Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
type: channel
description: C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
items: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
items: Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!

C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: http://www.commandandconquer.com/cnc4/index.html
creator: rockstar256
date: 2009-07-09T20:57:05-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: yes there's already a topic about this
creator: slosha
date: 2009-07-09T21:34:42-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Tbh I'm not that excited about it. EA just keeps making them worse. I didn't even buy the C&C3 expansion or even try any of the redalrt3 stuff.
creator: luv2pb
date: 2009-07-10T00:21:11-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: So how do you know they are making them better or worse if you didn't try anything past the initial release?
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-12T22:02:41-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: luv2pb wrote on Thu, 09 July 2009 19:21 Tbh I'm not that excited about it. EA just keeps making them worse. I didn't even buy the C&C3 expansion or even try any of the redalrt3 stuff. Don't even bother mate and save your money to spend on some other game. C&C 3 was ridiculous and RA3 tops even that.
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2009-07-13T03:18:39-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: He speks liez.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-13T23:42:01-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: You all take c&c too seriously for it's storyline, if you look past all that those are actually pretty fun games, same with generals and zero hour, those were the funnest rts' I've ever played, and still are.
creator: nope.avi
date: 2009-07-14T03:36:13-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I disagree, Generals was horrible.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-15T00:23:28-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 14 July 2009 17:23 I disagree, Generals was horrible. lol.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-15T07:27:09-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: EDIT: nvm
creator: Muad Dib15
date: 2009-07-16T18:08:17-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: lol2u.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-17T01:15:00-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: generals and zero hour were both good games explain why you disliked them, if you can
creator: liquidv2
date: 2009-07-18T03:44:51-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: liquidv2 wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 20:44 generals and zero hour were both good games explain why you disliked them, if you can Don't bother. He's adverse to logic and reasoning.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-18T08:51:02-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: The only thing I like about RA3:
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2009-07-18T12:50:11-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 03:51 liquidv2 wrote on Fri, 17 July 2009 20:44 generals and zero hour were both good games explain why you disliked them, if you can Don't bother. He's adverse to logic and reasoning. oh so he's a woman
creator: liquidv2
date: 2009-07-19T02:49:15-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: In the thread where Dover was intent on arguing about Generals, he assumed I was arguing with him and now he is on my case because he doesn't think I have any valid points to defend my opinion. (which, by the way, you don't need a reason to have an opinion, Dover, because if you have a means to back up your opinion, then that isn't called an opinion, it's called a "theory." Or, if the back up info is "proof," then it would be called a "fact." An opinion is merely someone's personal presumption or idea of something. An opinion can be right, it can be wrong, or it can just be plain ridiculous, but having the means to backup your opinion doesn't make your opinion any less than an opinion... it just makes the person less of an idiot.) However, I feel like discussing Generals in this thread, so lets have at it then.. just as long as you aren't a complete fagsack about it. The main reasons why I don't like Generals are: -It looked like it was tossed together. Regardless if they put incredible or lackluster amounts of detail into specific models, it looked like everything used a different artstyle that clashed with one another. So once everything was brought together, it looked kind of awkward, imo. (Also, why did the trees dance? The wind isn't THAT strong...) -Extended reach units. This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those units never bothered me because it forced you to actually play rather than sit and watch the game play itself. However, in Generals, I can't really explain why, but the units with the long ranges just pissed me off. Perhaps because there was either a crap load of them (either that or the defense range was small in comparison to the firing range of other units), or the long-range units were cheap and spammable. (The Rocket buggy-thing for the GLA is a good …
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-19T03:07:12-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I sense a...
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2009-07-19T07:19:23-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: now you guys explain why do you dislike CNC3 RA3...
creator: Devlin
date: 2009-07-19T13:44:54-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: You sense that an image was deleted?
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-19T21:54:34-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Ah, R315r4z0r my friend. I knew you couldn't stay away. :) R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 [color=red]In the thread where Dover was intent on arguing about Generals, he assumed I was arguing with him and now he is on my case because he doesn't think I have any valid points to defend my opinion. (which, by the way, you don't need a reason to have an opinion, Dover, because if you have a means to back up your opinion, then that isn't called an opinion, it's called a "theory." Or, if the back up info is "proof," then it would be called a "fact." An opinion is merely someone's personal presumption or idea of something. An opinion can be right, it can be wrong, or it can just be plain ridiculous, but having the means to backup your opinion doesn't make your opinion any less than an opinion... it just makes the person less of an idiot.) Either we have differing definitions of what constitutes an opinion or you have some wacky beliefs. It's very rare that a person holds an opinion for no reason. Someone or something has given him reason to believe the way he does. This is his reasoning, his "proof". Without these initial "points", the person in question isn't convinced and there is no opinion. You don't have to back up your opinions, true, but only in the same sense that you don't have to post on these forums or you don't have to drive on the correct side of the road. Also, if I read that last statement correctly, you just called yourself an idiot (Or, at the very least, not "less of an idiot) for refusing to validate your opinions up until now. I applaude your R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 [color=red]However, I feel like discussing Generals in this thread, so lets have at it then.. just as long as you aren't a complete fagsack about it. I could say the same for you. Try not to get so butthurt this time. R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 [color=red]The main reasons why I don't like Generals are: -It looked like it was tossed together. Regar…
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-20T16:21:13-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: This seems like it should be in hot topics if anywhere...
creator: Doitle
date: 2009-07-20T17:31:16-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: This "omfg Generals is horrible!!!11!1" debate has been done to the death. And on every occasion, those saying it was a fine game won.
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2009-07-20T19:33:04-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Surprisingly, as most of the time when you put forward points, you do them very well. This time, however, you seem to have misread a lot of what I said. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 Also, if I read that last statement correctly, you just called yourself an idiot (Or, at the very least, not "less of an idiot) for refusing to validate your opinions up until now. I applaude your Yes, you would be correct. I realized that when I was proof reading my post, but left it in because it's the best way I could express my idea. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 If you're referring to how the GLA units look different from the USA units, and the USA units look different from the Chinese units, then DUUHHHH. That's like complaining about how in StarCraft the art-style used with the Zerg is so different from the art-style used with the Protoss. It's an intentional art direction choice to give each faction a unique flavor. This isn't anything unique to Generals. Notice how vastly different the Allied and Soviet structures look in RA2? And how they clash aesthetically when put in the same base? No, I'm referring to the art detail between infantry vs vehicles vs flora vs structures, ect. Not simply between factions, because that's an obvious "Duuhhhh!!!" More or less within the same faction. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 I won't even ask how you can conjecture about how strong the wind is when you have nothing but the trees to go by. I'm not conjecting about the wind. I was merely being dramatic. I'm commenting on the tree animations. Why do the trees dance? Even the seemingly heavily rooted hard-wood trees. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 [color=red]-Extended reach units. This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those u…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-21T01:44:01-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Starbuck wrote on Sun, 19 July 2009 00:19 I sense a... LOL!! Fuckin' saved! Thank you sir. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 Surprisingly, as most of the time when you put forward points, you do them very well. This time, however, you seem to have misread a lot of what I said. I'll chose to ignore the "surprisingly". R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 No, I'm referring to the art detail between infantry vs vehicles vs flora vs structures, ect. Not simply between factions, because that's an obvious "Duuhhhh!!!" More or less within the same faction. I'll admit, the infantry in Generals were pretty ugly, but that's why you don't zoom in to the max to look at them. Still, I don't think there's a bad of a problem as you say there is. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 I'm not conjecting about the wind. I was merely being dramatic. I'm commenting on the tree animations. Why do the trees dance? Even the seemingly heavily rooted hard-wood trees. I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Aside from palm trees (Where it's pretty expected), the only "dancing trees" I've seen are the one's "getting down" after getting run over. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 18:44 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 12:21 R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 18 July 2009 20:07 [color=red]-Extended reach units. This, to you, might fall under the "L2RTS" category, however I don't think so. In C&C games prior to Generals, there was always an artillery type unit that was able to hit you from afar and require you to go into action to take it out. Those units never bothered me because it forced you to actually play rather than sit and watch the game play itself. However, in Generals, I can't really explain why, but the units with the long ranges just pissed me off. Perhaps because there was either a crap load of them (either that or the defense range was small in comparison to the firing range of other units), or the long-range units were cheap and spammable. (The Rocket bugg…
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-21T03:00:18-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: People can argue about Generals sucking until they're blue in the face, but from a marketing and sales point of view, it was very successful. For one thing, it was created relatively recently after 9/11. Another thing is that it has a believable world, as opposed to the 'Tiberian Universe' and the Red Alert 2/3 one, which quite a few people regard as rather 'nutty.' This new setting allowed C&C to reach a mass audience made it one of the best selling games in '03. The game itself rated very highly too, so obviously EA made a very smart move. Plus, it likely brought people into the C&C fold that may have not been interested in the other two universes previously.
creator: nikki6ixx
date: 2009-07-21T03:50:48-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=159284
creator: YazooGang
date: 2009-07-21T04:24:47-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: @ Dover: You are welcome! I removed the image assuming you did not like it; after your massive attack, I uploaded it again. LOL! You pretty much got down all the reasons for why I like the Peon system. MCV system lacks depth and strategy; Peon is more realistic; I prefer how the buildings take time to appear and how you are forced to keep flexible control groups of units to aid yourself in expansion. nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 22:50 People can argue about Generals sucking until they're blue in the face, but from a marketing and sales point of view, it was very successful. For one thing, it was created relatively recently after 9/11. Another thing is that it has a believable world, as opposed to the 'Tiberian Universe' and the Red Alert 2/3 one, which quite a few people regard as rather 'nutty.' This new setting allowed C&C to reach a mass audience made it one of the best selling games in '03. The game itself rated very highly too, so obviously EA made a very smart move. Plus, it likely brought people into the C&C fold that may have not been interested in the other two universes previously. I have been saying this in every Generals debate here. The game was a stunning success in every way, shape, and form and it picked up a prestigeous E3 best RTS award. C&C fanboys don't realize what a MAJOR gap Generals successfully filled. EA made a smart move making a killer 3D RTS game with modern military units that was NOT in the market at that time; atleast not anything as advanced as Generals. They cashed in major time and brought more players to RTS gaming with help of a simple "terrorists vs everyone else" plot. Generals units were awesome as well. I found the factions to be a fresh break; the Chinese faction was both inspirational and well done imo.
