nice-looking base while massing an army for hours, as long as the opponent doesnt take any counter action.
when infact, its not the way its played online, nor is it the way people generally describe starcraft gameplay.


you also fail to see the distinction between 'competitive' online play and 'pro' gamers who play for ladder+rank+cash.
pros are competitive gamers by default, but competitive players are not necessasrily pro; aka they dont have to necessarily care for rank etc.
all they care for is a... competitive online experience.

why care for competitive online experience?
because thats the TRUE face of the game.
its what pushes the gameplay mechanics to its maximum potential.
its where every component: 'real', 'time', 'strategy' comes into full effect. (why? because your objective at all points in the game is to gain an advantage over the opponent and eventually win)
its how you learn to play, optimise and improvise within the framework of -actual- rules set by the game... not YOUR own rules.

you can have a chess game where both players practically mess around trying to create nonsensical piece formations when they may actually have no real 'benefit' in terms of achieving victory.
fact is thats NOT -real- chess... its an artificial game for the sake of having fun with your own rules.

thats precisely the game youre describing here... its not -real- cnc.
EVERY cnc game to date, when played online, is the exact opposite of your description.
and btw "keep the units rolling and overwhelm quickly" is a completely inaccurate description of online play... theres FAR FAR more going on when the opponents are equally skilled.


sure, im all for having a good campaign etc, but i hope you realise when it comes to the actual 'RTS' aspect of the game.... online competitive play is where its at.... not bashing an incompetent AI at the campaign/skirmish or vs a newbie player who has no idea of how the game works 'optimally'.

[Golan2781]

MP and SP shouldn't be seen as opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin. A good game will have both sides polished.

[Plasticz]

MP and SP shouldn't be seen as opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin. A good game will have both sides polished.

Yep. I for one am not really interested in multiplayer. However I realize that there are some out there who play RTS almost exclusively for its multiplayer.

If they can find a balance between fantastic Campaign, and fantastic Multiplayer, then I think they'll be okay. ;)

[DeHeerser]

typical misconception by people who dont understand rts... again, sigh
where exactly do you get the notion that cnc is about sitting in your base turtling with units for hours and then bashing the ai?

you also fail to see the distinction between 'competitive' online play and 'pro' gamers who play for ladder+rank+cash.

you can have a chess game where both players practically mess around trying to create nonsensical piece formations when they may actually have no real 'benefit' in terms of achieving victory.
fact is thats NOT -real- chess... its an artificial game for the sake of having fun with your own rules.


This argument falls flat on its face, for several reasons.
- The author gives his own definition of RTS. Pretends this is the universal definition of it, and from that position attacks the original post. Arrogantly posing as if I had not understood what RTS is. You are trying to make a charicature of an argument that rests upon truth, so you come up with lame statements such as "you just want to play chess with an incompetent AI". All of this is pure rhetoric, one sees for example that I pointed out the AI should be smart and strong.

- There is a difference between what this writer poses as RTS: Dawn of War style and the RTS that is C&C. And I pointed out that C&C holds the middle ground between Dawn of War and Supreme Commander. I've spent thousands of hours playing RTS games competitively online. And you think that I wrote this post just because I want to hide myself in a corner of the map while beating a stupid AI?

- No substantive argument at all. You talk about nonsensical chess formations that bring no benefit to victory. Your trick is postulating an entity in your argument, declared by yourself to be nonsensical and non-contributing, and then pretend as if I wrote such a thing. Which I obviously never would. You are making up your own rules about what RTS is. The point of RTS is that moves which do not contribute to victory are punished, not rewarded. This is the very basic premise you fail to grasp. One wins in an RTS game if you use whatever you have more optimally than your opponent does. Therefore it would be more of a strategic game if there would be more options.

These are the mistakes which C&C3 and Dawn of War made (which I played online I don't know about him). In C&C3 there was so much emphasis on churning out Nod tanks. The gameplay was too linear and too straightforward. Like I said, this is for people who want to overwhelm quickly and once they see their force is superior their thoughts are already with the next match. This is not the mindset of the C&C player.

This symptom became obvious in Dawn of War where everyone rushed towards the middle of the map to claim those resource spots. One side would win, they would reinforce those spots with turrets. The other side would fall back and somehow try to out-boom the other side. Then each would try to get the top-tier Terminator marine unit faster than the other side. I played AoEIII at a fairly high competitive level. At some point everyone started out raiding with mercenary units and long-term investments, such as Banks, became pretty much useless.

These developments actually made the game LESS strategic and not more. Any moron could see what to do now. Likewise in Age of Mythology a noob can download a recorded game of a Kronos rush and quickly get 1800+ with this. If a game takes longer and has more options, the player will need to make more decisions. Decisions make a game strategical. Because you can just memorize the first 10 minutes of gameplay, but after that there's more variation. I've literally seen it happen countless times that 1800++ players come out with a crushing attack because they have memorized every move, but after the first 10 minutes they don't know what to do anymore and fail miserably. This was also a shortcoming of C&C3: "Rush or be superweaponed! Turtle or be rushed!" A superior strategist is he who knows how to deal with variaty of circumstances and immediately see the right move.

You didn't actually bring forward a point, you just bashed a charicature of my otherwise truthful ideas. But I have an intuition of what you want and I will say that it has no decisions. What you want would limit the variety of possible circumstances. It leads to:
1 Quickly go forward and take a specific vital spot on the map because if you do not you will get into a position from which you cannot recover.
2 Quickly tech towards a specific unit and build that unit because it is so much more cost-efficient than the others.

The only way to prevent this is by making bases and base-formation important in the game, and having a large amount of units with different functions. For example the subterranean units, mobile stealth generators and repair vehicles. In C&C Tiberian Sun it was rewarded to make a few hovercrafts, cirlce around the enemy base and attack the powerplants from the water. In C&C 3 you would lose 99% out of times if you tried to do that, because the enemy would have those resources available to overpower you in the front and to beat out your tank surge with his.

Someone else (Wimestone) suggested that there should be a "peace-timer". However I disgree with this. In an RTS game you always try to win, always try to make the most optimal move at every second, and the peace-timer would just postpone the moment at which those moves see their execution and results. So instead I would say that early-game/low-tech units should definitely play a role, such as Nod-Bikes, Attack-Buggies, Wolverines and whatnot. They would be useable to weaken the enemy and to gain useful intel, but they shouldn't be strong enough to cripple someone's base right from the start.

[Golan2781]

Perhaps you should try to get your point across more clearly, preferably with less irrelevant EA bashing, as currently it really comes across similar to what CGF described.

[DeHeerser]

I don't know about you, but EA made some market decisions (such as removing base construction, Tiberium gathering, not to mention they replaced everything with a animé/cartoon/kiddy outlook) that they could've known might turn the opinions of fans against them. Undergoing the punishment is part of the self-purification and I've been fairly mild on EA comparing some of the other threads. There's no need for fanboying either since I'm just bringing across some objective ideas.

I suppose this is like politics: The upperclass (EA management) get some ideas in mind that they think would enhance the prestige of their company. In this case they thought that they could turn C&C gameplay into an online competitive community comparable to Starcraft. The people most active on the forums, moderators and community managers identify with the upperclass, because they think that by being sweet to them their opinions will be taken notice of. Therefore they will be ready to defend the new changes proposed by the directors. So the EA-upperclass got the idea that these proposals were actually widely carried by the fans. Whereas the largest base of the fans just play the game and don't really bother to get active/involved in those online communities. Until EA went too far and now they are here. In the same process it comes as a surprise to political party leaders when it is found that the basis of the electorate has turned against them.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

the first point i was trying to make was you must judge rts gameplay by virtue of its competitive online aspect... it cannot be judged by playing vs an ai (provided it is 'incompetent'... and thats been the case for almost every rts to date, and will continue to be until the day the ai can learn to adapt and think like a human). the former is where the game's mechanics are truly put to the test and abused. it is the optimal, and 'truest' manifestation of gameplay.

now with that cleared up...


- There is a difference between what this writer poses as RTS: Dawn of War style and the RTS that is C&C. And I pointed out that C&C holds the middle ground between Dawn of War and Supreme Commander. I've spent thousands of hours playing RTS games competitively online. And you think that I wrote this post just because I want to hide myself in a corner of the map while beating a stupid AI?
holds the middle ground in what sense exactly?

in the way you described it? aka comfortably camping your base massing units for hours and then finding odd ways to break the opponent's turtle.
sorry but that is not, and has never been the case for any cnc game when played competitively online.

thus your description and expectations of the series are rubbish.


- No substantive argument at all. You talk about nonsensical chess formations that bring no benefit to victory. Your trick is postulating an entity in your argument, declared by yourself to be nonsensical and non-contributing, and then pretend as if I wrote such a thing. Which I obviously never would. You are making up your own rules about what RTS is. The point of RTS is that moves which do not contribute to victory are punished, not rewarded. This is the very basic premise you fail to grasp. One wins in an RTS game if you use whatever you have more optimally than your opponent does. Therefore it would be more of a strategic game if there would be more options.
my example of 'nonsensical chess piece formations' was simply a parallel i was drawing with 'your' way of playing cnc.... point being its NOT how the game is played, and does not constitute a viable option (one that will yield any benefit/reward), when played properly.


In C&C3 there was so much emphasis on churning out Nod tanks. The gameplay was too linear and too straightforward. Like I said, this is for people who want to overwhelm quickly and once they see their force is superior their thoughts are already with the next match. This is not the mindset of the C&C player.

In C&C 3 you would lose 99% out of times if you tried to do that, because the enemy would have those resources available to overpower you in the front and to beat out your tank surge with his.
and all these statements about cnc3 are just flat out -wrong-. It would probably be true in describing cnc3 tw versions 1.0-1.4, but with the patches(+kw) that followed the game was turned around completely.
so when i talk of cnc3/kw, im referring to the later patch versions.. which unfortunately many people did not bother trying after being frustrated with the initial release (which i agree was shallow and bug-ridden).

i cant really speak for the older titles, because despite having played them all i never played them 'competitively' like i did cnc3... but to me cnc3, for the most part, had all the defining gameplay aspects of the previous games + alot of sensible improvements that improved depth.... it featured everything from economy building, plenty of harassment/sneak attacks, various army/unit combinations and strategies etc

im not going to go into further detail for now, but i suggest if youre going to pull examples from cnc3, atleast make sure you know a thing or two about its gameplay.

[DeHeerser]

The middle ground in (see O.P.) between emphasis on large scale and the importance of microing.
Although I will say that you have a point in the importance of breaking an opponent's turtle. It all really goes back to saying that there should be a variety of units with useful abilities to counter turteling. Although turteling usually counters itself since theres' only so much Tiberium/Ore one can harvest. If you spend it all on turrets and the field depletes itself, then what? Wait until it grows back? Turteling is only really viable for a long term strat if superweapons are overpowered. Which goes back to "Rush or be superweaponed..." To be honest I was understandably a little ticked off by your opening "you fail to understand what RTS is!"

Also, for the politics example, take Apoc in mind for instance. He helped to push decisions of EA that he knew in his heart the fans would not embrace, but since he was caught between two fires he really couldn't do much to change the impetus of the tide the directors were steering in. But now the coast seems to tilt the ship and there's new options being opened. He also had his job to consider.

[methuselah]

With all due respect I think the OP is crazy. At one time APOC bandied about a 70% (not 75%) number but that was a long, long time ago and I never got him to quantify how he arrived at that number.

Regardless, IMHO, the future of RTS is not singleplayer it is multiplayer. Before you stop reading and start frothing at the singleplayer bit I totally understand the appeal of the single player campaign and am not abdicating any sort of abandonment of its importance to what makes C&C what it is. I'm not interested in engaging in the debate because it gives me tired head but there is a reason that Starcraft 2 will sell 10,871,999,811,100 and that all the C&C titles rolled into one will not sell that many.

And it ain't because the campaign is so magnificent.

I respect your right to feel like the campaign is the single most important factor FOR YOU. Please do the same for me knowing I will probably not spend one single moment playing the campaign for the next game. I do not enjoy playing Sim City C&C and building the most beautiful and lovely base you have ever seen. What I enjoy is jumping online and getting challenged. C&C to me is a casual sport, winning and losing is important to me.

Beating the AI or building up some pretty base is simply not something I enjoy. So for meth go ahead and spend some time on the campaign please. It is what ties the universes together and although I may not play through it I enjoy the fiction.

Just don't let it detract from the multiplayer focus. Please!

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

The middle ground in (see O.P.) between emphasis on large scale and the importance of microing.
Although I will say that you have a point in the importance of breaking an opponent's turtle. It all really goes back to saying that there should be a variety of units with useful abilities to counter turteling. Although turteling usually counters itself since theres' only so much Tiberium/Ore one can harvest. If you spend it all on turrets and the field depletes itself, then what? Wait until it grows back? Turteling is only really viable for a long term strat if superweapons are overpowered. Which goes back to "Rush or be superweaponed..." To be honest I was understandably a little ticked off by your opening "you fail to understand what RTS is!"

wtf are you on about now?
i didnt even talk about turtling...

let me sum my points up
- cnc is NOT about camping in your base building pretty bases and turrets for hours, and then overwhelming with armies (= typical campaign/skirmish player's point of view), or winning 2 minute games by rushing (= typical online noob player's point of view)

- it is actually infact a very fast paced rts that features a good deal of micro, macro, eco management, and good variety in strategies (now all this varies with each cnc game, but this is how id describe cnc3). This is how cnc is when played online competitively.

