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.
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.
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.
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.
Or adding factions that are missing entire parts of the combat chain (e.g. main battle tanks, artillery....) like in ZH
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
WAKE UP IT'S CCG2 NOT ZH2.
Posts: 13,368
Clan: Digital Militia
Game: