Here, creature creature creature.
I can respect that. IMO there is already plenty of ways to be like that in this game just due to the way its mechanics work, but that's fine if that's how you want it to be approached.
Sorry to be a little snappy there.
All pretty solid changes, I really like the Harvester idea it's neato.
I'm not sure if the Plague Strike thematically fits with Japan, though. I guess I'd have to look into the lore you have in mind to be sure about that.
I don't think this is a bad or not useful superweapon. More experienced players can get it and use it properly and effectively, but I just think that a larger more casual playbase will have no idea *how* to use it properly or the way you intended for it to be used.
My concern is not that it isn't useful or good. My concern is that more casual players won't know how to use it. It's not that it isn't good. It's that it *is* good. Its that it's *too* good. It's too good to use. You only get one every time it finishes recharging, but it has a lot of value. I know that more experienced C&C (and StarCraft) players will more or less know how to use it right off the bat, but casual C&C players (and they *do* exist and there *is* a lot of them, I'd say I'm reasonably casual) won't know how to properly use it.
A casual player's instincts is to save it because it is their understanding that the longer they save it, the more value they will get out of it. This is a basic fact you can see in virtually any kind of game, but most-notably in RPGs with super rare or 1-time use equipment, items, or abilities. This is not how you want to use this superweapon, though. In fact I'd say probably the exact opposite is true about it, the longer you save it the *less* value you get out of it (but that's a completely different topic). But this goes against core instinctual behavior that games tend to encourage you to do with design like this.
When you look at the vanilla SWs, the Weather Storm and the Nuke, these pretty upfront do a lot of damage and that's it. So their usage is extremely simple. They take some time to go off, so generally you just use it to damage infrastructure. You can't really think that way with this Superweapon, though. There is a lot of tactics involved in its usage. You can use it in so many ways and there's so many important and useful ways to use it, but the problem is that's not how a casual player will think about it. They will think to save it as long as possible to use it on as big of an army as possible, and they won't even consider that new units could walk into it without the enemy noticing. They don't think about the wider array of usage. So, my suggestion was a smaller less effective but much more readily available version for casual players that has much less value but can be used more frequently, thus encouraging them to experiment with it more because they don't have to worry about making sure it's as cost-efficient of a use as possible when they use it becaue they'll be able to use it again sooner. And this gives more experienced players even more value out of the mechanic that they can abuse.
*My* experience is nearly a decade of hardcore game design, design overanalysis, and theory across several genres other than just RTS as well as a little bit of formal education and training. So, I don't really see why bringing that up was relevant or important at all. I have a pretty reasonable understanding about what I'm talking about. My approach is more Nintendo-y, it's about predicting and controlling the mindset of the player so they use the things you spent time and effort on making and that you want them to use.
Wait so the garrage is going to be an actual mechanic or what?
Cool presentation for this. :D
So it's kinda like SC Stasis, or EMP but a bit weaker. On the one hand, you want it for specific units that you know you need to lock down. On the other hand, it'd be nice to lock down big armies in general. Both of these niches contesting for this plus the fact that it probably won't have a short cooldown (and maybe even a cost) means it's going to initially struggle to find its place. People really weigh the idea of a negative heavier over a positive, even multiple positives. They're going to want to save it and figuring out the right time to use it so it is going to take time for the meta to figure it out.
Something that may be more apparently useful I'd like to suggest: At the same tier / requirements, provide a second one that has a much shorter cooldown but is also smaller and, if the first one costs money, make it slightly less cost-efficient. This will give players some breathing room because they'll be more willing to use more liberally the faster charging and cheaper (but less cost-efficient and smaller) one so they'll still get the effect that this Support Weapon gives but can still save the bigger one for later.
Well I wouldn't say it's perfect but it's free and stable and has pretty decent quality but it's one hell of a CPU and Memory hog even by high-fidelity recording standards though because it is open-source problems like that can be fixed by anybody at any time.
You've definitely gotten a lot better too that face is a lot more accurate to the original by comparison to most of your other models.
dude same ha ha corey in the house and **** lmao
holleee **** welcome back my dude
I feel like that's a bit too long to build harvesters, but Idk I think I'd have to actually see how that has an impact on the economy.
I think it was a combination of many factors, from just not being directed for more visual design and atmosphere (something CNC3 lacks pretty badly) to budget constraints to time constraints and all kinds of things under the rainbow. CNC3 was more-so meant to be a game and that was succeeded pretty well. Audio/visual-wise, the story, atmosphere, etc, are pretty lacking because that's simply not the kind of game they were trying to make. They wanted to make an E-Sport, clearly took heavy inspiration from StarCraft: Brood War, and that worked really well in their favor, but they had to cut a lot of corners to accomplish that goal.
throw me overboard tbh
I'm too lazy to do it myself at the moment (and this image is way too small anyway), but here is a tool to help test these colors for various Color Blindnesses:
Can also just help to give a new perspective onto things and how the colors look. Chances are if you can make them totally distinct in the 2 most common color blindnesses (iirc that's Protonomaly and Deuteranomaly), it's probably a good-looking set of colors for the rest of us too.
TL;DR at bottom.
As I was just providing examples, units that overlap with my examples are irrelevant. That can be worked out as it'd go on. It was just to get across the idea that having an upgrade system that only provides minor differences to the player has many player fantasy and design problems. This isn't to say that it is bad. Like most things, there's simply advantages and disadvantages that you need to consider.
For fantasy problems: The player gets to a point where they feel like a system like this is just something that keeps them on-par with other factions instead of feeling like a unique mechanic that gives the player more options to work with, due to over-optimization by the player base (See: SC2 with Larva Injects) and if it's not handled carefully. While also having much more subtle differences makes the player feel like they have to memorize statistics more, meaning it's harder for them to learn the system. Having broad bold distinctions between units gives the player a clear view of what their options are at a glance and puts the focus directly on how they can customize the options to fit their playstyle instead of having to learn statistics and the basics of the system to then get to playstyle.
For Design Problems:
1. This system ultimately makes it very difficult for opposing players to get a good idea of what they are up against when fighting Conclave, because the differences are subtle and hard to read at a glance.
2. You never want to just straight-up give the player more damage or health without also providing a disadvantage for it or making it some kind of decision the player has to make (See: SC/WC 3-tiered Damage & Armor upgrades) because this also leads to the dreaded over-optimization problem mentioned before. This is because ultimately with the choices being that simple but subtle you end up with players that are confused and frustrated because they don't know what is stronger and think they are losing games because of it, and other players that want to dictate what others should use because they think they know what the strongest over-all option is, and those losing-players listening to them even though it's not the best option to make the game funner for them because they are desperate to win more games. By providing disadvantages instead of making players think on what is the strongest option you make them think on what they are willing to give up for certain advantages, meaning they tool things more to their playstyle and what they are comfortable with and it is harder to argue for what is stronger because ultimately the disadvantages come up to what the player finds to actually be a disadvantage or not (See: Don't Starve's Sanity / Nightmare Fuel balance. Some players think being insane more often than not is better, others think having more control over when you are or not insane is better, others still think that being sane as much as possible is best and only ever going insane when you absolutely need Nightmare Fuel).
3. When you set up a mechanic like this, players tend to want the most optimized options and not what they think will actually be fun. By for example providing very clearly different roles as options for upgrades, they still want what is most optimized but because the options would be so clearly distinct and different from each other what becomes the most optimized is a lot more gray and so players have to decide on their own what is more optimized to them, which in theory would be what is ultimately more fun for them.
Ultimately, my argument is about obscuring optimization and making the player make harder and more complex decisions to figure out their own play style and how those options fit in them, which this idea kinda fails at both but has its own advantages in its own way. It's just some food for thought, something to think about.
"Elusive" and "Giant Mecha Walker" seem pretty mutually exclusive to me.