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2009-07-21T05:06:05-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Starbuck wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 22:06 @ Dover: You are welcome! I removed the image assuming you did not like it; after your massive attack, I uploaded it again. LOL! Not at all. I didn't see it the first time around. I love it. Again, thank you very much. :D
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-21T05:35:05-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: RTS FTL!
creator: slosha
date: 2009-07-21T16:20:45-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I'll chose to ignore the "surprisingly". Why? I meant it as a complement.. As in, normally when you are in a debate, you a decent job at stating points, but I was surprised to find a few flawed in your response. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I'll admit, the infantry in Generals were pretty ugly, but that's why you don't zoom in to the max to look at them. Still, I don't think there's a bad of a problem as you say there is. You're right, it isn't a big deal. But you said you wanted reasons and that's one I thought of. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Aside from palm trees (Where it's pretty expected), the only "dancing trees" I've seen are the one's "getting down" after getting run over. If I recall correctly, all the trees swayed heavily. Some trees are a given, but every tree did. What I was getting at when I mentioned the wind was that even in hurricane force winds, heavy and hardwood trees wont sway as much as they do in their animations. I just thought it looked dumb. Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I don't see the difference between how it was done in Generals and how it was done in previous games. Artillery-type units in Generals are nowhere near as gamebreaking as the Nod Artillery in Tiberian Sun. Note that Tomahawk missles and SCUDs can be stopped with simple anti-air defense (lol wtf), rocket buggies can be intercepted by point-defense, and the Chinese artillery units are either fairly ineffective (Inferno cannon) or a huge investment that moves like a fucking snail making it an easy target (Nuke Cannon). Compare that to Nod's Artillery. Cheap, fast (When not deployed, and it even deploys/undeploys very fast), ridiculous range two to three times the range of the runner up, and you can't even stop the damn things with the FireStorm wall tiles. How can you call this a good implementation and call Artillery in Generals game-breaking? I stand by my …
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-21T17:47:07-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: blah blah blah, generals/zero hour is still fun to play. Currently playing CNC3 and very enjoyable as well.
creator: DarkKnight
date: 2009-07-21T23:37:49-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: It's got it's fun aspects yes, but I just don't like it. Why is that so difficult to understand? Generals is the game equivalent to rap music.
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-22T00:02:49-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: generals was probably more like grunge than rap music, you're one of the old metalheads that hates it
creator: liquidv2
date: 2009-07-22T01:40:49-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: If you want story read a book.
creator: nope.avi
date: 2009-07-22T04:24:18-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: bakerrrr wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 21:24 If you want story read a book. Westwood guys should of made a tiberium war book so that no one can make up what happens next.
creator: YazooGang
date: 2009-07-22T05:01:52-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I'll chose to ignore the "surprisingly". Why? I meant it as a complement.. As in, normally when you are in a debate, you a decent job at stating points, but I was surprised to find a few flawed in your response. In that case, I misread that, too. You form very awkward sentences every now and then. R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I'll admit, the infantry in Generals were pretty ugly, but that's why you don't zoom in to the max to look at them. Still, I don't think there's a bad of a problem as you say there is. You're right, it isn't a big deal. But you said you wanted reasons and that's one I thought of. Fair enough. R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. Aside from palm trees (Where it's pretty expected), the only "dancing trees" I've seen are the one's "getting down" after getting run over. If I recall correctly, all the trees swayed heavily. Some trees are a given, but every tree did. What I was getting at when I mentioned the wind was that even in hurricane force winds, heavy and hardwood trees wont sway as much as they do in their animations. I just thought it looked dumb. And I remember differently. I'll pop in my Zero Hour and find out before my next post. R315r4z0r wrote on Tue, 21 July 2009 10:47 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 July 2009 23:00 I don't see the difference between how it was done in Generals and how it was done in previous games. Artillery-type units in Generals are nowhere near as gamebreaking as the Nod Artillery in Tiberian Sun. Note that Tomahawk missles and SCUDs can be stopped with simple anti-air defense (lol wtf), rocket buggies can be intercepted by point-defense, and the Chinese artillery units are either fairly ineffective (Inferno cannon) or a huge investment that moves like a fucking snail making it an easy target (N…
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-22T06:21:45-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 That "something about politics" IS the story. I don't see how you can marginalize the story and then complain about how bad it is. You're not even trying to enjoy it. There is a difference between trying to enjoy something and not being able to enjoy something. My main reason for playing C&C games is to play the single player and skirmish. After I've done that, I move onto multiplayer. The campaign and story, however, is the selling point for me when it comes to the game. For Generals to lack heavily in terms of an enjoyable story, it makes my opinion of it very poor. Dover wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 02:21 "Electronic Visual Analysis" sounds like a poor ripoff of "Electronic Video Agent" in Tiberian Sun. And keep in mind there is some intention of tying all three universes together, and the strands of doing so are there. EVA is one example. The many parallels one can draw between the GLA and Nod is another. The pervasive faction that is communist-aligned is a third. There isn't anything "Unoriginal" about a LT. Eva being your guide. This is a C&C game. You may as well be calling your beloved MCV sidebar system a "ripoff" from one game in the series to another. By the way, the idea of EVA originated in the Dune series just like your beloved MCV sidebar system, so if anyone is unoriginal it's Tiberian Dawn, not Generals. Of course it sounds like a "poor ripoff." That's because it uses the same acronym. But the title is one thing, what it actually does is something else. In Tiberium, EVA is a strategic AI that gives you advise on how to handle situations logically as well as give you information which may be key to your missions. In Red Alert, Lt. Eva is a briefing officer that is used to twist the way a mission is under taken when compared to Tiberium. In Generals, it's a mix of the two. I suggested making it its own unique flare to the game rather than taking aspects of the previous games (other than the name, obviously.) As for…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-23T01:31:48-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: GameTrailers just released a world exclusive trailer here. Discussion topic here.
creator: havoc9826
date: 2009-07-24T05:11:48-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: The part i dont like, Quote: Command & Conquer 4 will reveal the epic conclusion of the Tiberium Saga. Who will win P.S. Check out trailer on there site...makes you cant wait any longer
creator: _SSnipe_
date: 2009-07-25T08:40:33-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 There is a difference between trying to enjoy something and not being able to enjoy something. My main reason for playing C&C games is to play the single player and skirmish. After I've done that, I move onto multiplayer. The campaign and story, however, is the selling point for me when it comes to the game. For Generals to lack heavily in terms of an enjoyable story, it makes my opinion of it very poor. And that's what I'm talking about. You're choosing to hate the game for what it isn't rather than enjoy it for what it is. You're not even trying to have fun with it. R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 Of course it sounds like a "poor ripoff." That's because it uses the same acronym. But the title is one thing, what it actually does is something else. In Tiberium, EVA is a strategic AI that gives you advise on how to handle situations logically as well as give you information which may be key to your missions. In Red Alert, Lt. Eva is a briefing officer that is used to twist the way a mission is under taken when compared to Tiberium. In Generals, it's a mix of the two. I suggested making it its own unique flare to the game rather than taking aspects of the previous games (other than the name, obviously.) They do the samn damn thing in either situation. You're nitpicking. There's no difference. Besides, is it that hard to accept that it could be the same Lt. Eva in both games? It's a person with the same name that holds the same job for the same country with practically the same voice. R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 As for the uniqueness of the MCV and sidebar, I meant that it's different in structure when compared to other RTS games out there. Name a single, non-C&C, modern day RTS game that uses a building system similar to the MCV. You can't because there is none (or if there is, I haven't heard of it.) What I'm getting at with that is that it is a step away from mainstream. It's a taste of something d…
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T16:23:12-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 making a big deal out of nothing. This pretty much sums up this entire thread.
creator: nikki6ixx
date: 2009-07-25T16:41:58-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: [quote title=Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23] R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know. In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance. The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases. The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack. Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system. I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color] Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems. you mean apart from everyone?
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T16:44:30-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know. In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance. The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases. The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack. Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system. I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color] Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems. you mean apart from everyone? You know, the more I looked into your claims, the more it seemed to me that it was just bad players on the forum bitching instead of …
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T16:55:24-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:55 so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know. In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance. The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases. The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack. Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system. I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color] Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems. you mean apart from everyone? You know, the more I looked into your claims, the more it seemed to me that it was just bad pl…
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T17:33:26-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 10:33 Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:55 so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know. In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance. The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases. The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack. Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system. I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color] Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems. you mean apart from everyone? You know, the more I looked into your claims, …
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T18:31:47-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:31 so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 10:33 Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:55 so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 09:44 Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:23 R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 22 July 2009 18:31 However, how that relates to the faction balance.. I don't know. In RA3 each faction was totally different in terms of balance. The Allies built using the traditional MCV system with some twists to make it better. They required "tech clearance" per base in order to build higher-tier things. That made using high-tech units and weapons from expansion bases much harder and it required you to strategically plan where you make your technologically advanced expansion bases. The Soviets also used the MCV system with even more of a twist. They had a global technology pool, so you could build any high-tech unit/weapon anywhere you're able to just as long as you have the unlocking structure somewhere on the map. The catch, however, is that your structures don't "appear" on the map. You chose a structure and then chose where you want to build it. Then the structure will begin to build itself on the map, all the while being vulnerable to attack. Japan had the most unique form of construction. They had an MCV, but it worked differently than what you're thinking. Their MCV produced building specific "Nano-cores" which would transform into the building they represent at a location you desire. This is the only faction that isn't limited to a build radius. They are able to build anywhere on the map at any time they want, given they are able to transport the nano-core to the desired location. The core took a while to get deployed, all the while being vulnerable to attack. This way of building bares the most resemblance to the peon system. I preferred using either the Allies or Japan.[/color] Are we talking about faction balance? I don't think any past C&C games have had faction-balance problems. you mean apart from everyone? You kno…
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T18:34:55-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 11:34 With emphasis on "SOME" professional players? Because, you know, virtually everyone thought China was underpowered. Oh btw, are you proposing not to patch games at all anymore because nobodies input could be trusted? ...Let me give you a specific examples on what I mean. This, this, and this are three Terran vs Protoss games of StarCraft on two maps that are widely acknowledged to favor Protoss fairly heavily, but the Terran player deals with it fairly well in both situations, because he's a highly-competant StarCraft player. Lesser-skilled players would crumble to the odds being stacked against them where their canned build orders don't work. A skilled player adapts to his situation. In the first video he reacts flawlessly to a powerful early rush and holds his own into the lategame. In the second game he completely reverses the odds by getting an early containment on his opponent. In the third he uses an unorthodox build to counter his opponents unorthodox build. The point I'm trying to make here is that being underpowered or unfavored doesn't mean you can't win. Rather than bitch about it, be the better player and win anyway. By the way, you can skip the first 1/4 or so of the videos unless you're interested in listening to music or reading lots of Korean text or listening the commentators talking about pre-game stuff. And yes, I would propose that games shouldn't be patched anymore by the community. The game is what the developers make it, love it or leave it.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T19:40:05-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 14:40 The point I'm trying to make here is that being underpowered or unfavored doesn't mean you can't win. Rather than bitch about it, be the better player and win anyway. what? using the underpowered race when your skill is exactly or a bit above the enemies skill means EXACTLY that you can't win. Quote: And yes, I would propose that games shouldn't be patched anymore by the community. The game is what the developers make it, love it or leave it. Man is that a stupid attitude or what. Basically you say "Sorry TT, but I dont want you to implement the pointfix (man this is gonna turn into a pointfix debate in a matter of an hour hopefully!) because Westwood was too stupid/lazy to do it. Btw, Highlevelplayers usually have a much higher understanding of the game mechanics than the developers. btw#2, the patch got approved by EA iirc.
