Generals 2

Don't make 9 factions, let alone 6...

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 61Heroism^ Jan 29 2012, 14:58 PM
Without even reading everything that has been said here:

WAKE UP IT'S CCG2 NOT ZH2.

wacko.gif

Posts: 14,825

Clan: Digital Militia

Game: CNC Generals

+
# 62cnc315d34d Jan 29 2012, 17:04 PM
QUOTE(Yumi @ Jan 21 2012, 13:28 PM) *

Isn't esports the thing where two Scrin players build lots of Seekers?

you mean this?


this is called real fucking RTS, people.
gens2 can learn a world of things about RTS gameplay from this marvel.

Posts: 8,765

Game: Kanes Wrath

+
# 63triumph Jan 29 2012, 18:55 PM
Quality blobertainment!

Posts: 8,046

Clan: EPIC

Game: Generals 2

+
# 64AgmLauncher Jan 30 2012, 02:20 AM
Lmfao, that match killed the C&C 3 community. Activity dropped SHARPLY after people saw that that was considered the pinnacle of C&C 3 competitive play.

Posts: 39,117

Clan: CrAzY

Game: Generals 2

+
# 65MrYuRi Jan 30 2012, 02:28 AM
How C&C3 was supposed to be played:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euYHl_D9d84

Posts: 360

Game: Generals 2

+
# 66IMZiggy Jan 31 2012, 07:18 AM
QUOTE(MrYuRi @ Jan 29 2012, 21:28 PM) *

How C&C3 was supposed to be played:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euYHl_D9d84


lol wow

Posts: 1,197

Game: StarCraft 2

+
# 67avilo Feb 1 2012, 08:42 AM
QUOTE(AgmLauncher @ Jan 29 2012, 22:20 PM) *

Lmfao, that match killed the C&C 3 community. Activity dropped SHARPLY after people saw that that was considered the pinnacle of C&C 3 competitive play.


Sad but true. But the game really was that sad at that point in time. Horribly imbalanced (scrin best race, nod underpowered, GDI only could win with sonic emitter/engi+apc abuse).

Watching or thinking back to that...makes me cringe. Just terrible balance + 1 dimensional gameplay.



Posts: 8,424

Game: StarCraft 2

+
# 68Dark Enlightenment Mar 4 2012, 19:13 PM
QUOTE(avilo @ Jan 17 2012, 06:27 AM) *

Eh, pretty self explanatory. If you want this to be a successful RTS, you don't need 9 factions that will be impossible to balance. 3 is standard for a reason.

Dunno how many they are making...but yeah...they should just work on 3 factions total and add/tweak stuff to those 3. This 9 faction "game is never balanced" bs should end with kw/cnc3.

4 for Generals 2 would be nice, and 16 for Zero Hour 2 would be awesome. We all know nothing made by EA is ever balanced. Might as well ask for all the stuff we can.

Posts: 6,527

Game: CNC Zero Hour

+
# 69ServaNt Mar 4 2012, 19:53 PM
balancing to a certain level is easy, just developers make it way to complicated by doing dumb shit. Like adding more races when the vanila game isnt even close to balanced yet eg relic/ea.

Posts: 3,163

Game: None

+
# 70AgmLauncher Mar 4 2012, 20:26 PM
Or adding factions that are missing entire parts of the combat chain (e.g. main battle tanks, artillery....) like in ZH sad.gif

Honestly, with sufficient strategic options in each faction, enough balance handles for designers to make super isolated changes, and sufficient resources for long-term patching, you could actually have SEVERAL balanced factions, not just three or four

Posts: 39,117

Clan: CrAzY

Game: Generals 2

+
# 71Heroism^ Mar 5 2012, 11:54 AM
QUOTE(ServaNt @ Mar 4 2012, 20:53 PM) *

balancing to a certain level is easy, just developers make it way to complicated by doing dumb shit. Like adding more races when the vanila game isnt even close to balanced yet eg relic/ea.

I assume you mean CCG? 8/9 of the CCG matchups are balanced. The 9th one is still do-able. So not sure what you're talking about. tongue.gif

Posts: 14,825

Clan: Digital Militia

Game: CNC Generals

+
# 72Couch Mar 5 2012, 13:23 PM
I don't think designing 3 factions and only adding a fourth once the original three are balanced. I mean, I've never balanced a game, but I assume it's dumb adjusting three factions until they are balanced and then introducing a fourth because of which the whole chain of balance, or whatever a better metaphor would be, must be reassembled.

