We want keep the wreckage of the destroyed armored vehicles not to disappear

**Borreh** · 05-30-2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Golan2781

You've pretty much answered your question with that second sentence. There's this thing called feature creep, which is a nice and dandy word for "trying to put lots of awesome stuff into your game without having a clue how it plays out".
Feature such a husks blocking units might seem minor at first but they can have severe effect. C&C's fast, mobility based gameplay would be seriously changed by such elements. That needs planing and testing, something that is only available in limited amounts. You can't just add such an element and after two years realize it didn't work - that ruins practically all other elements depending on it (for a thoroughly planned game, that means every single one).
There is a lot of potential already in C&C with elements that worked great despite not being fully fleshed out; fleshing these out is going to take a lot of time and resources, so blindly throwing even more new, untested stuff at it will result in a half-assed game.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't be innovation, change and improvement, but just because something sounds awesome in a two paragraph post at 11 pm doesn't mean it's going to work in a game. And most realism based ideas lately have been mainly about "OMG REALISM, AWESOME!!!" (sorry for paraphrasing so harshly) in regards to their impact on gameplay. They're all nice on a meta-level, what with adding depth and making it important HOW to do WHAT exactly WHEN and WHERE, but they fail to connect the gameplay level (husk blocking for example) to the meta level by cleanly ignoring what actual impact it might have on the game - and even that "might" would be still be very wonky.

1: Realism
2: ????
3: Profit!!!

And you will always post a long and detailed message about how a proposed mechanic will be pointless, cluttering and un-C&Cish, no matter what are you talking about. Sorry for the personal stuff, but that's how I see it.

As for gameplay expansion - I do not think C&C could use it, I think it desperately needs it because of how basic the gameplay for a casual person (like it or not - majority of potential customers) is.

For the "fast gameplay" thing:

Is C&C really that fast?

Sure, EALA told us CnC is "fast, fluid n' fun", but that was just e-sport wannabie PR for TW. Were the C&C games that fast?

TD & RA - Slow, slower than Warcraft and Starcraft
TS - One of the slowest RTS games I played, even when on max speed.
RA 2 - Finally something faster and more "arcade".
Generals - Game of rather medium speed, it could get very slow, positional and tactical when played well in such fashion.

In my opinion, Tiberium Wars was the "first" really fast C&C game. It was never a major part of the series' gameplay.

**CrazyGDIfan123`** · 05-31-2012, 06:01 AM

I am talking about "reward players that can think of a good defense and penalize players that only try to win by brute force". How can this be bad?

Simple weight of numbers is ancient method, it doesn't work against any remotely strategically and tactically equipped, savvy militaries, why should it still work in videogames?

first your claim of cnc's being 'tankspam' games, and now 'numbers'...

again, current cnc's are NOT pure numbers/bruteforce games... numbers are just ONE aspect of achieving victory - other aspects such as micro/macro management and strategy are just as important in deciding the winner

you can have the numbers advantage and STILL lose if youre not careful, although the degree to which this happens varies with the game -- it was perhaps most pronounced in gens/zh (armies can die ridiculously fast if you dont control them well), slightly less in ra3, and least in cnc3/kw (where armies are replaced quickly, but in turn economy and strategy are more important)

but why would you even HAVE a (significant) numbers advantage in the first place? 95% of the time its because the opponent is a noob who cant keep up... so why should he be rewarded for bad play? why bother wasting time playing a drawn out match vs a low skill player?

then you talk about rewarding defensive players.... do you even know how rts works?

firstly, have you considered where the 'numbers' even come from? your economy
where does the economy come from? by controlling resources
how do you control resources? by controlling the map

when a noob decides to forgo on all of these key aspects of gameplay and solely focus on camping in his base and building his defences, how exactly does he 'deserve' victory?