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T20:01:57-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 what? using the underpowered race when your skill is exactly or a bit above the enemies skill means EXACTLY that you can't win. No, it doesn't. Everything has a counter, and if the game is truly that imbalanced then nobody would play it. Watch the videos. In each the unfavored player comes out on top by playing unconventionally or pre-empting is opponent. so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 Man is that a stupid attitude or what. Basically you say "Sorry TT, but I dont want you to implement the pointfix (man this is gonna turn into a pointfix debate in a matter of an hour hopefully!) because Westwood was too stupid/lazy to do it. Btw, Highlevelplayers usually have a much higher understanding of the game mechanics than the developers. btw#2, the patch got approved by EA iirc. That's difference. From an update perspective, Renegade is a dead game. If the developers have given up on a game, then the community can step in. Otherwise it's just self-serving. As for high-level players having a better understanding, they are also self-serving and have a vested interest in things changing to favor their faction/unit/tactic/whatever. Balancing a game requires you to be impartial, which game developers are and players may or may not be.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T20:18:29-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 15:18 so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 what? using the underpowered race when your skill is exactly or a bit above the enemies skill means EXACTLY that you can't win. No, it doesn't. Everything has a counter, and if the game is truly that imbalanced then nobody would play it. Watch the videos. In each the unfavored player comes out on top by playing unconventionally or pre-empting is opponent. Why would nobody play it? practically every rts out there is somewhat imbalance and favors one race or another. ZH was just a bit more extreme, nothing major. Im playing WiC on a competitive level and its quite imbalanced. it still was played on CPL. (granted, CPL died shortly after, but anyway) Quote: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:01 Man is that a stupid attitude or what. Basically you say "Sorry TT, but I dont want you to implement the pointfix (man this is gonna turn into a pointfix debate in a matter of an hour hopefully!) because Westwood was too stupid/lazy to do it. Btw, Highlevelplayers usually have a much higher understanding of the game mechanics than the developers. btw#2, the patch got approved by EA iirc. That's difference. From an update perspective, Renegade is a dead game. If the developers have given up on a game, then the community can step in. Otherwise it's just self-serving. As for high-level players having a better understanding, they are also self-serving and have a vested interest in things changing to favor their faction/unit/tactic/whatever. Balancing a game requires you to be impartial, which game developers are and players may or may not be. SO WAS ZH. EA had abandoned it. I'm a highlevel WiC Airplayer and I still condoned a change that nerfed air in the beta for patch 11. Is your theory disproved now?
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T20:54:03-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:54 Why would nobody play it? practically every rts out there is somewhat imbalance and favors one race or another. ZH was just a bit more extreme, nothing major. Im playing WiC on a competitive level and its quite imbalanced. it still was played on CPL. (granted, CPL died shortly after, but anyway) Nobody would play it if the imbalance was really terrible (Like in Nox, which had the potential to be real fun but was imbalanced as hell). If people still play ZH it means the imbalance isn't that bad and people need to stfu about it. so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:54 SO WAS ZH. EA had abandoned it. I'm a highlevel WiC Airplayer and I still condoned a change that nerfed air in the beta for patch 11. Is your theory disproved now? EA abandoned ZH already? I didn't know that. Whatever. And no. You're just the exception to the rule.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T21:00:33-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: if it's the end of the tiberium series maybe they'll release the beta /offtop
creator: ErroR
date: 2009-07-25T21:02:37-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 16:00 so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:54 Why would nobody play it? practically every rts out there is somewhat imbalance and favors one race or another. ZH was just a bit more extreme, nothing major. Im playing WiC on a competitive level and its quite imbalanced. it still was played on CPL. (granted, CPL died shortly after, but anyway) Nobody would play it if the imbalance was really terrible (Like in Nox, which had the potential to be real fun but was imbalanced as hell). If people still play ZH it means the imbalance isn't that bad and people need to stfu about it. The imbalance is/was bad, BUT: casual gamers dont mind imbalances or cant see them. Also, the balance may or may not be better on lowerlevel games because of limited knowledge. Highlevelgamers might still stay because the other two races are somewhat balanced and fun enough to play. They might also have a money incentive. ( I frankly dont know if cw.cc ever gave out money prizes for ZH) Quote: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 13:54 SO WAS ZH. EA had abandoned it. I'm a highlevel WiC Airplayer and I still condoned a change that nerfed air in the beta for patch 11. Is your theory disproved now? EA abandoned ZH already? I didn't know that. Whatever. And no. You're just the exception to the rule. EA abandoned ZH after Patch 1.03 I believe. 1.04 was then largely made (everything safe for one bugfix)by the community. EA only made it an official patch, all the balancing changes were community made. 1.05 is, as far as i know, still only unoffical and not ea approved. but i dont know about that. going a bit back to the issue at hand btw, wasnt tiberian sun insanely inbalanced as well?