I do have a little bit of a problem with the choice upgrades. While on one hand it's cool and gives them a distinct advantage to have to force their opponents on their toes by not being totally sure which upgrades they will pick, this can be frustrating from the opponent's perspective especially when a faction is designed to be based around reacting to tech choices their opponent makes facing up against the Conclave. Keeping it very simply only 2 upgrades to choose from can really help mitigate this, though.
My second problem with this is that these upgrades only do a little bit to make them stand out. I think if you want to go with an idea like this, you need to go all-out. while the two different upgrades can give them a little bit different functionality, it should go as far as to make them fill two completely different roles that fundementally are two different units. So for example, though depending on how early this unit is available this is definitely not suggested, one upgrade could give them stealth, speed, high damage against light units, and the ability to attack air, but lose a lot of health, damage against non-light units and especially against buildings, and making them more expensive, turning them into a mini Stealth Tank, while the other upgrade could make them much beefier, have a lot more damage, have some auto-heal, but drastically reduce their speed and reduced damage against infantry and a slower attack, turning them into a kind of mini Mammoth Tank.
That's just an example. The point is, those two upgrades will not only be used or fundementally different purposes giving a wide range of playstyles, but it also strengthens that advantage that having two distinct options for each unit gives because you have to react to the two different units in fundementally different ways which gives them a window of oppertunity to get something done with these special changes right off the bat but also forces their opponent to have to scout, keeping an eye on which choices they make, and this also always puts a Conclave's opponent on the reactionary end giving Conclave the ability to dictate the pace of the game and which directions it moves in. While some of these ideas are being explored with what you have right now, I think much more drastic unit choices can more heavily influence this kind of gameplay.
mother of god this is retarded. i love it.
Guardian GIs are a good example of how you can make infantry uncrushable. They even *say* it. But the big deal is the whole visual design and the fantasy to the unit. They're an anti-tank. It would suck if they would be crushable by tanks in a state where they'd be the most vulnerable to that which also happens to be the state where they're suppose to be countering tanks. It wouldn't make logical sense for the unit's character. The unit also has a distinct visual cue that you can do something with them, the deploy icon. Finally, they are also ******* *massive* and very visually distinct when deployed, compared to all other infantry in the game. They take up so much space on the screen by comparison. Nearly as much as any vehicle. And they also have the bright chromium blueish silver color with the pretty distinct team color.
I'm just babbling on, providing my thoughts. That's all. Obviously, the best simplification you could make for new players to C&C is just remove crushing entirely.
wow, that's a lot of things and stuff! i like things and stuff!
So what exactly determines the postions of the buttons? And did you hack in stuff to the existing code there or have you taken total control over it and completely reprogrammed it?
I am still adamently for "Classic" distributions. I get that it complicates things user-side, having too many options that might be confusing, and I get that having to maintain multiple things like this dev-side would be a pain, but it's just the only way to make both sides happy.
I don't think it's super necessary that a "classic" gamemode needs to be maintained by ORA team, it could just be a "fan" thing that the ORA team endorses or points players that want the originals toward, which can help with both of those issues and cuts all liability of the ORA Team because it's not an "official" thing.
I had put some efforts towards making a classic experience once or twice in the past for both RA and TD, and I think for Red Alert and Tiberan Dawn it's possible with what's already there but it would be a timely process to make all the necessary changes. I think the only thing that's still missing is Gap Generators and like, a handful of other things I guess? Gap Generators is the only thing I remember not being there last time I tried this, but maybe it's there now?
It seems a little small... That's weird.
Can we get more specifics? For instance, is Short Game forced on? Are certain units turned off? Is there any overall gameplay changes like income rates?
Definitely an improvement, but the tiles themselves need a bit more variation. The cliffs are pretty nice though.
Might as well just take Rewire's flame, you have way more TS-recreated assets than it ever did (Sorry, Gangster) :D
I hope you plan on supporting GameMaker 1.4 too, not just 2. Plenty of people still use 1.4. :D
He is so tired of their ****.