:: Home :: Get Hosted :: PPM FAQ :: Forum FAQ :: Privacy Policy :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::
Do you want to advertise at Project Perfect Mod. Find out how to do it HERE.

The time now is Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:54 am
All times are UTC + 0
 Forum index » PPM Zone » PPM Discussion Zone » Site Sections
C&C4 - Game Design - Classes
Moderators: Global Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Muldrake
Supreme Commander


Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:48 am    Post subject:   C&C4 - Game Design - Classes Reply with quote

Game Design - Classes

Jason Bender's presentation gave a lot of information about the class system in C&C4. Each class is designed to be a seperate entity from each other class, such that no units (besides specials like engineers) would be shared by classes. It originally was going to be 5 classes per side, each with their own characature. The 5 classes were Assault (which had an american football player characture), Support (female sporty character), Heavy (big dude, big suit, small bird on his hand..), Defense and Raider (think of a mutant hijacker in a light zone-trooper suit). However, as you may well be aware, there are now only 3 classes; Offense (Assault + Some Heavy), Defense (Defense + Heavy), Support (Support + some Raider). Personally I approve of this as having 5 I think would have been too much.

Offense:
These guys are all about ground forces with agressive tactics. You can use rush tactics, however there are big pay offs for properly micro managing your units, one of them being crates. Crates? Crates. When a ground unit/building dies, it leaves behind a crate. There were currently two crate types ingame when we tried it, elite (green) and upgrade blue). Elite crates boost the units veterancy, to which I believe there are the 4 states found in previous C&C games; (standard, veteran, elite, hero). The elite crates work in conjuction with the general experience you would get from simply destroying units normally. Upgrade crates are a benefit especially for the offense class because they're the only class who can use them. They provide units with the "energy" to give them a specific upgrade. The upgrade is unit specific (such as a Titan will gain a second railgun, and a mammoth will gain a speed/engine boost). I don't know if there is more than one state of upgrade, from what I saw there was only a single upgrade. There was some dispute with regard to the crates, such that an allied unit dropping a crate could still be picked up. The crate system was still early in development and is still undergoing balancing.

Some unit details, giving the name, command points, weapons and general info. Hover units, like the engineer, are able to go over water and fly over cliffs. Yay!

GDI Offense Units:
Engineer 3 Repair Beam + Capture Buildings (Hover)
Talon 3 Rockets (Hovers)
Hunter 5 Cannon (Tank)
Wolf 5 Machine Gun (Tank)
Titan Mk.2 5 Railgun (Mech)
Bulldog 3 Machine Gun (Tank)
Striker 3 Beam (Mech + Can jump up cliffs)

Nod Offense Units:
Engineer 3 Repair Beam + Capture Buildings (Hover)
Maurader 3 Machine Gun (Buggy)
Rocket Bike 3 Rockets
Scorpion 5 Laser
Avenger 5 Cannon


Defense:

This is the class which we have seen and heard about the least, yet have some of the biggest interest in. This seems to be the class which holds on to the "retro" aspects of C&C; Base building and infantry.
Speaking with Jason Bender, people would have had a distinctively different (better?) opinion of the game if they had had the chance to play this class. Which is entirely possible, given what this faction seems to contain, but the question still holds as to whether it'll be enough.
One of the questions brought up by the community was, is it possible to capture other Crawlers, particularly of different classes. While a popular idea, including with Big Mike, it doesn't seem possible, due to the way the game UI is different for each class. One of these differences is that the defense class doesn't rely upon Command Points, but more Power. This is the main restriction on the amount of buildings you can have.

Defense class will be able to build effectively a "complete" base, although the details are unknown. Barracks can be built (for infantry, obviously), and I believe a seperate war factory is also used? There are also many defensive and support power structures. With regard to special powers, they are mostly unknown (as they are mostly not coded ingame yet), but there was mention of particular special powers which can be "charged up". You can use these powers to a lesser extent when less charged, or you can let it build up.

However there was talk of a support power being revealled/announced once it had reached a certain size. I believe this described a cannon type support power, but I'm not sure.

Again, the specifics are currently unknown. Defense class will not have access to all of the special powers, Support class will also have several.

The build radius for the defense class comes from the Crawler, as well as smaller explorer/outpost units which can be deployed to give a build radius, like in C&C3. Additionally there are also tech structures known as "Pentopticons" which can give a build radius. These tech structures also enable you to deploy your Crawler within a certain radius. While these structures were apparently present in the multiplayer map we played (along with a targetable missile tech structure and a defensive cannon tech structure) their use wasn't clear in the UI and so we only really discovered their use afterwards.