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T21:27:13-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: *ignores last bunch of posts in this thread* When I was posting my last rebuttal in this thread, I wanted to do it quickly because I got home from work late and wanted to do other things after. I didn't think making the post would take that long so I figured I'd give it a whirl. Well, it took 1 and a half hours to compose (distractions and all.) Most of the time was taken from formatting the post with the quote by quote breakdown. So, in this post I'm just going to take your main idea that you've started to form with all your posts and combine it into one argument: You are apart of the group of people that are so fixed on how they've seen something one way that you want everything to be a "clone" of it. A lot of people were like this when C&C3 was in development. Many people kept on suggesting things that would have made C&C3 a Tiberian Sun clone. One of my ongoing points is that no game should be stremelined with other games of the same genre. It doesn't matter at all if one way is better or worse than another way. You wouldn't buy two different bottles of soda and expect them to taste the same. You wouldn't buy two mystery novels and expect them to playout the same. Just like different games shouldn't use the same structure and format, even if they are in the same genre. Different games are made for the reasons that people have different tastes. A game is not based on your opinion and your opinion alone. Starcraft should play different than Generals. Tiberian Sun should play different than World in Conflict. Stormride should play different than Halo Wars. And they do. If a game wants to share some basic ideas from another game, that's perfectly fine, but once they take all the core mechanics from one game and copy it into their own game and simply just change the units used and call it the "standard" then that's when things get boring. If you don't like a game, you don't play it. It's as simple as that. There are different games for that reason. If all games playe…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-25T22:05:17-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 15:05 *ignores last bunch of posts in this thread* When I was posting my last rebuttal in this thread, I wanted to do it quickly because I got home from work late and wanted to do other things after. I didn't think making the post would take that long so I figured I'd give it a whirl. Well, it took 1 and a half hours to compose (distractions and all.) Most of the time was taken from formatting the post with the quote by quote breakdown. So, in this post I'm just going to take your main idea that you've started to form with all your posts and combine it into one argument: You are apart of the group of people that are so fixed on how they've seen something one way that you want everything to be a "clone" of it. A lot of people were like this when C&C3 was in development. Many people kept on suggesting things that would have made C&C3 a Tiberian Sun clone. One of my ongoing points is that no game should be stremelined with other games of the same genre. It doesn't matter at all if one way is better or worse than another way. You wouldn't buy two different bottles of soda and expect them to taste the same. You wouldn't buy two mystery novels and expect them to playout the same. Just like different games shouldn't use the same structure and format, even if they are in the same genre. Different games are made for the reasons that people have different tastes. A game is not based on your opinion and your opinion alone. Starcraft should play different than Generals. Tiberian Sun should play different than World in Conflict. Stormride should play different than Halo Wars. And they do. If a game wants to share some basic ideas from another game, that's perfectly fine, but once they take all the core mechanics from one game and copy it into their own game and simply just change the units used and call it the "standard" then that's when things get boring. In theory, this is a sound idea, but in practice you quickly find there is good differe…
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T22:41:18-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: since this is for some reason now about logic and reason and its also 1 am, i am going to post WEIRD IMAGES!!!! and then log off.
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-25T22:57:45-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: so say we all. wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 15:57 since this is for some reason now about logic and reason and its also 1 am, i am going to post WEIRD IMAGES!!!! and then log off.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-25T23:01:21-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-26T18:45:03-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Stop fucking spamming plz just have one real post without fucking spamming, anyways cnc4 is going kinda make me sad knowing once your done, ts is done,after that all we have left is generals and red alert series
creator: _SSnipe_
date: 2009-07-26T19:44:37-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Let me answer this by saying that
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-26T19:51:16-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 17:41 Emotions and feelings lie and lead people to false conclusions. Logic doesn't. Damn right. Church attendance rose after 9/11; the motivator was fear. So it can be concluded that fear motivates people to look to imaginary supercreatures for insta-help. lol
creator: Starbuzzz
date: 2009-07-26T19:58:26-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I offially declare this thread the cute sayings, logic and communism thread. - "Things bought from money I dont have as a reward for something I haven't donet yet. Pure reason may never win."
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-26T21:33:18-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: @ Dover A few things things. You asked me to explain to you one example that doesn't use logic or reasoning. Well I have one answer: Women. But seriously, emotion. Emotions don't use logic or reason in all cases. One might start feeling depressed or anxiety for an unknown reason. And don't go and start talking about "chemical imbalances in the brain" because that's not what I'm getting at. Things we do can be compelled through emotion, regardless of if the action is logical or not. Look at the person who invented sky diving. If you don't wish to disbelieve something that is core in how your life is run, then that's totally fine by me. I'm not going to try and change how you run your life. Also, fyi, my signature is a quote from an anime called "Tenga Topa Gurren Lagaan." It's not my direct words, but my implication on how the fictional quote be applied to life (whether it works or not). Now, secondly, I forgot to reply to this in my last post. You asked me to share my idea about the production structures that takes the best of both worlds. This is what I came up with: When you build a production structure, say a barracks, you put it on the map and then are allowed to queue up and produce infantry. Now, when the barracks is set up, you would be given a certain "radius" around that structure. If you build another barracks inside of that radius, then you wouldn't be given a second queue, but rather an increase in how fast your units are produced. And I mean two barracks means infantry and made at half the speed. (So if you produce a riflemen in 5 seconds with one barracks, you would produce two riflemen in 5 seconds if you had two barracks). There would be a maximum speed of x3 (you could make more than 3 production structures in the same radius, but it would be a waste of time and money (for a lack of better thought)). And one more thing: the total amount of power consumption between similar production structures in the same radius would be less than similar productio…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-27T00:44:39-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: wow shut the fuck up you angry bitch i'm really excited, this is what i always thought cnc3 should have looked like so for me it's better late than never they should have never gotten rid of the walker units
creator: liquidv2
date: 2009-07-27T03:36:03-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: needs more explosions imo
creator: nope.avi
date: 2009-07-27T03:51:27-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 17:44 You asked me to explain to you one example that doesn't use logic or reasoning. Well I have one answer: Women. Har har. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 17:44 @ But seriously, emotion. Emotions don't use logic or reason in all cases. One might start feeling depressed or anxiety for an unknown reason. And don't go and start talking about "chemical imbalances in the brain" because that's not what I'm getting at. Things we do can be compelled through emotion, regardless of if the action is logical or not. Look at the person who invented sky diving. An unknown reason doesn't equal no reason. EVERYTHING has a reason, and mood swings are no different. As you already mentioned chemical imbalances in the brain is one thing. Ask anyone that sky dives, they have their reasons, ranging from conquering one's fear to doing it for the rush. NOBODY does something for no reason. No exceptions. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 17:44 If you don't wish to disbelieve something that is core in how your life is run, then that's totally fine by me. I'm not going to try and change how you run your life. You're completely missing the point again. This isn't about changing or convincing. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 17:44 Also, fyi, my signature is a quote from an anime called "Tenga Topa Gurren Lagaan." It's not my direct words, but my implication on how the fictional quote be applied to life (whether it works or not). Again, not to flame, but if the saying comes from an anime it only makes it that much faggier. R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 17:44 Now, secondly, I forgot to reply to this in my last post. You asked me to share my idea about the production structures that takes the best of both worlds. This is what I came up with: When you build a production structure, say a barracks, you put it on the map and then are allowed to queue up and produce infantry. Now, when the barracks is set up, you would be given a certain "radi…
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-27T19:49:42-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 14:49 . NOBODY does something for no reason. No exceptions. you're sounding a bit like cheesesoda and that worries me no ends :/
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-27T22:36:54-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 15:49 An unknown reason doesn't equal no reason. EVERYTHING has a reason, and mood swings are no different. As you already mentioned chemical imbalances in the brain is one thing. Ask anyone that sky dives, they have their reasons, ranging from conquering one's fear to doing it for the rush. NOBODY does something for no reason. No exceptions. I knew you were going to say that. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I don't necessarily mean that people don't always do things for a reason. What I mean to say is more on the lines of people don't always do things for a logical reason. Conquering one's fears is an arguable logical reason to do something. It really depends on what you're doing and how it affects your life. Doing something "for the rush" is not a logical reason. In fact, doing anything for entertainment value isn't logical. Having fun isn't logical. It's just an emotional pleasure one gets. Hell, most of the things that we know and have become accustomed to in modern society is pretty illogical. The point of our lives is to hunt, eat, sleep and die. Money, housing, jobs, communities, morals, are all tacked on illogical ways of our life. Just because we find reason to do them, it doesn't make it logical when compared to what are bare primitives of life really are. Everything has a reason, but not everything uses a logical reason. Someone might be faced with impossible odds to overcome an obstacle. Their reasoning is to overcome the challenge, but it defies logic as the odds are highly against them. However, just because logic says it won't work, that doesn't mean that a person wont try. What I was getting at with the skydiving example is this. The person who invented it decided one day to jump from a high altitude and hope that enough wind could be caught so it would slow them down so they could land safely. But who decides to risk something like that for any logical reason? No one, that's who. It takes illogical notions to progress in l…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-28T00:47:24-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 17:47 Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 15:49 An unknown reason doesn't equal no reason. EVERYTHING has a reason, and mood swings are no different. As you already mentioned chemical imbalances in the brain is one thing. Ask anyone that sky dives, they have their reasons, ranging from conquering one's fear to doing it for the rush. NOBODY does something for no reason. No exceptions. I knew you were going to say that. Perhaps I spoke too soon. I don't necessarily mean that people don't always do things for a reason. What I mean to say is more on the lines of people don't always do things for a logical reason. Conquering one's fears is an arguable logical reason to do something. It really depends on what you're doing and how it affects your life. Doing something "for the rush" is not a logical reason. In fact, doing anything for entertainment value isn't logical. Having fun isn't logical. It's just an emotional pleasure one gets. Hell, most of the things that we know and have become accustomed to in modern society is pretty illogical. The point of our lives is to hunt, eat, sleep and die. Money, housing, jobs, communities, morals, are all tacked on illogical ways of our life. Just because we find reason to do them, it doesn't make it logical when compared to what are bare primitives of life really are. Everything has a reason, but not everything uses a logical reason. Someone might be faced with impossible odds to overcome an obstacle. Their reasoning is to overcome the challenge, but it defies logic as the odds are highly against them. However, just because logic says it won't work, that doesn't mean that a person wont try. What I was getting at with the skydiving example is this. The person who invented it decided one day to jump from a high altitude and hope that enough wind could be caught so it would slow them down so they could land safely. But who decides to risk something like that for any logical reason? No one, that's who. …
creator: Dover
date: 2009-07-28T09:00:12-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Tue, 28 July 2009 12:00 so say we all. wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 15:36 Dover wrote on Mon, 27 July 2009 14:49 . NOBODY does something for no reason. No exceptions. you're sounding a bit like cheesesoda and that worries me no ends :/ Taxes suck government sucks blah blah! *startled*
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-28T09:58:01-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: This should be in HoF
creator: Tupolev TU-95 Bear
date: 2009-07-28T20:07:31-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Tue, 28 July 2009 05:00 Because generally speaking anime is pretty faggy. I find this funny (whether your intending it to be or not) because you are doing what you say I do. Why do you think it's faggy? Dover wrote on Tue, 28 July 2009 05:00 You seem to be misinformed (Or willfully ignorant) on how the economy in C&C works. If you're producing something twice as fast, you're losing your money twice as fast also. If a unit costs $500 and takes 5 seconds to make and you speed him up to where he'll be done in 2.5 seconds, then you're being drained for $200 a second instead of your original $100 per second. It would be as if you're producting two units at once. The difference being if I'm producing two units at once, not only am I getting exactly what I purchased but I have the option of producing two different units at a time. This is, of course, assuming you're suggesting each additional structure speeds up production by exactly 100%. Any less and you're getting ripped off, and all the more reason to use the multiple queue system. Any more than 100% and it's WORSE for your economy because you'll be draining resources FASTER. If you have idle periods in your matches then can I kindly suggest you L2RTS. If you've extended your production capacity beyond what your income can support, then you deserve the idle periods. Take a look at any match from any professional (Or even any high-level) gamer on any RTS and you'll always. always find that once a production structure is placed it almost never sits there idle. Not necessarily. Lets say you have 1000 credits and are using multiple queues. You wish to construct two tanks, one via each production facility. However, the a single tank costs 700 credits. If you were to queue up a tank for each queue, you would run out of money before a single tank is produced. But if you had just a single queue that simply produced the units twice as fast, then you would at least get one unit out into the field before your resou…
creator: R315r4z0r
date: 2009-07-28T23:36:23-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Dover wrote on Tue, 28 July 2009 04:00 Because generally speaking anime is pretty faggy. Dont be ignorant plx K TY
creator: Herr Surth
date: 2009-07-29T00:16:55-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I kinda preferred RA2's method of dealing with multiple production structures. C&C3's just overcomplicated it a bit. Yeah, it's nice to be able to have diversity in what you build, but seeing as how C&C shaped up to be... I dunno, it just felt almost overwhelming. Then again, that was also C&C3.
creator: GEORGE ZIMMER
date: 2009-08-10T18:23:03-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Until somebody gives me terrain deformation again, it's still all a step backwards from TS. That one feature alone added a depth that simply doesn't exist in the newer games- to say nothing of the other environmental hazards. Forget all the pre-release bullshit promises for one second and the game still has more depth than the entire rest of the series- combine the environments and dynamic terrain from TS with newer features like garrisoning and you'd have a real winner. If, that is, you didn't ruin it all by putting in too many and too powerful superweapons and epic units, too few defensive units, structures, and abilities, combined with obscenely fast build rates and weak-as-paper structure armor. Which EA would.
creator: NukeIt15
date: 2009-08-13T04:45:04-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: NukeIt15 wrote on Wed, 12 August 2009 21:45 Until somebody gives me terrain deformation again, it's still all a step backwards from TS. That one feature alone added a depth that simply doesn't exist in the newer games- to say nothing of the other environmental hazards. Forget all the pre-release bullshit promises for one second and the game still has more depth than the entire rest of the series- combine the environments and dynamic terrain from TS with newer features like garrisoning and you'd have a real winner. If, that is, you didn't ruin it all by putting in too many and too powerful superweapons and epic units, too few defensive units, structures, and abilities, combined with obscenely fast build rates and weak-as-paper structure armor. Which EA would. Too few defensive units/structures? Hah. I bet you were one of the people who bitched on and on about the Scrin air units out-ranging your air defense, huh? Fast build rates? Welcome to 2009, we've come a far way from WarCraft 1. Superweapons keep the game from becoming a macro-fest of "Who can produce the most Medium Tanks?", and epic units open up new strategies (Like dropping a mothership on the enemy base). Options are invariably good. And for that matter, Terrain deformation didn't do anything for the game besides piss me the fuck off. Whatever you might think, that one feature didn't give the game any depth at all, and any attempt to bring realism to Tiberian Sun is a lost cause. In short, L2RTS.
creator: Dover
date: 2009-08-14T11:02:13-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I dont know, I think they are still not 100% against the idea of an C&C FPS.
creator: infusi0n
date: 2009-08-16T02:33:23-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: Quote: Options are invariably good. Bingo. Which means that if I'd like the option of turtling, there should be a viable way of doing that which won't ruin me economically because there's a unit which can clear multiple towers simultaneously if they so happen to be closely placed enough to create the interlocking fields of fire which are necessary to make said static defenses effective. Yes, said unit is weakly armored and is eaten alive by aircraft, but unless you catch it before it opens fire you'll still be out a few thousand credits... which defeats the purpose of having a static defense that can stand up on its own until backup arrives. Compare this to earlier artillery units which, while powerful, required numbers and support to be a real threat. You've really gotta try to make any offensive unit not at least pay for itself, whereas most defensive units and structures never get a chance to pay themselves off in enemies destroyed. Useless structures do not present strategic options, they present a resource sink (in power use and credits) that contributes nothing to base security. That's a cake or death decision, much like throwing basic infantry into the teeth of heavy anti-infantry units or using missile troopers instead. And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, walls. If options are invariably good, why remove the option of creating a basic passive defense to slow down and impede attacks? Yes, I'm aware they were poorly coded and couldn't be properly implemented by release. That's what patches are for. L2RTS is an exceedingly stupid sentiment considering that the present generation of RTS games has grown out of a single play style in older titles. Which is to say that there are fewer options for a player of a modern RTS title than there are for players of older titles. That the lost tactics, strategies, and abilities were not the most popular choices is utterly irrelevant, because... Quote: Options are invariably good. QED. And for the record, I don…
creator: NukeIt15
date: 2009-08-19T00:08:30-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I agree with NukeIt here. It's not as though C&C3 was anything more than a tank spam fest, too, y'know. If anything it had LESS strategic options, thanks to the shitfest of multi-role units and units that cost less and dealt more damage. Defense was practically removed, it all came down to who had a better economy and could pump out more units. Sure, superweapons helped, but in the end you'd be killing them before it even goes off. TS may have had a few annoying features, but they were still features and options. You had less turtling, but defenses still helped (Except for AA, which were practically useless). It's very possible to keep a lively and strategic game without it being C&C3. And C&C4 seems to set out to do that. What harm would there be in adding more tactical depth and features?
creator: GEORGE ZIMMER
date: 2009-08-19T00:29:49-00:00

Re: C&C 4 Coming!!!!
type: item
description: I'll be buying C&C4 even tho I don't like RTS games. It is atleast C&C in the proper universe (tiberium) and everyone should do the same atleast to just show support for the C&C brand. Enough sales= FPS game?
creator: infusi0n
date: 2009-08-21T00:47:58-00:00