- hardcore turtling like you described would NOT work vs competitive players, because they DO understand the idea that map control + more resources >> turtler. Thus in a typical game will feature a lot of constant action and battles for gaining map control and the denying the opponent of it.

- equally skilled players playing eachother means games will easily last over 10-20 mins (and NOT end in 2 min rushes like noobs believe) or even longer... such a game will typically feature a lot of decision making, adapting and counter the opponent's moves, and in general trying to outsmart and outplay the opponent.

[WimeSTone]

- hardcore turtling like you described would NOT work vs competitive players, because they DO understand the idea that map control + more resources >> turtler. Thus in a typical game will feature a lot of constant action and battles for gaining map control and the denying the opponent of it.


I got to disappoint you, if you face a really good turtle, no competitive player's "hocus pocus" will help you. Turtling doesn't mean "no map control", we control map in other ways. Stop bashing turtles or we bash you.

P.S. BTW, stop this discussion... Multiplayer is as important as the singleplayer. DIXI.

[Kyang]

Multiplayer is as important as the singleplayer.
I agree.



I got to disappoint you, if you face a really good turtle, no competitive player's "hocus pocus" will help you. Turtling doesn't mean "no map control", we control map in other ways.
I'm not sure I understand. What are these "Other ways", how are they different from any other way of going out and securing map control, and why do you call normal competitive things like scouting and taking resource points "Hocus Pocus"?

[WimeSTone]

I'm not sure I understand. What are these "Other ways", how are they different from any other way of going out and securing map control, and why do you call normal competitive things like scouting and taking resource points "Hocus Pocus"?

Never mind. ^^ I don't usually troll, but this time I had to. Too many trash talk about turtling... :(

[Golan2781]

I don't know about you, but EA made some market decisions[..] In the same process it comes as a surprise to political party leaders when it is found that the basis of the electorate has turned against them.This is a discussion forum for ideas and suggestions. If you want to get your point across, present it in an understandable and direct way. EA deserves a lot of flack but it is of no use here and deteriorates any point you try to make.


With all due respect I think the OP is crazy.[...]Just don't let it detract from the multiplayer focus. Please!The success of SC2 has numerous reasons, among which is actually a very good SP. For a great number of people, playing MP competitively is out of question - skill, time, interest, there are many things disqualifying RTS games as a "sport" for the average person. And as we all know, playing such games non-competitively can be... unsatisfying. Yes, the success of SC's MP is a amongst the best PR a game developer/publisher can hope for, but for many people it's not a selling point in itself, only a (very good) indicator that the people making said game know what they are doing.
The future of RTS is neither singleplayer nor multiplayer, but both combined. Catering either means creating only half a game, sometimes not even that, which is something no franchise hoping to be genre leader can afford. The basis of every good RTS is an excellent gameplay (i.e. MP) as well as the means to get said gameplay across to a great number of players (i.e. SP).


I got to disappoint you, if you face a really good turtle, no competitive player's "hocus pocus" will help you. Turtling doesn't mean "no map control", we control map in other ways. Stop bashing turtles or we bash you.You seem to have a different definition of turtling than him.

[Kyang]

Never mind. ^^ I don't usually troll, but this time I had to. Too many trash talk about turtling... :(

I see. Okay.

[Troopzor]

I definitely agree with this thread.

The most fun I've had in C&C SP was when I was on the ropes because the enemy AI was pounding me with a steady stream of units, then I come back after turtleing and using precision strike units like aircraft and stealth tanks (or a huge army of course)

In fact, the variety of units is what makes C&C so much fun online for me. The variety means there are much more that one way to deal with an enemy threat. Enemy have a large frontal defense and none inside? Subterranean APC'S! Don't know where the enemy base is? Limp node on a scout unit! I just loved how in TS I had so many options of how I could approach any given situation.

[DeHeerser]

@Troopzor
Thanks for supporting the thread. The opponents have nothing on the Original Post. All their arguments boil down to two varieties:

"You turtler noob! You just want to hide in a hole playing sim city against an incompetent AI."
--> This is sheer rhetoric, intended to mask the FACT that EA changed the gameplay of C&C which deviates substantially from the original mindset from which the fans embraced it. The point of these sorts of comments is to make readers laugh and once they start laughing they think the actual arguments have been refuted. Which is not the case.

--> "All these facts are your opinion and I might as well have a different opinion. I might like the multiplayer better than the singleplayer so there."
Again, EA fundamentally changed key features of the game in order to get a massive online community going with the C&C franchise. They then invested lots of resources into making promotions for online match commentators and spectators, special shows, hiring actors (for example all those movies with some chicks showing off moves and sexiness to increase the appeal of RA3). All this went at the cost of a deep and immersive campaign, which Westwood always focused on. Obviously multiplayer should be good and functional. I never denied this (but opponents insinuate that I denied that, since they think they need some sort of ammo against me). EA just shouldn't expect online to become so massively hot and big as they did expected it to be.

This is how it felt to fans: They weren't happy that EA reduced the unit variety and changed the game into something extremely fast-paced in comparison to the previous titles. Fans still bought C&C3 since they were happy that a C&C game was at least produced. But then when EA started to focus a lot upon shows and commercials, it started to feel as if this was all intended to shove something more pleasantly down their throats. While on other aspect some wishes of fans were being ignored for a long while, for example they would have liked a kit of tools to mod Kane's Wrath. However this last point is off topic of the original post.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

This is sheer rhetoric, intended to mask the FACT that EA changed the gameplay of C&C which deviates substantially from the original mindset
it is this claim of yours that i repeatedly said was -wrong-.

cnc3 stayed very much true to the core. the 'deviations' began only in ra3 with its specialised unit roles and simplified economy.


Again, EA fundamentally changed key features of the game in order to get a massive online community going with the C&C franchise. They then invested lots of resources into making promotions for online match commentators and spectators, special shows, hiring actors (for example all those movies with some chicks showing off moves and sexiness to increase the appeal of RA3). All this went at the cost of a deep and immersive campaign, which Westwood always focused on. Obviously multiplayer should be good and functional. I never denied this (but opponents insinuate that I denied that, since they think they need some sort of ammo against me). EA just shouldn't expect online to become so massively hot and big as they did expected it to be.
nonsense
all this has nothing to do with the quality of singleplayer campaigns - and most of those you mentioned were investments made AFTER game release so that has no impact on the game during development itself

gameplay forms the basic foundation upon which both multiplayer and singleplayer are built. if gameplay sucks, both suck. if you shift focus away from perfecting gameplay mechanics and more into campaign, the end result would still be terrible in its own way.

they got the basic gameplay right, and made some good (and a few bad) balance adjustments later on with the patches... but the campaign was below par simply because thats how they designed it.

if anything blame it on the time restrictions/deadlines (eala's policy of releasing 1 game per year atleast) imposed by the ea bosses on the developer team - this is what led to the poor quality of campaigns.

[smurfbizkit]

The emphasis should not be on online ladder competition or expensive fancy cutscenes, but on the campaign. 75% of people who play RTS games never bother to compete online. Instead they want to build up their base, see it rise from scratch as they customize it with a turret here and a gate there, then explore the map, conquer the AI, beat the mission and see the story unfold. EA invested so much into high-ranking competition because they thought this would popularize their game. But they were wrong, because they failed to recognize the group they focused on (competitive players) is small, picks up a game quickly and lays it aside just as quickly.

1) Most of this, along with your post is you stating sweeping generalizations and opinions as if they are fact. It is fine to say those things, but back them up with proper sources (such as quotes from Epic saying how most players who bought Unreal Tournament never went online and just played against AI).

2) Who has ever said that EA's priority hasn't been SP? A couple years ago at the RA3 Summit they had a full complete white-box version of the campaign finished...and 1 finished 2player multiplayer map. It's been pretty clear that SP has BY FAR been EA's focus.

----------------

I came into the thread hoping this would be about an actual business plan issue that EA has with C&C. The problems shown before the series went on its break, where they cranked out a new C&C every year like clockwork, each title decreasing in quality.

How should EA make and sell CNC now? The old 'make game, release game, make expansion pack, release expansion pack' they did before isn't going to cut it. Releasing so many CNC's close together means; a) mod scene can't figure out a game and gain critical mass b) devs never have enough time to fully balance a game c) dillution of the IP.

The problem is that the Blizzard-model of 'spend 5-6 years making game, release it, sell 6+ million copies' won't work. EA can't spend that time on it, nor are their dev's good enough to make a game that'll sell that much.

I've thought about this a lot, and honestly have no good idea how EA can grow the franchise. RTS sales seem to be capped at 1-2 million (unless its a 'craft). Do you ***** out DLC, Bioware-style? Do you go free2play and opt for heavy microtranscations (like League of Legends)? The last two options there at least allow the dev team to switch to a service-oriented business model (which allows for lengthy balancing).

[ALRAB00]

i fully 1000% i support this
hope VG get it and yes i played cnc only for the campaing and i played starcraft 2 for online this is just it there is some games for online and some games for single player as main part while the online comes as a secondry

thats cnc
main goal is single player to be over powered then they take care with patching and balancing the online

but in starcraft 2 its all about online main goal in it online seconrdy goal in it if u got bored of online u can try single player
and this is just how it works :D

[Timmaigh]

This argument falls flat on its face, for several reasons.
- The author gives his own definition of RTS. Pretends this is the universal definition of it, and from that position attacks the original post. Arrogantly posing as if I had not understood what RTS is. You are trying to make a charicature of an argument that rests upon truth, so you come up with lame statements such as "you just want to play chess with an incompetent AI". All of this is pure rhetoric, one sees for example that I pointed out the AI should be smart and strong.

- There is a difference between what this writer poses as RTS: Dawn of War style and the RTS that is C&C. And I pointed out that C&C holds the middle ground between Dawn of War and Supreme Commander. I've spent thousands of hours playing RTS games competitively online. And you think that I wrote this post just because I want to hide myself in a corner of the map while beating a stupid AI?

- No substantive argument at all. You talk about nonsensical chess formations that bring no benefit to victory. Your trick is postulating an entity in your argument, declared by yourself to be nonsensical and non-contributing, and then pretend as if I wrote such a thing. Which I obviously never would. You are making up your own rules about what RTS is. The point of RTS is that moves which do not contribute to victory are punished, not rewarded. This is the very basic premise you fail to grasp. One wins in an RTS game if you use whatever you have more optimally than your opponent does. Therefore it would be more of a strategic game if there would be more options.

These are the mistakes which C&C3 and Dawn of War made (which I played online I don't know about him). In C&C3 there was so much emphasis on churning out Nod tanks. The gameplay was too linear and too straightforward. Like I said, this is for people who want to overwhelm quickly and once they see their force is superior their thoughts are already with the next match. This is not the mindset of the C&C player.

This symptom became obvious in Dawn of War where everyone rushed towards the middle of the map to claim those resource spots. One side would win, they would reinforce those spots with turrets. The other side would fall back and somehow try to out-boom the other side. Then each would try to get the top-tier Terminator marine unit faster than the other side. I played AoEIII at a fairly high competitive level. At some point everyone started out raiding with mercenary units and long-term investments, such as Banks, became pretty much useless.

These developments actually made the game LESS strategic and not more. Any moron could see what to do now. Likewise in Age of Mythology a noob can download a recorded game of a Kronos rush and quickly get 1800+ with this. If a game takes longer and has more options, the player will need to make more decisions. Decisions make a game strategical. Because you can just memorize the first 10 minutes of gameplay, but after that there's more variation. I've literally seen it happen countless times that 1800++ players come out with a crushing attack because they have memorized every move, but after the first 10 minutes they don't know what to do anymore and fail miserably. This was also a shortcoming of C&C3: "Rush or be superweaponed! Turtle or be rushed!" A superior strategist is he who knows how to deal with variaty of circumstances and immediately see the right move.

You didn't actually bring forward a point, you just bashed a charicature of my otherwise truthful ideas. But I have an intuition of what you want and I will say that it has no decisions. What you want would limit the variety of possible circumstances. It leads to:
1 Quickly go forward and take a specific vital spot on the map because if you do not you will get into a position from which you cannot recover.
2 Quickly tech towards a specific unit and build that unit because it is so much more cost-efficient than the others.

The only way to prevent this is by making bases and base-formation important in the game, and having a large amount of units with different functions. For example the subterranean units, mobile stealth generators and repair vehicles. In C&C Tiberian Sun it was rewarded to make a few hovercrafts, cirlce around the enemy base and attack the powerplants from the water. In C&C 3 you would lose 99% out of times if you tried to do that, because the enemy would have those resources available to overpower you in the front and to beat out your tank surge with his.

Someone else (Wimestone) suggested that there should be a "peace-timer". However I disgree with this. In an RTS game you always try to win, always try to make the most optimal move at every second, and the peace-timer would just postpone the moment at which those moves see their execution and results. So instead I would say that early-game/low-tech units should definitely play a role, such as Nod-Bikes, Attack-Buggies, Wolverines and whatnot. They would be useable to weaken the enemy and to gain useful intel, but they shouldn't be strong enough to cripple someone's base right from the start.


I agree with the sentiment, that more time the game takes/ more units you have, the game becomes more strategic. StarCraft 2 is not a good example of RTS, its real-time, yes, but its far too fast-paced for being called strategy. You can basically lose whole game in 3 seconds long battle, you expect such things to happen in Call of Duty, not a strategy game. The ridiculous unit counts (3 zealots, 2 stalkers, 1 sentry = army, LOL) make this game more of a action RPG than strategy.
Anyway i admit, i believe, the game should be primarily build around multiplayer and the campaign should just be tailored to fit.

EDIT: Reading more of the thread, i would like to say, i expect the next CnC to be return to its tradition, i hope Victory Games wont try to emulate SC2. If there is a game, CnC should follow at least partially, its definitely SupCom2.
The most important thing though, i do want faster paced unit production/base building and slower paced battles, not other way around. SC2 is exactly other way around, you are bored to death first 10 minutes following the memorized build order, everything take ages to build, you are constantly out of money...and then your "army" bites the dust in 5 seconds or less. I absolutely hate it, its wrong on some many levels.

[EvilConker]

Honestly, my most enjoyable matches are done in skirmish mode.

In Generals, playing online and offline was a completely different experience, you couldn't get away with 10 inferno cannons online, in fact, good luck getting away with building a propaganda center in general.

It's a shame that everyone is always concerned more with "what will make me win" then "what is the most creative tactic to win." It takes away the fun of online, as offline it's more of a "you and yourself" feel where you can experiment all you want, all the while having a plausible threat.

[nodforev]

C&C before RA3 balanced out the SP, MP aspect in TS the first few campagine missions yea okk you could make a pretty base and make a massive army but in the last 5 or 6 missions if you didnt auto defend the start you were done for.

As for the MP aspect i agree with Timmaigh that C&C needs to have the reverse of take a short time to make unit production facilities but then take a massive amount of time to even a ammas such a large rush force.

As for that one idea of a timer i could see that implemented in one way. You can attack with harrasment troops like attack bikes or humvees but until at least 1 or 2 min into the game you cant make tier 2 and 3 units which allow to plow over the oppenet.

Plus lets look at why C&C was created so you could have hundreds of units on the map fighting not 30 tanks owning you in 2 minutes.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

theres no need for timers or redesigning anything to do with unit production... just learn to play the game ffs
cnc3/ra3 were headed in the right direction

[Kyang]

No-rush games in RTS is like having FPS matches where no one shoots for 10 minutes so everyone can run around to set up their firing lines, get into position and whatever before finally fighting. Sure you can play that way, and I'm positive someone would enjoy that. But neither side will ever be able to convince the other that their way is better.

[DeHeerser]

Honestly, my most enjoyable matches are done in skirmish mode.

In Generals, playing online and offline was a completely different experience, you couldn't get away with 10 inferno cannons online, in fact, good luck getting away with building a propaganda center in general.

It's a shame that everyone is always concerned more with "what will make me win" then "what is the most creative tactic to win." It takes away the fun of online, as offline it's more of a "you and yourself" feel where you can experiment all you want, all the while having a plausible threat.

This is also why I wrote in the Original Post that giving players user-friendly tools to build their own missions, maps and scenarios will improve the popularity of the game. For example think about things such as Death of the Ancients, Nexus Wars, The Summoner, Norse Wars, and other user-developed scenarios in games such as Warcraft, Starcraft, and Age of Mythology. People can come up with creative new uses for units and buildings and make those into missions that can be playd with friends. Lot's of people play them.

[Golan2781]

For example think about things such as Death of the Ancients, Nexus Wars, The Summoner, Norse Wars, and other user-developed scenarios in games such as Warcraft, Starcraft, and Age of Mythology. People can come up with creative new uses for units and buildings and make those into missions that can be playd with friends. Lot's of people play them.This was also very much possible in earlier C&Cs (http://www.moddb.com/mods/granatball). Few people care.

[Jackhay]

I definatly think it should be alot more RTS like as in slower and more tactical than "Rush to victory" because that just ruins the game removes the S from RTS because you have no time to plan or anything because the Enemy has rushed you before you can make one, it ruins the game and destroyed the community.

[Kyang]

I definatly think it should be alot more RTS like as in slower and more tactical than "Rush to victory" because that just ruins the game removes the S from RTS because you have no time to plan or anything because the Enemy has rushed you before you can make one, it ruins the game and destroyed the community.

Shouldn't your strategy account for "rushes"?

[Jaroor]

On the SP vs. MP thing: I see the need for both, but I do not share the opinion that SP does not stretch the gameplay or the gamer. One of my favorite things to do is to face a brutal AI and retry the mission untill I can win it. This is not possible in MP because the game would have to be ballanced (not sided towards the AI), and uniqe (a human would not play the game the same way every time).

I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself, but I think EA tried to make a MP game with Tib4, and by most accounts it didn't work. I would like them to attempt to make a great single player game. This interest may not be reflected here (online formums ought to favor online players), but I believe it could sell just as well as multiplayer.

I also believe that a great game would have amazing SP and MP modes. As Obama would put it, this all may be a false choice.

[Commander32]

theres no need for timers or redesigning anything to do with unit production... just learn to play the game ffs
cnc3/ra3 were headed in the right direction

indeed they are, and there are even sum concepts that CnC4 brought that can be used in future games. just not all of em ;P

[DeHeerser]

Remember that mods were downloaded many ten thousands of times so this suggests that people do want to have more freedom to experiment with user-designed missions and maps. Red Alert 1 had a map editor and many people made maps. Tiberian Sun only had a "map generator" which gave you much less creative freedom. So people will play the new C&C game for a longer time if they can play maps and missions created by themselves or by their friends.

EDIT: Also Red Alert II had an online map builder released, which was quite successful. It allowed one to build maps, even with units and structures in them. For example a very cool map that was created was "graveyard shift" that had patrolling neutral units. If such a tool is created it's very important that it is very user friendly so that non-experts can learn to use it fairly quickly.

http://www.cnclabs.com/downloads/details.aspx?id=831

[TiberianFiend]

Subject:
Also, consider an extremely user-friendly map/mission editor. To create custom scenarios - this will make it more fun to play online, it will create more variation, and people will also be triggered to play online more often (because most want to play online but don't like the pressure of being immediately killed off by some expert). (Age of Mythology came with such an editor {much easier to use than for example that of Starcraft II} with which it is very simple to create your own minigames, a few thousand people still play it although microsoft disbanded the studio which created it. Age of Mythology was in that aspect a bigger success than AoEIII.) The map editors that were released for C&C3 were still way too difficult for users. Custom maps and scenarios is what you need if you want a thriving community in which there is also room for less competitive forms of play. The ladder-focusedness of most online RTS modes scares off the users. I know for a fact people would love to build a map with a big computer-controlled base and then work together with their friends to destroy that base.

EA thought they could rival the online success of Starcraft with C&C3 and 4. Echoing Dawn of War, they tried to make C&C into a game which abandoned economy and focused on micro.

But this was doomed to fail because this is not the mindset of the C&C player. What the C&C player wants is not a straightforward linear obvious approach (Rush or be superweaponed! Turtle or be rushed!) but freedom to establish his base as he sees fit and time to decide his strategic approach. C&C should hold a middle ground between Dawn of War (emphasis on micro) and Supreme Commander 1 (emphasis on large scale) in that respect. EA thought that because Starcraft 1 was such an online competitive success, they could use the C&C franchise and get its audience to get that going as well. They were wrong because in order to lure people online they changed the gameplay into something that didn't fit the frame of mind of the C&C player.


I must admit alot of what you say hits the mark, but this is the fine detail which makes or breaks companies with a game series, we must acknowledge that C&C has good points and bad points; a good game and a bad game and not every C&C has reached the expectation of everyone, saying that there is room for improvement and alot of what you are saying is true, but can you point to the factors that would potentionaly make the next C&C a "middle ground between Dawn of War (emphasis on micro) and Supreme Commander 1 (emphasis on large scale)" and I would love to see a game where I can hold units that make a difference with a use of 1-4 (chaos bloodletters eg) units worth; but sometimes the art style demands multiple units like the tyranids.

The Worldbuilder is something that is of the "middle ground", yes there are bad points about it however in its madness lives alot of freedom for map designers in its restrictions and limitations - as mappers can push againest the limits to produce unique and different features for the game that may not have been considered by the creator company or been unable to be implemented in time to make a profit for the game.

The Worldbuilder has also been restricted to the SAGE engine as well, it would be unfair to say that its not user friendly considering it was developed before considerations could be taken into account; however now is the time to mention that a new engine could allow for a better and easy to use World builder.

Classic things i'd say that makes the WB hard for new users is:

- Scale - What is a large map, what is a small map?
The sizes are all well and good but you couldn't say that the map is suitable for your plan unless you place a object ontop of it to compare with, specific sizes are good there should be selection options to create pre-made sizes suitable for scaled maps.

- Shape - Most new mappers just like to play around with the functions and get different things happening, as soon as shaping the map comes into play it is practicaly impossible to shape the terrain to get elevated base areas and smoothed out terrain patterns, terrain objects (cliff objects) now dominate the shaping of this but aren't set up with the default grid system and then trying identify the height it extends is even harder; not to mention badly placed source points make it near impossible for the object to sit correctly.

- Basic map setup requirements, unless you read the documentation - its hard to set up starting points, accurately and fairly place resource and/or control points theres nothing in the software that explains it; so those who explore the program are left at a loss.

Things I strongly think we should keep:

- The underneath structure - The options that make the maps to the fullest should be availble to the users; so they can recreate the maps the way the were intented to be in terms of enviromentally and Logically (scripting), however complex the process of reaching it; it should be there as an advanced featuring in it own mode.

[Cacra]

I disagree 100% with this thread, i must of spent 2 hours playing the campaign ( and that was only to familarise myself with the controls ) I only bought c&c for the multiplayer. ;)

[Technique]

Who even cares about single player rts?

The whole point of real time strategy games is too measure yourself against another human being, not some pre planned boring cpu...

Other game types are much more suited for single player imo and even in the rts department, if you want single player, you should look at games like rome total war and what not...

[Golan2781]

Who even cares about single player rts?The majority of players, it seems. The AI being relatively bad for SP is more like an argument to improve the AI, not reduce the importance of the SP.


The whole point of real time strategy games is too measure yourself against another human being, not some pre planned boring cpu...The whole point of a game is to have fun. For those that seek an ultimate and dynamic challenge, MP is, so far, the best choice. For those that just want to play a quick, fun game every now and then... not so much MP.

[mirza044]

Who even cares about single player rts?
hahahaha, you are joking, right?!

[emonterrosa]

Im with you on that one I still care and the single player horrors of tib twilight will haunt me for a very long time

[DeHeerser]

Im with you on that one I still care and the single player horrors of tib twilight will haunt me for a very long time

Thanks for the support, and I hope that you will recover and that the developers will learn from this traumatic experience (someone in a thread said "it felt like EA took my favourite childhood dog outside and shot it"). There may still be hope, if they are prepared to listen to the fans and their arguments and ideas.

For example I had the idea (see other thread) to give a player the ability to request units of another player (in team) for command. The player then has the simple option to grant or deny this request. So in Multiplayer when someone is completely whiped off the map (or nearly so) he/she doesn't need to (rage)quit since you can give that player (for example) a tank regiment and he help you to micro more effectively in the upcoming battle.

[Kanesbestfriend]

LIES ! Red Alert 3 was cool. Fun Game . Fun Campaign . "Fun" Cut scenes :D.

But only a few missions, yet I'm more of multiplayer. Campaign is just 40% of the fun.

[DeHeerser]

Now those are some lies. Read this for example:


With RA3, the cartoony graphics is just a symptom of the bigger issue, which is overall cheesy, wanna-be funny, boobs-centered style of the game. I never understood, why the thought people want to command schoolgirls, armored bears or ninjas instead of tanks and war-planes. Personally i think my affinition to RTSes is down to my interest in weapons, technologies, i like the uniformity of the marching troops/tanks and epicness of plane formations...somehow i would think this is what most people like about it, and its definitely not there with bunch of schoolgirls...

Regarding next Generals, i do not think anyone means by serious game no Overlords or Propaganda Towers...its true they might not be completely realistic, but the point is, they are not RIDICULOUS and NOT completely unrelated to military. Generals had its share of humour, like those GLA peasants and "shoes" upgrade, or bit sci-fi stuff like lasers on planes, but overall it was quite serious game, where you really felt to be in command of a slightly futuristic version of modern day military, not some sort of circus...

This is what i expect, no DEMAND, from next CnC, even if it was Red Alert game.

So you had a Cold-War kind of game, and took the tanks and weapons away from that and replaced them with kid's toys. Let's all cheer for that! Well the sales were definitely not something to cheer for.

[Timmaigh]

Thanks for the support, and I hope that you will recover and that the developers will learn from this traumatic experience (someone in a thread said "it felt like EA took my favourite childhood dog outside and shot it"). There may still be hope, if they are prepared to listen to the fans and their arguments and ideas.

For example I had the idea (see other thread) to give a player the ability to request units of another player (in team) for command. The player then has the simple option to grant or deny this request. So in Multiplayer when someone is completely whiped off the map (or nearly so) he/she doesn't need to (rage)quit since you can give that player (for example) a tank regiment and he help you to micro more effectively in the upcoming battle.

Its a good idea, the shared unit control, it can be done in StaCraft 2 too.