Posts: 8,553

Clan: TNG-

Game: None

+
# 73Feynmaniac Mar 5 2012, 15:56 PM
QUOTE(couch @ Mar 5 2012, 13:23 PM) *

I don't think designing 3 factions and only adding a fourth once the original three are balanced. I mean, I've never balanced a game, but I assume it's dumb adjusting three factions until they are balanced and then introducing a fourth because of which the whole chain of balance, or whatever a better metaphor would be, must be reassembled.

Well, you DO mess up your balance, but then after a few more years of hard work everything is back in order again, right? Also, my impression is that many balance problems are "single variable"; that is, for example, a unit is just simply too cost effective, and it ends up being cost effective in every match up, so the solution is just to nerf it. Of course you have those cases where a unit is worthless in one match up but overpowered in another, but I think those are uncommon, yeah?

Posts: 1,693

Game: Grey Goo

+
# 74AgmLauncher Mar 5 2012, 18:00 PM
QUOTE(couch @ Mar 5 2012, 09:23 AM) *

I don't think designing 3 factions and only adding a fourth once the original three are balanced. I mean, I've never balanced a game, but I assume it's dumb adjusting three factions until they are balanced and then introducing a fourth because of which the whole chain of balance, or whatever a better metaphor would be, must be reassembled.


Depends on how the game is designed. If you are given enough handles, then you can fix the balance in the three new matchups introduced by a fourth faction, by adjusting only that fourth faction. Of course it will still take a while to do it, but at least you wont disrupt the balance in the other three matchups. The only balance problems would then result only in matchups involving that fourth faction, until that fourth faction is ironed out.

But if there are insufficient balance handles, then sometimes fixing the balance in that fourth faction requires two-way adjustments involving other factions which WILL disrupt their balance.

Posts: 39,117

Clan: CrAzY

Game: Generals 2

+
# 75Halose Apr 5 2012, 07:36 AM
I fully agree about not having 9, 12 or anything more than 3 factions... though I would be fine with 4 or 5 factions.

9 factions would mean 1 or 2 imbalanced armies. ya ya ya you could argue mods balanced them. but think about this for a second or 2.

its not like ea ever fully supported those mods, and if their game is imbalanced, its not like they will ever truly balance it themselves.

by sticking to 5 factions or below, at least there will be a degree of balance.

Posts: 6,154

Clan: electronic yakuza

Game: CNC Generals

+
# 76chaos Apr 22 2012, 17:57 PM
whats wrong with the usual trade of having 3 factions on vanilla and vanilla plus sub factions in the expansion ?
I very rarely play the vanila and wait for the expansion, afaik the community is still active in zh, 10 years plus so that makes it a succesful game imo. Why change direction from something succesful, wouldn't you rather enhance it ? oh ye sorry this is EA we are talking about, costs at a minimal (some even sacked lol) for a genre defining game ? which is how i saw cnc alongside dune2000 with supcom 2nd

Posts: 40

+
# 77DMraider Apr 24 2012, 19:12 PM
Instead of them investing time in making a 4th faction, they can use that time to make the first 3 factions better.

Maybe some people think theoretically, but realistically there is no unlimited time. There is one year left and they better make the 3 current factions very well.

Posts: 5,764

Game: CNC Zero Hour

+
# 78Cabal^ Apr 25 2012, 18:49 PM
why cant Generals 2 be like Zero hour 9 subfactions?

Posts: 7,451

Game: Kanes Wrath

+
# 79triumph Apr 25 2012, 20:38 PM
Because it is just too much work to ruin a game before its given a fair chance?

Posts: 8,046

Clan: EPIC

Game: Generals 2

+
# 80Cabal^ Apr 26 2012, 02:47 AM
QUOTE(triumph @ Apr 25 2012, 12:38 PM) *

Because it is just too much work to ruin a game before its given a fair chance?

tell that to EA for making KW smile.gif

Posts: 7,451

Game: Kanes Wrath

+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)