turtling in your base with good defences is never a viable long-term strategy, nor does it deserve to be one --- and if it IS viable, the game turns into a simple camp+mass numbers game, which is precisely the type of gameplay you DONT want to see

and whatever gives you impression that defensive play isnt viable in current games?
current cnc's actually do a near-perfect job of balancing the viability of turtling vs bruteforce/aggressive playstyles - BOTH are viable, each with pros and cons, BOTH have their place in the game, and BOTH require precise timing and skilled decision making

why do you want to tilt the game in favour of the defensive player even further? i cant see that doing ANY good whatsoever... its only going to slow the game down

cnc's are not a clickfest, but a subtle balance of pace, decision making and tactics - and its hard to appreciate that if you lack experience with playing cnc's at a decent skill level

with all the CoH-style realism crap youre only going to end up breaking this balance

TD & RA - Slow, slower than Warcraft and Starcraft
TS - One of the slowest RTS games I played, even when on max speed.
RA 2 - Finally something faster and more "arcade".
Generals - Game of rather medium speed, it could get very slow, positional and tactical when played well in such fashion.

all those games were fast - yes, some of them were slower, but overall cnc's have always been a fast, fluid experience allowing you to dive into the action from the get-go

**Golan2781** · 05-31-2012, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by Feloidea

It's only feature creep if it doesn't work. And fast paced gameplay my ***, if I want a reactiontime testing game I play pinball.

Which is why I'm criticizing that no one really bothers with how it's actually supposed to work. Now again, it's back to personal attacks (you just can't cope with it!!!) and sneering (it'd be like pinball!!!!!) and then it's back to that meta stuff of how awesome it'd be. Yes, I get it that it might potentially eventually perhaps be a good thing. But I don't see at all how it'd actually be that good thing.
"Problem with maps? Make proper maps!" Yeah, best practical solution ever.

Originally Posted by Borreh

And you will always post a long and detailed message about how a proposed mechanic will be pointless, cluttering and un-C&Cish, no matter what are you talking about. Sorry for the personal stuff, but that's how I see it.

So is this supposed to be an insult, a diagnosis, a characterization or cheese? Because I don't see a reason why you'd say sorry for something I'd answer with "kinda yes if you don't exaggerate it that much".
I do indeed think that this mechanic would be cluttering and obstructive, so what's the problem with saying that? Worse, I don't even require this mindset here because no one seems to be capable of actually saying how it's going to do all that awesome stuff it's said to do.
This is not an idea or a proposed mechanic. It's a very basic feeling of "that'd be awesome" but no actual implementation.

I'm a casual player myself. Really, if you try putting me in the other corner I'm just going to laugh at you for a bit. I'm a casual player and I very much enjoy C&C because it's not cluttered, it's accessible, because there aren't those "awesome!!!" mechanics that have more control overhead then LHC data analysis. That's what I feel makes the speed of the game, you don't have the boring buildup phases of SC, the exaggerated management tasks of more "strategic" and "tactical" games, you have a core of simple yet powerful rules and options that simply work and let you do what you want.

**oompah** · 05-31-2012, 06:46 PM

this thread went way to far into the TLDR realm.

summary: crazy is right, a well polished true c&c AAA supported title has never been attempted and there is every indication that it will succeed. Borreh has no clue.

Crazy - your posts are really good. I have played every single C&C game competitively online with the exception of C&C 4 and you are dead balls on right with your analysis. To me the c&c games are always a nice mix of production, execution and strategy.

There isn't anything all that compelling with two tanks shooting each other but when you put the combat in context of what it is setting up? Are you causing a diversion while you try a risky expansion move? Are you engaging the enemy to distract him/her to try an engi drop? Are you simply buying time while you tech up? Are you flanking and the frontal assualt is just for diversion?

That's why i love C&C, the combat can and often is just a setup for another move. And as the combat has evolved the micro has become more and more engaging, with the toggle abilities in RA3 you really have your hands full and can very meaningfully swing a battle from a battle of numbers into a battle of abilities.

I guess if you really haven't played online seriously you wouldn't realize the depth and fun there is.

**Borreh** · 05-31-2012, 07:16 PM