[Timmaigh]

Now those are some lies. Read this for example:



So you had a Cold-War kind of game, and took the tanks and weapons away from that and replaced them with kid's toys. Let's all cheer for that! Well the sales were definitely not something to cheer for.

Yep, i read now stuff about rebooting Tiberium series, when its actually Red Alert what needs to be rebooted, if anything. Granted, CnC4 was apparently broken, but this was mostly down to the NO BASES concept of gameplay, i mean i suppose it kept its serious sci-fi feeling, right?... do not know about the campaign story, but if people demand reboot of Tiberium based on bad CnC4 backstory, its really for the LULz... seriously Kane returned in every Tiberium game, right? only because of that you cant take such story serious, its basically C-movie writing...
On another hand Red Alert was broken with addition of Yuris and Japs beyond recognition, it absolutely lost its Cold War feeling, the first RA boasted.... so if this was rebooted and got rid of the ridiculous stuff, i would not protest...

[couchpolster]

I agree to the author in most parts. The majority of people buy C&C's because of the campaigns, I'm sure of that. Thus the singleplayer is the gate to multiplayer activity so to speak. The Kane story line is very popular and before CNC4 was released I read 'Oh what's going to happen?' everywhere. If EA wants to sell a greater number they must care about singleplayer. However if they want to gain reputation onf the C&C franchise they also need to worry about online gameplay. Therefore constant patching is necessary. I play RA3 and I love RA3, I lent C&C3 from a friend for a week and I only played it for about two hours because it was so not my taste, but back to my point: RA3 has about eight bugs and exploits that are banned from the ladder and EA doesn't even consider shooting a bugfix patch.
Back to RA3: As you are talking about turtling so much, I don't know of that turtling in RA3. There are turtlers sometimes but meh. Even low-mids can beat turtlers it's so easy, you just need to expand to every resource field on the map and I guess the strength of superweapons in CC3 are somewhere near to RA3's so your opponent can only wipe out one building if you spread your structures.

[Harrrr]

So you had a Cold-War kind of game, and took the tanks and weapons away from that and replaced them with kid's toys. Let's all cheer for that! Well the sales were definitely not something to cheer for.

RA2 shipped over a million games the first week of release (Source: http://www.cncgames.com/wspress.shtml#Westwood%20Studios%20Ships%20More%20 Than%201%20Million)
RA2 also has consistently higher user ratings than the first Red Alert. Metacritic lists RA2's user ratings at 9.6 with 96 votes while Red Alert rates 9.0 with 32 votes.

[Timmaigh]

I agree to the author in most parts. The majority of people buy C&C's because of the campaigns, I'm sure of that. Thus the singleplayer is the gate to multiplayer activity so to speak. The Kane story line is very popular and before CNC4 was released I read 'Oh what's going to happen?' everywhere. If EA wants to sell a greater number they must care about singleplayer. However if they want to gain reputation onf the C&C franchise they also need to worry about online gameplay. Therefore constant patching is necessary. I play RA3 and I love RA3, I lent C&C3 from a friend for a week and I only played it for about two hours because it was so not my taste, but back to my point: RA3 has about eight bugs and exploits that are banned from the ladder and EA doesn't even consider shooting a bugfix patch.
Back to RA3: As you are talking about turtling so much, I don't know of that turtling in RA3. There are turtlers sometimes but meh. Even low-mids can beat turtlers it's so easy, you just need to expand to every resource field on the map and I guess the strength of superweapons in CC3 are somewhere near to RA3's so your opponent can only wipe out one building if you spread your structures.

Turtling was definitely a supported strategy with RA3 :-P I used to play beta with my buddy and i beat him so many times, cause his tactics was turtle, turtle, turtle...build Tesla, more Teslas and even more Teslas... The only time i remember to lose, when i let him to expand, did not attack him earlier in the game, later my attack failed as his defensive line was already on and finally ended up steamrolled by Apocs, Dreadnoughts and Kirovs....
One thing i liked about RA3 compared to SC2... i used to play for Allies...you could build Rax,Power Plant, Ref and WarFactory/Airfield pretty quickly and mass some decent force of units in maybe 3-5 minutes... with SC this opening takes IMHO 2x as long and its awfully boring.

[DeHeerser]

RA2 shipped over a million games the first week of release (Source: http://www.cncgames.com/wspress.shtml#Westwood%20Studios%20Ships%20More%20 Than%201%20Million)
RA2 also has consistently higher user ratings than the first Red Alert. Metacritic lists RA2's user ratings at 9.6 with 96 votes while Red Alert rates 9.0 with 32 votes.

This is not so much of a surprise because RA2 still lifted along on the glory and greatness of Westwood and RA1. Point was (captain obvious) RA3 was a different story.

[StormWolf]

The campaign is probably the most important part of any RTS game. It gives you something to do and learn the basics of the game. From what units are good for and what support powers can do. The focus should be more story and not the multiplayer. Creating a memorable story will keep people playing it for a long time.

[nodwarrior]

Subject:
Westwood created a long-lasting success from a few thousand bucks. EA had millions to spend and still failed. How come?

Description:
The emphasis should not be on online ladder competition or expensive fancy cutscenes, but on the campaign. 75% of people who play RTS games never bother to compete online. Instead they want to build up their base, see it rise from scratch as they customize it with a turret here and a gate there, then explore the map, conquer the AI, beat the mission and see the story unfold. EA invested so much into high-ranking competition because they thought this would popularize their game. But they were wrong, because they failed to recognize the group they focused on (competitive players) is small, picks up a game quickly and lays it aside just as quickly. Whereas the large fanbase of C&C plays it because they love the feeling of being a Mastermind-Strategian, the story, gameplay and atmosphere. Online play was all about "keep the units rolling and overwhelm quickly!" whereas a traditional C&C player loves action but also loves to bide his time while weakening his enemy and waiting until the moment is there to strike.

EA thought the C&C player is a fluid rusher who pours out units right from the start, and once he sees his force is superior is already aching to begin the next match.

But that is not so; the C&C player is one who constructs his base with attention to details and carefully considers the placement of his structures. He doesn't want to immediately deliver a decisive blow but he wants to see the enemy crumbling beneath his attacks one step at a time.

Positive Effect:
The game will have a campaign with a lot of replay value, sub-missions, different possible approaches, a smart AI. After four days of intensive play, people will feel proud and think: "Wow this campaign was really fun! Now let's see what there's to do online". And if the developers spend another year creating an expansion (like Firestorm did), this will be relatively cheap for them (since they'll only need to add new missions, plus a few units and dialogues maybe) but people will be guaranteed to buy that expansion.

In the campaign of the Tiberian Sun your units might discover a lonely subterranean dwelling in some corner of the map. Upon contact, local militias declared their support and joined your force. Not that it really mattered much (the units were weak) but the playthrough was non-linear and the player felt attention was given to details. Perhaps they would send some extra civilian support a few missions later. Or you could send your spy on a sidetrack to find a hidden building to infiltrate, which in the next mission would reveal to you a part of the map. You could sense this was made by people who loved the imaginary world they created. In contrast, EA threw a bunch of millions around to create a campaign which felt unrefined and obligatory in many ways.

C&C 3 and 4 contained only few units and everything had to be functional: Infantry, Anti-vehicle infantry, Anti-infantry-vehicle, anti-air-vehicle, anti-vehicle-vehicle, anti-vehicle-air, anti-structure-air. That was it. Whereas Tiberium Sun and Firestorm contained more out-of-the-box units; Carryals, Cyborg-Reapers, Mobile Missile Hovercrafts, Mobile Stealth Generator, Subterranean APC, Devil's Tongue, Mobile EMP Cannon, Jumpjet Infantry, Limp Drone, Mobile Sensor Array, etc. Players want a great variety of units at their disposal that they can experiment with. A greater amount of units, even if some would not be used every match, would be more appreciated by them than let's say a large amount of skirmish maps or unlockable additional character info. Cover for this by giving them the tools so they can use their imagination and easily create some extra maps themselves.

Also, consider an extremely user-friendly map/mission editor. To create custom scenarios - this will make it more fun to play online, it will create more variation, and people will also be triggered to play online more often (because most want to play online but don't like the pressure of being immediately killed off by some expert). (Age of Mythology came with such an editor {much easier to use than for example that of Starcraft II} with which it is very simple to create your own minigames, a few thousand people still play it although microsoft disbanded the studio which created it. Age of Mythology was in that aspect a bigger success than AoEIII.) The map editors that were released for C&C3 were still way too difficult for users. Custom maps and scenarios is what you need if you want a thriving community in which there is also room for less competitive forms of play. The ladder-focusedness of most online RTS modes scares off the users. I know for a fact people would love to build a map with a big computer-controlled base and then work together with their friends to destroy that base.

EA thought they could rival the online success of Starcraft with C&C3 and 4. Echoing Dawn of War, they tried to make C&C into a game which abandoned economy and focused on micro.

But this was doomed to fail because this is not the mindset of the C&C player. What the C&C player wants is not a straightforward linear obvious approach (Rush or be superweaponed! Turtle or be rushed!) but freedom to establish his base as he sees fit and time to decide his strategic approach. C&C should hold a middle ground between Dawn of War (emphasis on micro) and Supreme Commander 1 (emphasis on large scale) in that respect. EA thought that because Starcraft 1 was such an online competitive success, they could use the C&C franchise and get its audience to get that going as well. They were wrong because in order to lure people online they changed the gameplay into something that didn't fit the frame of mind of the C&C player.

Negative Effect:
Players who want to buy this game and enter serious online ladder competition to get to the top ladder would have less resouces on their thing. (Since most of the team's resources would be on developing a great variety of units and a campaign containing many sub-missions and alternative approaches).

To be honest, I think the far majority of C&C players like to compete against others but they by nature want to take their time and not be under massive pressure from the very first minute. So they would play casual games more often than ranked ladder games.

I agree on everything, so I see a command and conquer like construction of bases, closing walls, gates, and create the best defense.

What u think about a city/base creation. With popullation like civilization but in RTS

by the way; you are our Messiah, u got our vision.

[KidNamedJoey]

I always bought a C&C game because of the SP and the storyline, not because of the MP. Simply because the MP goes to fast for me. I don´t care about playing with other people all over the world. Sure, it is fun to try it out some times if you are done with the SP, but thats it for me.

I always start with the SP, busy for hours with that. Loved the TS missions on both Nod and GDI, took a very long time. After that the skirmish comes for me, fighting the AI´s. And with a game like Gen. Zero Hour I loved to play the challanges with the Generals. And Aaaaafter that my Lan games with my family and friends. And if I did all of those things then I would try out online MP.

But we do need to accept, everyone buys C&C for their own reasons. Some people like MP more, and others care more about the SP and it´s storyline. I think any RTS should have a good balance between SP and MP.

Oh yeah, something else completely off-topic: some of you can be quite bitchy here in this discussion. Remember that we all want the same thing, a good C&C game! :) And yeah, as someone said before, not every C&C game meets up to all of your expectations. You can take, but you need to give a little bit as well.

[icullen]

I agree with what your saying, giving more options to the user allows more strategies. Supreme commander 1 was really enjoyable but with an overkill of things to manage.

I think some emphasis has to be given to online play because once the campaign is completed you'l want to compete against other gamers and it gives the game more lastability.

Also patching the game for online is very important!

Good valid points though Daheerser.

[DeHeerser]

The campaign is probably the most important part of any RTS game. It gives you something to do and learn the basics of the game. From what units are good for and what support powers can do. The focus should be more story and not the multiplayer. Creating a memorable story will keep people playing it for a long time.

Yay! those last four posts are really great. Someone even described my ideas as the vision of the new messiah! Muah-hahaha! Now let's hope EA listens to this.

[MILINTarctrooper]

This argument falls flat on its face, for several reasons.
- The author gives his own definition of RTS. Pretends this is the universal definition of it, and from that position attacks the original post. Arrogantly posing as if I had not understood what RTS is. You are trying to make a charicature of an argument that rests upon truth, so you come up with lame statements such as "you just want to play chess with an incompetent AI". All of this is pure rhetoric, one sees for example that I pointed out the AI should be smart and strong.

- There is a difference between what this writer poses as RTS: Dawn of War style and the RTS that is C&C. And I pointed out that C&C holds the middle ground between Dawn of War and Supreme Commander. I've spent thousands of hours playing RTS games competitively online. And you think that I wrote this post just because I want to hide myself in a corner of the map while beating a stupid AI?

- No substantive argument at all. You talk about nonsensical chess formations that bring no benefit to victory. Your trick is postulating an entity in your argument, declared by yourself to be nonsensical and non-contributing, and then pretend as if I wrote such a thing. Which I obviously never would. You are making up your own rules about what RTS is. The point of RTS is that moves which do not contribute to victory are punished, not rewarded. This is the very basic premise you fail to grasp. One wins in an RTS game if you use whatever you have more optimally than your opponent does. Therefore it would be more of a strategic game if there would be more options.

These are the mistakes which C&C3 and Dawn of War made (which I played online I don't know about him). In C&C3 there was so much emphasis on churning out Nod tanks. The gameplay was too linear and too straightforward. Like I said, this is for people who want to overwhelm quickly and once they see their force is superior their thoughts are already with the next match. This is not the mindset of the C&C player.

This symptom became obvious in Dawn of War where everyone rushed towards the middle of the map to claim those resource spots. One side would win, they would reinforce those spots with turrets. The other side would fall back and somehow try to out-boom the other side. Then each would try to get the top-tier Terminator marine unit faster than the other side. I played AoEIII at a fairly high competitive level. At some point everyone started out raiding with mercenary units and long-term investments, such as Banks, became pretty much useless.

These developments actually made the game LESS strategic and not more. Any moron could see what to do now. Likewise in Age of Mythology a noob can download a recorded game of a Kronos rush and quickly get 1800+ with this. If a game takes longer and has more options, the player will need to make more decisions. Decisions make a game strategical. Because you can just memorize the first 10 minutes of gameplay, but after that there's more variation. I've literally seen it happen countless times that 1800++ players come out with a crushing attack because they have memorized every move, but after the first 10 minutes they don't know what to do anymore and fail miserably. This was also a shortcoming of C&C3: "Rush or be superweaponed! Turtle or be rushed!" A superior strategist is he who knows how to deal with variaty of circumstances and immediately see the right move.

You didn't actually bring forward a point, you just bashed a charicature of my otherwise truthful ideas. But I have an intuition of what you want and I will say that it has no decisions. What you want would limit the variety of possible circumstances. It leads to:
1 Quickly go forward and take a specific vital spot on the map because if you do not you will get into a position from which you cannot recover.
2 Quickly tech towards a specific unit and build that unit because it is so much more cost-efficient than the others.

The only way to prevent this is by making bases and base-formation important in the game, and having a large amount of units with different functions. For example the subterranean units, mobile stealth generators and repair vehicles. In C&C Tiberian Sun it was rewarded to make a few hovercrafts, cirlce around the enemy base and attack the powerplants from the water. In C&C 3 you would lose 99% out of times if you tried to do that, because the enemy would have those resources available to overpower you in the front and to beat out your tank surge with his.

Someone else (Wimestone) suggested that there should be a "peace-timer". However I disgree with this. In an RTS game you always try to win, always try to make the most optimal move at every second, and the peace-timer would just postpone the moment at which those moves see their execution and results. So instead I would say that early-game/low-tech units should definitely play a role, such as Nod-Bikes, Attack-Buggies, Wolverines and whatnot. They would be useable to weaken the enemy and to gain useful intel, but they shouldn't be strong enough to cripple someone's base right from the start.

In many ways DeHeerSer, and I have many common points. He is right about CnC gamers being a different kind of breed of RTS gamers. Star Craft Players are rushers called "zergers", while DoW players are micro intestive. SupCom players are mass players...the ultimate steamroller players. However, a CnC player is like surgical knife to a mallet or dagger.

I have found it very hilarious when I enter different realms of RTS games, and I am consistently being harrassed by game players who say attack attack attack. I am more calm and methodical and tend to dismantle my opponent piece by piece. Not withstanding I can rush, but I prefer to be unstable making me more hard to get a bead on psychologically. Any or all tactics or strategy in the old school CnC games has been ignored in the new CnC titles. When I played in vCOH...vanilla Company of Heroes...I would surprise players with a faction that usually is not used in defensive stonewalling the Panzer Elite. And got very good at using them and finding all the tricks. That is the way of an old school CnC player.

But the one difference, that some of the new CnC players will realize when they clash with an old CnC player is this. Old CnC players don't rush, they recon, or immediately lock down the terrain they are strong with. I like blasting my enemy out of the water in RA3 so if I can keep him out of the water I win. With the older CnC titles naval battles were always a touch and go. You never knew when you someone might get behind you with a transport. It was more challenging. In the new CnC titles except Generals...its very very hard to pull that off with a turtler...or too easy with a rush. (A problem with RA3) CnC3 doesn't have water or tunneling units like Tiberium Sun but it is notorious for rushes, and they tend to end the game in a heart beat.

DeHeerSer is very right about low tech units should be used for recon, and harassing, or seizing key terrain or cut off points. Not for full out kill rushing.
Actually in the old CnC titles you could play a game at a low tech level. Meaning only infantry, or light vehicles...usually this is done with the tech slider in all CnC videogames up to Yuri's Revenge. In some cases the game, could be played without cash...meaning you had to find money crates to start your base up. And that took alot of skill and nerve. Because both you and your enemy were search for your bases, and money crates...which could be devastating if someone got a bead on your base and attacked it while you were searching for a money crate. Also fighting without bases was a skill as well.

In old school CnC the gameplay is non-linear...because you had so many ways to change tactics. If you were having problems with tunneling units in TS you placed pavement, but that also made ground rushes faster...because the pavement gave a movement speed bonus, if you put walls up, it made you a target for artillery and air. If you were near a water source you had to be aware of what amphibious units were on the other side, or a player was not adverse to using a transport full of land units to attack you from the beaches. Mammoth or Apoc Tanks from the behind and the beach is quite a surprise in RA1,RA2. Nod in TS could sneak a stealth generator up to a position near a GDI base, and hide artillery units and their support within range of the base...and to detect them...required using a sensor unit. That is real strategy.

And if you play both the old school and new school CnC games you will immediately note something unusual, factions in old school CnC are different, in new school CnC games all the factions are very very similar, if not the same. They have ideas...like mobile warfactories, and mobile barracks...that would never show up in new CnC games because its too "unbalancing." But here I will show you this is how the game was uniquely designed. Tiberium Sun GDI's strength is infantry...and they have a medic to heal them in game. Nod's strength is vehicles and they have a repair vehicle that follows them into battle. GDI has a macro weakness...it has to repair its vehicles at a repair yard...so they have to hike it back to their base, or fly via a Carryall. Which means they can be attacked by Nod Rocket infantry. Nod has to macro its infantry, because they don't have any medic units, and tend to get injured in Tiberium fields easily. Although I will note that in Tiberium Sun, there is a regen factor for all infantry...but its extremely slow with no vet, and with Heroic Vet it tends to speed up regen.

Many of new RTS and RTT are a little overkill with the extras the strategic gameplay is lost. He is right with AoEIII, its a little too easy to win with mercs. Or in another flip over some factions have costless production buildings that just spit out units. So a CnC player has to make choices, although personally I would love to see some use of non-normal environmental adjusters that change up the game even further...making you have to strategize even more. I mean in TS crossing ice was hazardous...you could lose a unit if you walked across cracked ice. In Empire at War: Forces of Corruption...the environment could do negative and positive things to your health, or effectiveness of your units.

He is right through and through...too many of the new games can be broken if you put your head and think out the weaknesses of the units.

[DeHeerser]

In old school CnC the gameplay is non-linear...because you had so many ways to change tactics. If you were having problems with tunneling units in TS you placed pavement, but that also made ground rushes faster...because the pavement gave a movement speed bonus, if you put walls up, it made you a target for artillery and air. If you were near a water source you had to be aware of what amphibious units were on the other side, or a player was not adverse to using a transport full of land units to attack you from the beaches. Mammoth or Apoc Tanks from the behind and the beach is quite a surprise in RA1,RA2. Nod in TS could sneak a stealth generator up to a position near a GDI base, and hide artillery units and their support within range of the base...and to detect them...required using a sensor unit. That is real strategy.

This is a beautiful description of elements that should appear in an upcoming C&C title.

[LukaColic0]

This is a beautiful description of elements that should appear in an upcoming C&C title.

Thats fully right.

[DeHeerser]

Thats fully right.

Also! Before I forget, there should be this beautiful, totally awesome quote in the upcoming game:

"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past."
- Kane

[Harrrr]

Also! Before I forget, there should be this beautiful, totally awesome quote in the upcoming game:

"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past."
- Kane

Kane's quoting George Orwell :)...unless George Orwell IS Kane

[MILINTarctrooper]

With all due respect I think the OP is crazy. At one time APOC bandied about a 70% (not 75%) number but that was a long, long time ago and I never got him to quantify how he arrived at that number.

Regardless, IMHO, the future of RTS is not singleplayer it is multiplayer. Before you stop reading and start frothing at the singleplayer bit I totally understand the appeal of the single player campaign and am not abdicating any sort of abandonment of its importance to what makes C&C what it is. I'm not interested in engaging in the debate because it gives me tired head but there is a reason that Starcraft 2 will sell 10,871,999,811,100 and that all the C&C titles rolled into one will not sell that many.

And it ain't because the campaign is so magnificent.

I respect your right to feel like the campaign is the single most important factor FOR YOU. Please do the same for me knowing I will probably not spend one single moment playing the campaign for the next game. I do not enjoy playing Sim City C&C and building the most beautiful and lovely base you have ever seen. What I enjoy is jumping online and getting challenged. C&C to me is a casual sport, winning and losing is important to me.

Beating the AI or building up some pretty base is simply not something I enjoy. So for meth go ahead and spend some time on the campaign please. It is what ties the universes together and although I may not play through it I enjoy the fiction.

Just don't let it detract from the multiplayer focus. Please!

With all due respect to Methuselah, his immediate shoot and scoot tactic against the OP is not good. Number one it seems that you're ideas are biased due to the fact that you are an administrator of RA3, KW, and TW ladders. May I ask a question, have you considered all the angles...and the problems with the new CnC titles. I keep finding all kinds of infuriating exploits in RA3. But none of the RA3 big boys want those fixed. DasHeer and the OP share a majority sentiment among CnC fans. That the overall quality of CnC games since Generals...or RA2 which ever one you prefer has gone down. I have been testing the old CnC games vs new CnC games and have found that the overall tactical and strategic differences are so massive, that CnC games post TS pale in comparison.

Also here is another thing, no one talks about sub-bases (smaller mini-bases spread all over the map.) or terrain chokepoints. In old CnC games you would use bridges, cliffs, canyons, and river crossings to get the drop on your enemy or make yourself nearly impossible to root out. I can have a small base...yes...but if I place it in just the right terrain...you will be hard pressed to root me out.

Its not Sim City...no one sits back and just get bored. (Although tell that to any player I run into who is used to winning at the 10 minute mark and I somehow survive, and roll them up after an hour of play.) Old CnC is hit, strike, scout, defend...lots of different things...if you think its simple. Oy Vey.

And don't get me started on Star Craft. In comparision to other RTS's it is dated...extremely dated. What new things have they added? Ummm not much. CnC games are much much more fluid, and gave give you a headache because your trying to out-think your opponent AI or otherwise. And we have gone though an evolutionary leap in game types...although we have also learned what does not work.

[MILINTarctrooper]

theres no need for timers or redesigning anything to do with unit production... just learn to play the game ffs
cnc3/ra3 were headed in the right direction

Don't say LTP (Learn to Play)...we have played, we have tested, some of us on here are the "Ph.D." of video gaming...meaning we have played more games than the mulitplayer fanatics. We have tested old vs new...they don't win. Number 2 in old CnC the "timer" was the actual unit and structure build times...they are lot longer than CnC3, KW, and RA3. Plus 1 build que for structures, a choke on how many units could be qued up 1,5,9...(RA-CnC1, TS/FS, and Generals) Think about it...we are making good ideas here.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

have you considered that older titles had this little 'game speed slider'?

in online matches they'd always be set to max speed, and thatd result in pretty damn fast games which, dare i say, were at times even faster than cnc3 and much more than ra3.

but you seem to continue bashing newer titales simply because you have issues with their 'rush' tactics, yet totally disregard the fact that there was no shortage of those in older titles.

did you forget about...
humvee/bike/buggy/light tank/med rushes in cnc1?
light tank/heavy tank rushes in ra1?
light infantry/banshee/bomber rushes in ts?
rhino/grizzly rushes (forget rushes, the whole frigging game was about spamming rhinos and expanding throughout the map by placing one building after another) in ra2?

well, heck... cnc3/kw is no different, and yet id say is much more refined and varied in many areas than these games!


believe me, there can be HUGE difference in opinion about the game when you -know- how to play it, and when you dont.
heck, there can even be a HUGE difference in opinion even when you -know- how to play the game, and yet realise there are new things to learn even after playing a game for >3 years.

i have been playing cnc3 tw/kw since release, and i still find it so difficult to gauge the 'balance' of the factions simply because it is all so complex.

there has been no real 'drop' in quality of games since ra2... however one area i'd agree to that is the game singleplayer/lore which has been screwed up beyond repair - but as much as i am a fan of cnc lore (and its something that has captivated me since TS), it is the multiplayer aspect which has really appealed to me since ra2, and i think cnc3 did that fairly well(atleast conceptually, even if game balance leaves a bit to be desired).


I keep finding all kinds of infuriating exploits in RA3. But none of the RA3 big boys want those fixed.
keep in mind, these 'exploits' in ra3 are indeed something that may put off many people... i personally dont even like that game.

but reason the ra3 pros dont want them fixed is because theyre considered so crucial to the gameplay now that fixing them would warrant re-balancing of the game, which gets pretty complicated - and there is no guarantee that the game will be better balanced etc after this is done + theyre accustomed to it at this point and dont want essential game mechanics to change too much.
that is really their only concern, and it is a fairly legit one.

[DeHeerser]

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
-George Orwell, 1984

"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past."
-Kane

You see, that's why oldschool C&C was brilliant. They didn't just watch hollywood movies and thought: "OMG. Girls with big boobies. We need more of those!" No, they also read historical and philosophical literature and included references to it in the game. They understood that your product doesn't need to live and breathe commercialism as a philosophy in order to be a very commercial product. --> EA: "Let's scream fast, fluid and fun from the rooftops and the gamer will probably be drawn towards it like a moths to a candle."

