You can't kill the Messiah...
Moderator: Moderators
I remember my first time playing, it was the demo back in '97, my bro got ahold of it first, and i watched him build a couple of peewees and kill a few aks, he go bored and quit tho (he never really liked RTSes).
I got on and BAM! i was instantly hooked. I remember when i took up nearly the entire northern half of the map (2nd mission, arm campaign) and build a long wall of LLTs along the river, and watch with glee as AK after AK was blown to little bits. That was my first time!
I got on and BAM! i was instantly hooked. I remember when i took up nearly the entire northern half of the map (2nd mission, arm campaign) and build a long wall of LLTs along the river, and watch with glee as AK after AK was blown to little bits. That was my first time!
*Craft. New ideas? Compared to the new ideas of the C&C series? Uh... No.KDR_11k wrote:They are cloning (or at least taking elements, you rarely see a clean clone) whatever was successful recently. At some point that was C&C and Warcraft, then it morphed a bit, then came the later iterations of each series and rarely was a game left uninfluenced by the ones before it. TA has independent buildings and constructors, almost no monolithic parts. That makes it evolved from Warcraft, not Dune/C&C. I doubt Cavedog thought about Warcraft 2 when making TA, they saw what worked in previous RTSes which in turn used what worked in the ones before them and so on until you arrive at Dune 2 and Warcraft (I don't think Herzog Zwei inspired anyone). Starcraft is just one point in this whole chain of evolution and modern games have evolved past it. The only reason you're seeing more ideas taken from Blizzard than Westwood these days is because C&C refused to evolve with its stupid monolithic design while the craft series adopted a few more new ideas throughout its existence. Monolithic building was on its way out already before Starcraft appeared because it's an unnecessary, arbitrary restriction just like selection or queue limits.ZellSF wrote:For determining if Total Annihilation is a Starcraft clone, sure as hell it is. RTS developers today *AREN'T* cloning the outdated game that is Warcraft, but Starcraft. No matter if it was first or not.KDR_11k wrote:Starcraft is just Warcraft (or should I say WARHAMMER 40k?) with a different setting anyway so it doesn't matter that TA came out before SC.
The "monolithtic" building of C&C had it's advantages too, which is most likely why they kept it. Not because they refused to do what all the cool kids where doing, but because they liked their system better.
If you want to make the point that it must be the best way of doing it since everyone are doing it, then, eh...
Edit: oh, and hello topic hijackers, I'm sure you missed the button that says "New topic". This was a mistake, right?
Command & Conquer is pretty similar to the builder system, except the risk you have to take for building a secondary base is a bit larger (though, when you have deployed the MCV, you can instantly put an obelisk of light there) and you can't be building multiple structures at the same time.KDR_11k wrote:What advantages does monolithic building have?
It's advantage is quite simple, it forces you to worry more about your choices. And you have to kill your enemy with a mobile force, not outranging them with heavy laser towers, then guardians, then big berthas. You can't guard the enemy's resources with several bunkers either.
Surely, you're not judging the worth of a game based on how many structures you can build at the same time in it? Edit: Oh, wait, just re-read your post. You are. Well, read below.
At any case, it's a matter of opinion if these are advantages or not. I could ask what advantages the builder system has, then claim whatever you list are disadvantages. To claim that either system is superior as a fact on the other side... Now that be wrong.
I simply dislike having a hard limit on your unit output which means you can't fight a team with more players on even ground even if you have the same number of buildings they have. We've had that situation, one player vs. two less experienced ones and the two simply were able to amass units MUCH faster than the one player as both teams had access to plenty ressources.
The monolithic system isn't scalable, that's its biggest problem. It doesn't allow matching your production to your ressource income. At some point your production is saturated and you don't need to secure more ressources to keep production up. It also forces a specific diversification, i.e. you have to use both infantry and vehicles and in equal values since otherwise you're wasting half your production capacity.
The monolithic system isn't scalable, that's its biggest problem. It doesn't allow matching your production to your ressource income. At some point your production is saturated and you don't need to secure more ressources to keep production up. It also forces a specific diversification, i.e. you have to use both infantry and vehicles and in equal values since otherwise you're wasting half your production capacity.
It's not a problem, more just a different way of doing itKDR_11k wrote:I simply dislike having a hard limit on your unit output which means you can't fight a team with more players on even ground even if you have the same number of buildings they have. We've had that situation, one player vs. two less experienced ones and the two simply were able to amass units MUCH faster than the one player as both teams had access to plenty ressources.
The monolithic system isn't scalable, that's its biggest problem. It doesn't allow matching your production to your ressource income. At some point your production is saturated and you don't need to secure more ressources to keep production up. It also forces a specific diversification, i.e. you have to use both infantry and vehicles and in equal values since otherwise you're wasting half your production capacity.
And multiple factories speed up production, I believe. And I like any system where a player gets a disadvantage for failing his ally :)
He didn't fail his ally, we started with uneven teams to make up for the difference in experience.
I'm pretty sure Red Alert had a hard limit on the number of factories that you can use to speed up production and I doubt they removed that in a later iteration so whether the limit is one or three factories, more players = more production.
I'm pretty sure Red Alert had a hard limit on the number of factories that you can use to speed up production and I doubt they removed that in a later iteration so whether the limit is one or three factories, more players = more production.
More players should equal more production and you should be killing him before he gets three factoriesKDR_11k wrote:He didn't fail his ally, we started with uneven teams to make up for the difference in experience.
I'm pretty sure Red Alert had a hard limit on the number of factories that you can use to speed up production and I doubt they removed that in a later iteration so whether the limit is one or three factories, more players = more production.
Reading some stuff, the multiple factories advantage has varied a bit. Sometimes removed to stop tank rushing. If some random googling is correct, it was in Red Alert and Red Alert 2, but not Tiberian Sun.
Not that I really see the problem, I just played a Tiberian Sun game earlier and while building my third base, I still had too few resources. And I wasn't even building air units.
They just design their games another way, not an inferior way.
Some other information, for people who haven't been following the news.
- Multiple factories can each produce their own units, using sub-tabs in the sidebar
- Unit upgrades are still in, as are turbine upgrades for GDI power plants
- Tiberium harvesting seems similar to previous games
- You can rotate buildings
- Buildings can only be built near other friendly buildings
- you can start construction from the sidebar or select the construction structure itself
- Blue tiberium is back
- Demo will be released in January/February
- You can still capture a building in your enemy's base then place a light obelisk there. mmm.
Why would redeployable MCVs be announced considering they've been a feature in almost all C&C games? That would need as much of an announcement as "you use money to buy units!".
Sub-tabs sounds good, I liked that in Earth 2160.
And IMO the Obelisk and other slow firing anti-tank turrets are overrated.
Sub-tabs sounds good, I liked that in Earth 2160.
And IMO the Obelisk and other slow firing anti-tank turrets are overrated.
coolest damn unit in the entire game, and worth 15 mingunners 