Here's what really happened, and please read it because it doesn't only apply to C&C but to life itself, and will therefore expand your knowledge of its workings in general.

EA inherited the Westwood legacy. They recognized the popularity of the franchise and thought there was good money in it. Initially, there was. The directors thought it was best if they made the game a bit more like Starcraft, because they saw Starcraft was a huge success online, with people viewing matches and having shows about it. They wanted to make C&C into something that could compete with that, so they thought they knew what multiplayers wanted - which is the gameplay that was described and antagonized severely during the whole of this thread. They threw lots of money against it, with shows featuring the actor Joe as Kane and commentaries on matches by top-ranking players. They had a campaign for stimulating people to become referees too.

Meanwhile all the 'oldschool' fans were frowning upon this. They knew in their hearts this is not the sort of gameplay the True C&C fan was looking for. But every forum and board is ruled by a bunch of, let's call it honestly, 'suck-ups', or 'courtiers'. Whenever the board/directors have an idea, the courtiers are the ones who are the first to hear it. However these courtiers have certain privileges over common fans - the courtiers are supposed to 'represent' the fan community, because they are moderators of forum boards, tourney organizers, etc. Therefore they are more in the loop than ordinary fans. You see this court-phenonemon in any corporation and political party, too. It explains why people always only find out at the last moment when the worker/voter is estranged from the direction chosen by the upper board.

As a result, the EA directors thought that the majority of fans agreed with them, because the people managing the forums, etc, did. But this is because those courtiers identify with the directorate and are therefore more optimistic about their plans than your average fan. The average yet dedicated fan doesn't bother much with the online community but only makes himself heard in the last instance when things really go out of hand. That's why many of us only registered the moment we found out EA would be listening to us this time.

Obviously, the directors like to be told that their ideas 'fall in good soil' with the fans. And the courtiers hope that, in exchange for pushing the director's proposals (in this case the transformation of C&C) they get some advantages and privileges, such as the directors taking their ideas serious. Yet as we've seen those ideas don't necessarily represent those of the common fan. A good example of this is Apoc, who found himself caught between two blazing fires: On the one hand the directors who wanted the new style, on the other hand the fans who wanted the old. Obviously it couldn't end well for him.

The new C&C atmosphere and gameplay just didn't do what the fans expected from it, people sensed it in their guts and tried to hide it behind a smokescreen of flashiness (commercials with actresses for example). But with the sales of C&C4 it was no longer deniable and the **** hit the fan.
In the end, it was all about the prestige that the directors thought they could win by making C&C into an equally flourishing 'e-sport community' as Starcraft.

You see, when Machiavelli wrote Il Principe, he was disgusted for it, because he described the political reality so harshly and bluntly, but within centuries the manifesto had become part of every politician's intellectual upbringing. The same thing I'm trying to convey with this. And the same outcry will probably commence yet deep inside almost everyone knows it's true.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

whats with these people getting their knickers in a twist about ea's esport endorsement for cnc3/ra3?

these games have had much bigger budgets than previous titles - and this budget comes across in singleplayer in the form of the fmvs/cast and for multiplayer... battlecast primetime and high profile tournaments. what the heck is wrong with that?

there was very much a competitive scene with tournaments etc for even older titles from ra1.... only difference being not as much money was poured into them as for cnc3/ra3 which simply had bigger overall budgets.

[Harrrr]

I fail to see how any of the parralles you derive from politics into a gaming community have any remote connection or validity. Politians are elected (in any electible position) to represent the common man in that region. That is their dutry. A webmaster or prominent community member in CnC has ZERO duty to any other member. I didn't elect Lion, ZeeHypnotist, JohnWE or others, so why are they forced to ignore their opionins and favor mine or yours?

Did you, by chance, read any of the Community round-tables were prominate people openly discussed THEIR opinons on the community, games, mods, ect? It's pretty clear that at least some of them shared portions of your opinons.

Another thing I have an issue with is that you crown yourself some kind of spokesman for the "true" CnC fan and that anyone that doesn't align with your "reality" isn't among them. Just becaus you're a passionate CnC fan doesn't make any one else's passion about CnC any less. You're a true CnC fan; I'm a true CnC fan; CrazyGDIFan is a true CnC fan.

[MILINTarctrooper]

I fail to see how any of the parralles you derive from politics into a gaming community have any remote connection or validity. Politians are elected (in any electible position) to represent the common man in that region. That is their dutry. A webmaster or prominent community member in CnC has ZERO duty to any other member. I didn't elect Lion, ZeeHypnotist, JohnWE or others, so why are they forced to ignore their opionins and favor mine or yours?

Did you, by chance, read any of the Community round-tables were prominate people openly discussed THEIR opinons on the community, games, mods, ect? It's pretty clear that at least some of them shared portions of your opinons.

Another thing I have an issue with is that you crown yourself some kind of spokesman for the "true" CnC fan and that anyone that doesn't align with your "reality" isn't among them. Just becaus you're a passionate CnC fan doesn't make any one else's passion about CnC any less. You're a true CnC fan; I'm a true CnC fan; CrazyGDIFan is a true CnC fan.
But to which CnC...new or old...or the whole series taken as a whole? Is the person a fan. Is that person a strategist, or is he a 10 minute rush/"zerger" who if you stymy his initiative...drops and doesn't give you the rank points?

CnC is not about the total sum...of things, but the little pieces and parts of material that together work well. Current designs since Generals...feel like they have been down by halfs. Sped up games and game production volume, doesn't equate well with overwell game quality.

I was actually banned for a while not only from CnC but Relic game forums...for constitently finding exploits in the game, and writing extremely detailed posts on how the balancing was wrong, or some glitch that players were actually abusing. On CnC, when RA3 was in developement stages...I signed in. I actually told the game designers how the game would be broken, and how it could possibly be exploited to death. I am a player who understands...balance is good...but you must have it over all factors of a game, gameplay, factions, environment, story, campaing, skirmish, multiplayer, LAN or future Wi-Fi LAN (which is unusual that no current RTS supports that...although computers have the capacity to do it now.) and artwork.

I have contacted artists who have worked on materials for CnC, and found some pretty amazing stuff...which would have added serious depth to Generals, CnC3, KW, RA3, RA3 Uprising, and possibly CnC4. Not only that for all the "successful" CnC games there are nearly twice the number of failed or canceled projects. EA is sitting on practically a gold mine...not only with their CnC brand, but their SIM and Medal of Honor series as well. For whatever reason, the directors haven't clued in that they have huge amounts of possible revenue. But they have handled most of their series poorly, while trying to follow whatever gaming fad, and bandwagon that shows up now. (Star Craft and e tournaments and Halo-killer run and gun play styles.) Its okay to bring new ideas and concepts and formulas...but you have to know where you have been, and what works and doesn't.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

I was actually banned for a while not only from CnC but Relic game forums
rightfully so, with all the trash you post here

[MILINTarctrooper]

rightfully so, with all the trash you post here

I try to think critically, and compair older CnC vs newer CnC games. I would find things, and alert the devs to the problem.

I just finished re-testing RA1 and found that the factions have very nuanced pricing systems. The Ukraine and Russian forces have totally different pricing numbers, while the Allies almost have exact prices. Although it appears that it is not based around pricing, as so much coding. French structures seem to crack ridiculously fast under attack. When we play games today we don't think about the smallest things. Most gameplayers are just in for the win and ranking...I am more intrigued with the strategies involved, and all weaknesses and strengths of a faction.

If you're wondering about the Relic situation, I ended up killing of COHO..Company of Heroes Online. Because I would find exploits, and write out to players how the abilities, or units were glitching.

If its trash, fine by me. However, here is an exploit tip from RA3. "Akula Sniping" On large sea maps with generally level underwater terrain, the Akula Subs Ultratorpedo attack can reach half the map and longer...and this is after "balancing." The Naginate has a spread...but its spread max range is 1/4 map distance. (You use the weapon in lethal "Naginata Shotgun" close range attacks....with all 5 torpedos point blank.) With "Akula Sniping" it may not appear to players as much, but the ultra-torpedoes can not be seen over long range...so using this fact and formation move allows Soviet players to lead ships and attack with lethal precision. And I know a few gamers who play Silent Steel and Silent Hunters...both submarine simulations. They could easily put two and two together and exploit this little problem. If your really good you will lead ships on the move and shoot torpedos to intersect with them causing major damage, besides picking off an unwary amphibous base.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

I just finished re-testing RA1 and found that the factions have very nuanced pricing systems. The Ukraine and Russian forces have totally different pricing numbers, while the Allies almost have exact prices. Although it appears that it is not based around pricing, as so much coding. French structures seem to crack ridiculously fast under attack.
ra1 faction differences are well known and documented even in the official readme file... nothing new or 'nuanced' here - its just 10% bonuses/penalties each faction for unit cost, firepower, health.


When we play games today we don't think about the smallest things. Most gameplayers are just in for the win and ranking...I am more intrigued with the strategies involved, and all weaknesses and strengths of a faction.
you need to stop thinking you are the only person interested in 'strategy' while the all other rts players just play for rank... that is a very wrong assumption.

in cnc3/ra3 for being a top player 'strategy' is pretty essential - it is important to know what strats work and in what situation.

[Sodomantis]

Subject:
Westwood created a long-lasting success from a few thousand bucks. EA had millions to spend and still failed. How come?

Description:
75% of people who play RTS games never bother to compete online. Instead they want to build up their base, see it rise from scratch as they customize it with a turret here and a gate there, then explore the map, conquer the AI, beat the mission and see the story unfold. EA invested so much into high-ranking competition because they thought this would popularize their game. But they were wrong, because they failed to recognize the group they focused on (competitive players) is small, picks up a game quickly and lays it aside just as quickly. Whereas the large fanbase of C&C plays it because they love the feeling of being a Mastermind-Strategian, the story, gameplay and atmosphere...

I have now registered just so I can praise OP about his post. I agree 100% with everything you wrote. I wont go as far as messiah, but I can go along with prophet. :o

I am one of those mythical creatures you speaks of in your post. One of those who likes to build my base, hopefully with a choke point entrance. Place my turrets, maybe even a satellite base or two. Then slowly but surly expand my influence towards the enemy base. Maybe there is a side missions or two along the way. Diverse units for plenty of tactical opportunities. Throw in a good storyline and I'm inn.

The analogy of EA taking my childhood dog outside and shooting it is dead on.


Ok EA you've tried every other RTS recipe, how about trying the c&c one?

[Golan2781]

Sometimes when going back and playing some of the older games (just finished TS, now on Gens), then come here and see people posting about the old times... are you sure you've actually played the games?

And what exactly is the "exploit" about Akula Sniping? The ability is made to have a range of ~5000.

[dudalous1986]

just to add something as it seemed argued a lot in this thread if i ever thought about c&c it was that it was a base building game yet what happened to base building they destroyed the walls and turret system with gates an stuff they were some of my fave bits what base in the world doesnt have some sort of wall or fence and i love turtling just for the come an see if you can get me but you cant couldnt really do that from c&c 3 onwards as you could easily be attacked from any angle by any unit as you had no walls and i missed the concrete floor to stop burrowers oh wait they got rid of them an all then returned them a game later all seemed like they just kept swapping and taking away from the stratergy and like being able to beat a turtler using infiltration that would have shown more stratergy like OP'er said it became all about just get many resource and rush people which is the nod tactic so where was the gdi equivalent which would be build a base not gorilla warfare . hope i havent just lost the point completely

[DeHeerser]

these games have had much bigger budgets than previous titles - and this budget comes across in singleplayer in the form of the fmvs/cast and for multiplayer... battlecast primetime and high profile tournaments. what the heck is wrong with that?

Not saying that it is wrong per se. They used these tactics to push the game while the substance had deviated greatly from the original spirit behind the gameplay and atmosphere. Basically offering a product with serious flaws and then trying to cover for it by launching a spectacle. Westwood didn't have all those resources to do that and didn't need to, because their original product was more refined.

The political part has a very strong connection with development, and it has nothing to do with being elected. It has to do with playing yourself in the picture. It doesn't only apply to democratic elections it also applies to corporations, as I described. Besides, how do you think a person gets high enough on the list of their party? Only if he/she makes himself seen/heard.

Likewise I see some subtle attempts in this thread trying to derail the topic, such as arguing about someone's ban or insinuating that others didn't play the games. Smokescreen politics. Reality is facts. And the fact is that C&C Tiberian Sun had a lot more focus on the interaction between Tiberium and the environment. You had Shiners, Visceroids, Fiends, Veinholes and later Floaters. The mutation could destroy buildings and mutate trees. In C&C 3 you had maps with large blank spaces that you dumped your buildings in to start production and the campaigns were strictly linear with bonus objectives that didn't trigger anything, other than giving you information about how they wrote the characters and units desiged by Westwood out of the storyline. And if people say: "Yeah but all of those mutations affecting units and the environment, they didn't spent effort on it because instead we had the Scrin, so be thankful." Then the problem is back upon the table that the Scrin 'poof' vanished for C&C4. And I could go on like that but hey, facts are facts and let's instead give people some good suggestions and tips so that the upcoming game can be great again.

Because facts can't be argued with, almost every objection brought forward is sheer rhetoric. For example the fact that people wrote things in roundtable conferences similar to this thread, doesn't mean that it had influence. It was a pretty much top-down thing to begin with. Those 'courtiers' just lived under the impression they would have some advantage by backing the board. This is proven by the fact that many fans requested modding tools for Kane's Wrath but they never came.

[Golan2781]

Okay, then let's talk facts, these rhetoric discussions about meta-discussions are tiring to read. Let's get down to the simple, basic facts.
Those 'courtiers'Who and how?

[Feloidea]

Okay, then let's talk facts, these rhetoric discussions about meta-discussions are tiring to read. Let's get down to the simple, basic facts.

No, no, no! Rhetoric discussions about meta-discussions are the best of all.

[Golan2781]

It just feels wrong how someone perfectly dismantles all rhetoric figures only then to do the same ****, just more sophisticated. If at least they'd make worthwhile statements, but no, for the most part it has the practical content of kids throwing sand at each other. If at least they'd do it in an RA3 FMV style fashion, yeah, that'd be entertaining...

"I've got facts, you must obey!!!" Ooooh, but you're not just stating them, you are interpreting these, and you are scolding others for doing the same, so say something useful and make a point or shut up.

[Feloidea]

But isn't it essentially exactly what a developer is supposed to do? Write a rhetorically/mathematically sophisticated meta-speech which defines what the programm finally visualizes?!

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

Not saying that it is wrong per se. They used these tactics to push the game while the substance had deviated greatly from the original spirit behind the gameplay and atmosphere. Basically offering a product with serious flaws and then trying to cover for it by launching a spectacle. Westwood didn't have all those resources to do that and didn't need to, because their original product was more refined.
deviated from original atmosphere? agreed - as you mentioned, getting rid of tib lifeforms and mutations which formed a big part of tibsun, was definitely cheap. it left a gaping hole in continuity; now retconning and revamping of these aspects is acceptable to a degree but cnc3 just made it bland.

components like the game's atmosphere and need a lot of attention and detail, and this is something they could not deliver well with ea's short development cycles.

but gameplay? no - this is something they nailed down well imo, save for some poor balance decisions in their patches and consequently abandoning support for the game altogether. but otherwise i found it very much on par with, if not more refined, than any of the older titles.

they were also not 'covering up' anything - their endeavours with battlecast primetime etcc were imo a fair attempt to showcase one of the finer points of the game which was its multiplayer gameplay, and also served as a nice little medium of interaction between the players and developers.

[Golan2781]

But isn't it essentially exactly what a developer is supposed to do? Write a rhetorically/mathematically sophisticated meta-speech which defines what the programm finally visualizes?!A developer is supposed to develop something.
If he is presenting it, like all presentations his definitions and statements should be as clear as possible, meaning the sophistication should go into getting the point across, not bashing in the heads of people that disagree with him.

[DeHeerser]

Golan2781:
“Those 'courtiers'
Who and how? “

Milintarc Trooper:
“With all due respect to Methuselah, his immediate shoot and scoot tactic against the OP is not good. Number one it seems that you're ideas are biased due to the fact that you are an administrator of RA3, KW, and TW ladders.”

This is one example, but what you can think of is that people came to forums and said: “No base building? Man this can’t be good . . . No Tiberium harvesting? Dude . . . This isn’t Dawn of War.” Forum administrators tried to calm people down and said things such as: “Oh don’t worry, it will be very fun. Just have some faith in EA, appreciate that they are open to new ideas. You’ll see that it will be fine in the end, just a bit different. Don’t be so conservative-minded.” Then C&C4 came out and, well . . . The Apoc situation signifies this process. I should stress that games that have departed from the original spirit of the game, even though they upheld themselves, have still been taking punishment for it, such as Resident Evil 5, the Wii shooters they made of it, and Supreme Commander 2. You can say that it’s freaking über-corny but hey Pokémon, Fifa and Call of Duty always sell well because they don’t depart from their core concepts. Period: Another one on the piling heap of facts that don’t need any interpretation. Classics like Mortal Kombat and Starcraft that have returned to their roots have been very well received.

Hence the business-plan: I shouldn’t need to restate everything that’s been written before in this thread but the only way for C&C to survive is if it returns to the core. Which is: a serious, gritty, sci-fi experience with a storyline that’s neatly polished and missions that are worked out into detail. Of course multiplayer should be in order with patches when necessary. I think it’s wisest for EA to give up the thought that C&C could be to E-sport what Starcraft is to Korea. Instead it would be best for them to throw these resources into creating a diversity of units with original abilities. This will keep people experimenting with skirmish mode and trying to win campaign missions in different ways instead of immediately laying it aside after completion. If the story is good they will play it again. And, as said by someone before, a good campaign is the gateway to a good multiplayer. Because people will learn their overall skills and tactics in the campaign.

Originally Posted by MILINTarctrooper
"But to which CnC...new or old...or the whole series taken as a whole? Is the person a fan. Is that person a strategist, or is he a 10 minute rush/"zerger" who if you stymy his initiative...drops and doesn't give you the rank points?"

For a fun multiplayer, this sort of thing should be prevented too. Obviously, tank rushes existed in Red Alert I&II, but still it would be better if;

MILINTarctrooper:
“DeHeerSer is very right about low tech units should be used for recon, and harassing, or seizing key terrain or cut off points. Not for full out kill rushing.”

Else it would create this sort of scenario where you either get rushed by Buggies and Light Tanks, or you somehow survive and put one or two Mammoth Tanks on the table and because you are the first to do it you inevitably win. You could say that in this scenario, with good micro, one could still take out those heavy units, but if your micro was that good you would also have won the rush with it.

CrazyGDIfan123:
"[C&C3] deviated from original atmosphere? agreed - as you mentioned, getting rid of tib lifeforms and mutations which formed a big part of tibsun, was definitely cheap. it left a gaping hole in continuity; now retconning and revamping of these aspects is acceptable to a degree but cnc3 just made it bland. … But gameplay? no - this is something they nailed down well imo, save for some poor balance decisions in their patches and consequently abandoning support for the game altogether. but otherwise i found it very much on par with, if not more refined, than any of the older titles."

Granted, the gameplay itself (overlooking the mutilations of the storyline, missions and atmosphere for a moment) was sufficiently fun, but since there was so much similarity between factions (anti-infantry infantry, anti-vehicle infantry, anti-air infantry, anti-infantry vehicle, anti-vehicle vehicle, anti-air vehicle, anti-infantry air unit, anti-vehicle air unit, anti-air air unit . . . OH We’re there already! On to the next faction) that matches did become pretty predictable very quickly. It wasn’t that much rewarding to experiment around as many fans had expected, because all the pressure was on grabbing land with one or two good unit types that players would mass produce.

Therefore I think the upcoming game should retain the interface and the production speeds of C&C3, but expand the gameplay with elements such as these:

Originally Posted by MILINTarctrooper:
"In old school CnC the gameplay is non-linear...because you had so many ways to change tactics. If you were having problems with tunneling units in TS you placed pavement, but that also made ground rushes faster...because the pavement gave a movement speed bonus, if you put walls up, it made you a target for artillery and air. If you were near a water source you had to be aware of what amphibious units were on the other side, or a player was not adverse to using a transport full of land units to attack you from the beaches. Mammoth or Apoc Tanks from the behind and the beach is quite a surprise in RA1,RA2. Nod in TS could sneak a stealth generator up to a position near a GDI base, and hide artillery units and their support within range of the base...and to detect them...required using a sensor unit. That is real strategy."

[Generalcamo]

I fully support this. Looking through though, I don't like the No Rush stuff. A C&C player DOES NOT like being forced to wait. The first 5 minutes can make or break the game. Engi rushes could steal your con yard. A nice little buggy rush could destroy those money structures. And that all leads up the the great tank and air rush at the end of the round, maybe. If you just rush in, those defenses could destroy that force. But if you rushed earlier to destroy power plants, then you might have a chance for the air units to destroy AG weapons.

C&C is about micromanagement, economy, and building up a great force, TOGETHER. Not Rushing your big force, but a small rush is good. That is part of the micromanagement. Trying to protect your economy is also part of that.
You see, micromanagement should still be in, but not at the cost of managing economy, or RUSHING to destroy the economy.

[Golan2781]

I might have been unclear. Let's talk facts. No weasel-people that "come to the forum". No nondescript "The Apoc situation". No "core. Which is: (...) missions that are worked out into detail" when the **** did you lastly play TD and RA1? No "i think it would be best if EA did what I'm courting instead of what others are courting for". No "good campaign", "good multiplayer", "good X", that's meaningless truism. No "scenarios".

Let's talk facts.
Who and how?

[DeHeerser]

You should have read my previous posts in the threads closer, starting with the original post. Those include all the information you request with specific examples. Control yourself, man. Seriously. Don't let your ego get in the way of objective discussion. I spent hours reading the comments that everybody left and tried to make a decent summary of it. You immediately try to withdraw attention from it by inciting anger.

[Golan2781]

You are assuming things about me and your assumptions are wrong. Facts, please.

I've said it somewhere in one of multiple threads and you just have to paste together the snippets is not a fact. Figuratively speaking, of course. I'm afraid I don't have an "intuition of what you want".

[MILINTarctrooper]

It just feels wrong how someone perfectly dismantles all rhetoric figures only then to do the same ****, just more sophisticated. If at least they'd make worthwhile statements, but no, for the most part it has the practical content of kids throwing sand at each other. If at least they'd do it in an RA3 FMV style fashion, yeah, that'd be entertaining...

"I've got facts, you must obey!!!" Ooooh, but you're not just stating them, you are interpreting these, and you are scolding others for doing the same, so say something useful and make a point or shut up.

Then what do you propose, in gameplay, style, unit composition, power functions, artwork, storyline, and strategic meta-game?

Personally, I find forums a little unprofessional. And wish that videogame designers would get "real" about their trade, and become eccentric but professional game designers.

We are trying to hammer out the raw materials in which the new CnC game will be cast into its mold. The EA game mold doesn't work, and materials from that mold were horribly made. If we can set a high bar for VG...and considering all the computer advances today...they can go way way way beyond what Westwood did...if they apply themselves professionally.

DasHeerser is trying to help.
So am I.
So are many other CnC fans who are not registered on here.
We want a good professionally done and polished game, no rush, spam, no hurried production junk.
Its like chocolate you can get Hershey's all day, but if you want the best get any Godiva or high end chocolates.
That is what a CnC game should be like, Not a hum drum imitator, it should tower over all competition.

[Golan2781]

Then what do you propose, in gameplay, style, unit composition, power functions, artwork, storyline, and strategic meta-game? Those questions are irrelevant. Seeing the current dev time already spent on the new game, such fundamental decisions cannot be shaped from the outside other than by sheer luck. The new C&C should already have ventured well beyond the point where influence on such a basic level would be possible.

[MILINTarctrooper]

Those questions are irrelevant. Seeing the current dev time already spent on the new game, such fundamental decisions cannot be shaped from the outside other than by sheer luck. The new C&C should already have ventured well beyond the point where influence on such a basic level would be possible.

They are relevant is this forum set not the Community Developer Area? This is where we can field new ideas, even EA Circe asks us to come up with ideas and to field them for the new CnC game.

Luck in business is not everything...you would be surprised how many things influence gaming both positively and negatively.

[Golan2781]

They are relevant is this forum set not the Community Developer Area? This is where we can field new ideas, even EA Circe asks us to come up with ideas and to field them for the new CnC game. First, he's called Cire.
Second, I did not contest whether you can "field new ideas" here or not. Point is, you aren't fielding ideas, you are building rhetorical castles in the air with no substance to it. "Make it good" is not much of an idea, nor are any variants of it, and neither does the sophistication in formulating it add any more substance to it.
Look at the people in this thread "agreeing" with the OP. Many even contradict his position outright. Why does no-one mind this? Because there is no real substance to the actual idea - with no specific details, the motivation behind it is meaningless.


Luck in business is not everything...you would be surprised how many things influence gaming both positively and negatively.And this is relevant exactly why? Notwithstanding that you can probably not judge what I'd be surprised of.

[DeHeerser]

I fully support this. Looking through though, I don't like the No Rush stuff. A C&C player DOES NOT like being forced to wait. The first 5 minutes can make or break the game. Engi rushes could steal your con yard. A nice little buggy rush could destroy those money structures. And that all leads up the the great tank and air rush at the end of the round, maybe. If you just rush in, those defenses could destroy that force. But if you rushed earlier to destroy power plants, then you might have a chance for the air units to destroy AG weapons.

You see I'm just delighted to read how well it matches my own suggestions. See this for example:


Someone else (Wimestone) suggested that there should be a "peace-timer". However I disgree with this. In an RTS game you always try to win, always try to make the most optimal move at every second, and the peace-timer would just postpone the moment at which those moves see their execution and results. So instead I would say that early-game/low-tech units should definitely play a role, such as Nod-Bikes, Attack-Buggies, Wolverines and whatnot. They would be useable to weaken the enemy and to gain useful intel, but they shouldn't be strong enough to cripple someone's base right from the start.

Therefore, the lighter units would be useful to weaken the opponent early on, such as destroying the Tiberium Silo or even Refinery if he didn't put any defense close to it. However one should not be crippled and still be able to make a comeback, so that to destroy someone completely higher tech units would be required.

[Golan2781]

Being able to destroy an opponent's sole source of income sounds pretty crippling to me. It might not outright kill but the loss in pure cost plus income should be enough to decide a game. Harv and Ref harassment as well as the idiotic Engi rush are among the prime examples of what many people hated in TW/KW.
Or to be more precise, the focus on base vs. base battles instead of the environment/battlefield. The cries for better secured bases (walls, defenses), increased buffer between base assaults (bigger maps) and interactions beyond player control (environment, random events) suggest that a sizeable part of the C&C player base may have evolved where the franchise stagnated.

[MILINTarctrooper]

Being able to destroy an opponent's sole source of income sounds pretty crippling to me. It might not outright kill but the loss in pure cost plus income should be enough to decide a game. Harv and Ref harassment as well as the idiotic Engi rush are among the prime examples of what many people hated in TW/KW.
Or to be more precise, the focus on base vs. base battles instead of the environment/battlefield. The cries for better secured bases (walls, defenses), increased buffer between base assaults (bigger maps) and interactions beyond player control (environment, random events) suggest that a sizeable part of the C&C player base may have evolved where the franchise stagnated.

Or is the player base stagnated, and franchise evolving? All of the concepts you have noted were present in the first CnC games, and all CnC games except CnC4. Econ Choke is a legitimate game style, so is Resource Lock Down...Ieg walling in resource respawn sites so that only your harvesting units can access them is legit as well. Harrassing, and Rushes are one of many different tools in your package. I think many of the new school CnC gamers don't have what it takes for strategy and tactics. Maybe also same player base has not had to deal with random events, asymetrical maps, and unit coding variables that were "Purged" in the new games for the sake of "balance."

I am a type of player that prefers eccentric tactics, and guerilla warfare. I have learned many unusual things in CnC games. My preferred stance is defense first then offense, other players like to play offense but never defense.

But I think we should also maybe take a look at old school Engi Rush...Engineers in the past didn't capture buildings...they damaged them. It took three Engineers to capture a building. Also in the older games Powerplants power rates were tied to their health...so an engineer attack was lethal because if you had a very energy dependent defense system. Two or three engineers attacking seperate powerplants to do damage was lethal. Also these unarmed units would seriously wreck buildings making your mop up attacks so much easier. I think it was when RA2 came along that the idea for engineer use was changed.

Not only that, but Engi Rush was given a huge boost in CnC3 and KW because of one big factor. MCV available at Tier 1 at the Warfactory. TW build ques was Build Crane, and Surveyor, Emissary, Scrins expansion unit, then sell the MCV get a squad of infantry, and and engineer. If you got the Warfactory and had a transport unit Redeemer/APC...viola Engi Rush. Then immediately replace MCV. Now doing that in old school CnC was suicide. because it required Tech Tier 4/5 to get...CnC1 required a Tech Center/Temple of Nod, RA1 required a Powerplant, Radar Dish, WarFactory, and a Service Depot just to make available the MCV. So if you think about it well, CnC3 didn't use a core concept and was problematic. Like at start of game you have radar...all other CnC games you do not have that period! Only Generals has a three faction difference U.S. starts with radar, China has to upgrade, and GLA has to build a radar van.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

I think many of the new school CnC gamers don't have what it takes for strategy and tactics. Maybe also same player base has not had to deal with random events, asymetrical maps, and unit coding variables that were "Purged" in the new games for the sake of "balance."
lol... quite a sweeping statement to make.
what makes you think 'new school' cnc gamers lack strategy/tactics?

also random maps, asymmetrical maps etc do not make for more 'strategy'. sure, asymetrical maps can make things more interesting (as long as its still balanced), but random factors... no.

as for 'unit coding variables', i have no idea what youre talking about.
you dont have to try and make out that units in old cncs were any more complex as modern cnc units... they are not. old cnc units were pretty bread and butter, while modern cnc's have atleast expanded on the units' roles and concepts reasonably well.

im not bashing the old cncs - they were great games and i enjoyed them alot back then, but the modern cncs have done a decent job of preserving that classic gameplay imo. ra3, cnc4 to much a much lesser extent, but they still have that 'fast fluid fun' appeal as the classic games.


Not only that, but Engi Rush was given a huge boost in CnC3 and KW because of one big factor. MCV available at Tier 1 at the Warfactory. TW build ques was Build Crane, and Surveyor, Emissary, Scrins expansion unit, then sell the MCV get a squad of infantry, and and engineer. If you got the Warfactory and had a transport unit Redeemer/APC...viola Engi Rush. Then immediately replace MCV.
this is all total rubbish and isnt even remotely close to a viable strategy in the latest versions of neither tw nor kw.... Building a crane at start is even totally obsolete save for certain maps where you start with blue tib fields.
however you are right that engi-apc is still a very annoying and stupid exploit in tw gameplay, even today.
but you should also know kw added an engineer capture delay, which although may not be classic cnc-ish, imo it addresses the engi-apc abuse and makes it a lot less viable in that game.

srsly, watch a few videos of cnc3/kw online matches from the latest patches.
firstly, you played a completely different game when you played cnc3's first patches. the game was complete trash back then. but they patched it up and made it a lot more playable - still has some flaws, but the potential and strength of its concept is imo is very apparent, and the elements of strategy/tactics and whatnot are very much present and rewarded when used well.

[DeHeerser]

First a few short comments;
--> I think what he was trying to say is that if you try to go for a 2nd or 3d Refinery right from the start, that you would probably not have the manpower to stop 4/5 buggies before they took down one of those economic production sites. Not that they could kill your primary Refinery, because that indeed would cripple you.

--> I don't think that random factors would be negative by definition. For example, if a meteor strike would land somewhere and change parts of the elevation, mutated the terrain, and spread Tiberium to where before there was none, it could add new dynamics. It challenges players to quickly adapt to the changed situation. And then I don't mean for meteors to land on top of someone's base but to areas of the map where there is little activity.

--> It's not true that the latest 2 Tiberian C&C's evolved the unit concepts further. I mean they're pretty much all cookie cut, with the exception of some heavy Scrin air units, maybe the Rig and the Reckoner (which is basically a nerfed version of the Battle Bus from Zero Hour). I mean the Tripod is pretty much the equivalent of the Avatar, with the exception that the Avatar can gather additional weapons by killing off your own units and that the Tripod can be upgraded with a shield. Even if they brought some diversion to this, the similarity between Pitbull, Nod Tank, Bazookaman/RPGdude is still much much greater than between Wolverine+Titan versus Nod Buggy+Tick Tank that could bury, or Disc Thrower. Tiberian Sun had more originality to it, with for example units such as a Cyborg that could be torn in half and lose speed but still recover to full health on Tiberium, Cyborg Reapers that could throw nets, mobile EMP generators, etc.

Basically I'm saying that a future C&C should profit of the technological advantages of today's age and build a better Tiberian Sun/Red Alert 1 while retaining the multiplayer elements of C&C3. It should have more dynamics, more creativity, more polishing. It should be fast in producing units and structures, fluid in controlling them, but the gameplay should overall be with more patience than in C&C3/4. C&C3 added some worthwhile things such as cranes, surveyors and interesting civil buildings to capture, but overal they just took things from Zero Hour and put them in the Tiberian universe. Think of terrorists, garrisoning buildings and clearing them with flames/grenades, snipers, support powers, etc. The future gameplay should focus on protecting vital areas, scouting and prying each other's defenses instead of brutal overpowering with superior unit production right off the start, where people would already have their minds at the next matchup the moment they saw their force was superior. In C&C3 you usually could already know from which angle the enemy would be coming with what type of units and about what time he would arrive. For more info see the other previous post where I made a summary of many argumens.

[CrazyGDIfan123`]

--> I don't think that random factors would be negative by definition. For example, if a meteor strike would land somewhere and change parts of the elevation, mutated the terrain, and spread Tiberium to where before there was none, it could add new dynamics. It challenges players to quickly adapt to the changed situation. And then I don't mean for meteors to land on top of someone's base but to areas of the map where there is little activity.
in theory that seems a pretty 'controlled' random event, but in practice it wouldnt work imo

a lot of people seem to think online matches in modern cncs are often very one-sided and that mere seconds of someone having fewer units than the other results in immediate victory/loss... that is not true (however there are certain matchups where it does happen... cnc3 nod v nod games for example which just boils down to scorp tank spam, having 3-4 more tanks at a battle with both players microing equally well, can be decisive at times), and even so there are several buffers to help the disadvantaged player like the natural benefit of fighting at your base (repair+newer units constantly being churned out) and support powers.

ive know of several matches in cnc3 where the victor is not decided until the very last moment... in such cases the experience can be genuinely ruined by the addition of an environmental input like a meteor strike etc.
if that metoer+tib spawn event is to be made truly fair, it should use an algorithm of sorts to figure out where the best position to spawn would be such that neither player is really disadvantaged.... but such an algorithm would have to be very complex as it must account for a ton of factors.
and if that algorithm gets too restricted, it might even become predictable and players would play in anticipation of that event.

this isnt bad to add as an optional/toggleable feature, but i just dont see how it benefits a competitive game in terms of strategic depth or anything... at best i just see it as an extra fun option for variety.

[Lauren]

[...]
But I think we should also maybe take a look at old school Engi Rush...Engineers in the past didn't capture buildings...they damaged them. It took three Engineers to capture a building. Also in the older games Powerplants power rates were tied to their health...so an engineer attack was lethal because if you had a very energy dependent defense system. Two or three engineers attacking seperate powerplants to do damage was lethal. Also these unarmed units would seriously wreck buildings making your mop up attacks so much easier. I think it was when RA2 came along that the idea for engineer use was changed. [...]
Apart from they introduced this in RA and had it in TS only as an option and not standard... Engies like in TW are more oldschool then Multi Engies.

[Snotrus]

Want Red Alert Remake.

[DeHeerser]

Well, randomness is not quite the same thing as fairness ;) still, for the absolute strongman it will be fun to play on even if somewhat disadvantaged by a change in the environment. Although possibly less so if you are playing top rank ladder and there's something serious at stake. I think the meteors should be an option to enable/disable, a box to tick before you begin, like the crates. When playing ranked I personally would probably enable the meteorites because I think it's cool, and even if it could be in my disadvantage, let's say destroying one ridge allowing the enemy easier access to Tiberium expansion or artillery deployment, the next match it could be in my advantage.

I think the engineer rush can pretty easily be circumvented by either increasing the training time of transportation units, moving them to higher tiers, or putting up a bunch of sentry guns. And of course you could boobytrap buildings to prevent immediate capture, so that upon entry the structure would receive damage by a small explosion device, killing the hostile engineer, instead of losing the building immediately.

[General_Strike]

I loved C&C 1 and 2 by Westwood. But after that it got too gimmicky and too focused on online play. The solo campaign was like an afterthought and it really annoyed me that the first level of most of EA's C&C games can be completed in about 3-4 minutes, that's sick!!

[Nervmich]

Your description is perfect. Command & Conquer players want base building and having a nice base - they can imagine to work with. Then they want a battle with their base. And after all of this - maybe one hour later. They want to destroy it. Destroy the enemy but maybe also blow up the own base.

[AdmiralQ]

Agree, we don't need another Starcraft. C&C got to remain C&C. I'm not against multiplayer, it should be like you're playing campaign, with deatails and etc DeHeerser said. This type of playing needs some time for player to prepare, so developers could implement a simple, but effective solution - add "peace" timer. Until it reaches zero, players can't attack each other, can't use any special powers that cause damage to players (not civilians, etc.) or do anything that can harm opponents. Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends, I need to apologize for stealing this idea, but I think it solves ultra-early-rush problem, gives player time to think in C&C way. :D
The Star Trek Armada games had this and I liked it

[sgfan206]

Command & Conquer players want base building and having a nice base - they can imagine to work with. Then they want a battle with their base. And after all of this - maybe one hour later. They want to destroy it. Destroy the enemy but maybe also blow up the own base.

Blow up the own base?! That's a NIGHTMARE!!! You can't be serious, can you?! :confused:

[AdmiralQ]

Want Red Alert Remake.
There is a RA3 mod that has done that. Go to moddb.com

I agree with OP. I'm a hybrid Turtle steamroller. I stay mainly defensive with resource expansion then attack my opponet with say 10 Mammoth mk3s after an ION cannon. TW was okay and most of it's flaws were dealt with in KW in units anyways. RA3 brought back the navies but was to cartoonish and had a major continueity issue of Einstein and Hitler but still fun. TT I was worried about what they were saying what would be in it. But they said don't worried and I wasted 40 bucks on a non C&C game. The All your history people point out critics keep saying same old same old so the EA guys listen to the crictics and we got TT. A GOOD C&C game was a good storyline, gameplay, SP and MP, no online requirements, and NO CD KEY!

[wombat789]

Total Annihilation was popular for a long time . It had two expansions and people created unit packs for the game .
I would like to see CnC Global Conquest developed more . Because of the huge nature of the game there could be more terrain types that units be upgraded to utilise. And so with weather effects ect .Some units having an edge given the appropriate use of terrain .

This built into an expanded tier system . As play unfolds the player is graded in game . There would be different criteria ,on which graded points would be assesed . In the event that the player wants to play on line the player would be matched to those with similar grade .
Could a player upload a particular strike force that they use in their own game . Like people do with Warhammer when they go to their physical tounaments .

They take their own armies that they have spent months purchasing and painting .

I hope that EA has a long term intention for their next CnC game .One that people keep buying after a couple of years .