Support:

Support was the second class we got to get our hands on, however they were only just added to the beta, so were in the very very early stages. Balancing was still an issue with these guys. I'm hesitant to comment much on this class simply because of how early in development they are. I felt the mirroring between the sides was particularly strong with this class, which while I liked the concept made me dislike the actual playable version of them. I hope they will be tweaked along the line to correct this and make the sides more distinct. I personally feel that, Nod should not have an equal airforce to GDI, because they never have in the history of C&C. GDI owned the airspace, and Nod owned under the ground. I would have preferred the Nod support class to reflect this. Maybe they will, as we only saw a small slice of the class. But I alas, have my doubts.

The biggest difference with these guys compared to Offense is simple, they like flying (after my own heart!). The units are quick response strikers.

Now as mentioned in the Offense class, the support class doesn't have the benefit of crates due to the fact that their units are continually in flight. Its still being worked out how to balance this, but I think its possible they will gain experience quicker (by kills) than Offense class.

Support class will apparently have some support powers / super weapons, although details are non-existant at the moment. But it kind of makes sense given the Class name "Support". I'd expect things like reinforcements and airstrikes.

GDI Support Units:
Engineer 3 Repair Beam + Capture Buildings (Hover)
Orca 5 Rockets (Fly)
Spanner 4 Repair Beam (Fly)
Sheppard 5 Cannon (Tank) (Named after Sheppard from C&C1-TD!)
Hurricane 5 Machine Gun (Fly)

Nod Support Units: (Stolen from JohnWE!)
Engineer 3 Repair Beam + Capture Buildings (Hover)
Marauder 5 Machine Gun (Fly)
Scalpel 5 Repair Beam (Fly)
Venom 3 Rocket (Fly)
Cobra 5 Cannon (Fly)

My general opinion of this class is, I like the concept, but I dislike how its been done so far. Firstly having more units able to target aircraft (such as railgun Titans) to some extent reduces the need for a support class, because it removes some of the advantage of aircraft being aircraft. Having less units able to target aircraft would help bring more of an actual difference to this class. Also if Nod had subterrean units for support class, the lack of Anti-aircraft weaponry would semi-balance the lack of targetability (I know, its probably not a word) for subterrenean units. I think I'm just blabbering now, but I still don't like how these classes have been approached in practise.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A flying unit called the Spannar with a HEAL BEAM?

That's it I'm getting this game. The comic relief elements are more than worth it! Laughing

Railgun titans attacking aircraft totally don't make sense to me (in fact the whole idea of there being a unit previosuly exclusive to the Steel Talon minority suddenly going mainstream doesnt make sense either). Gameplay wise it's like what if C&C 3 Mammoths could gun down enemy planes. With their Cannons...
_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
partyzanPaulZy
Commander


Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Location: laptop? ... otherwise the Czech Republic -> south Moravia Posts: long int Posts;

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Talon thingy is about technological progress, mechs are progressive, tanks are conservative (and cheaper).

There were many discussions about mechs in real life.

It was about things like:
- tank is cheaper
- tank would be faster
- tank is harder to hit

Well, I still thing some mechs can appear in next 40 years,
they won't be 5 floors tall, but they can be bigger than just infantry in exoskeleton (Wolverine, Zone Trooper).

Helicopters cannot fly over really high mountains like Himalayas (+ that area can turn into big warzone one day), because of thin air, also they can't be used in areas with strong AA (S-400, SPYDER, etc.).
Even tanks would have troubles with too rocky terrain (big mountains, devastated cities).

Although mech would be more vulnerable than tank, there are new active defences (from missiles (Israel, Russia) to EM shields (USA)).

That's why C&C 4 has so many mechs, they are futuristic.
_________________

Don't blame the others if you haven't checked your own (in)ability in the first case.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ehh... actually C&C 3 dictated that tanks were the way to go for practicality issues since GDI declared that as hi-tech the mechs are, they were simply too unpractical, and KW mentioned that only the Steel Talons still clung stubbornly to relics of the TS era.

the active defense argument is irrelevant since it could just as easily work on a tank. It's not something that only a mech can have. In fact whatever a mech can have, from advanced armour to weapons could just as well work on a tank anyway.

btw regarding rocky terrain, mechs wouldn't have much luck either. They'd also be much worse than tanks when negotiating urban areas. And that's where the grunts come in. The reason infantry still exist today is because they go places the vehicles can't go, like into a building, etc.

practicality-wise mechs are among the worst things one could probably put in an army because their cons far outweigh their pros. EA's decision to have mechs in C&C 4 is more likely just for the "cool" aesthetics factor or to reel in the mech fanboys.
_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blubb
General


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote




_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a powered exoskeleton (which can be developed into a suit), not a mecha. Its more Master Chief than Titan.

EndWar had the whole exoskeleton thing for US infantry though, it was awesome.
_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blubb
General


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah but it's bulky, yet it comes in different armor classes, its a first step into walker technology.
also the armor concepts look a hell of a lot like some game science fiction or space marine

plus i do believe that walkers could be superior when correct developed, spider mech designs, not too big with the right engines, flexibility and engine speed could easyly be a great thrat in all terrains.
take tachikomas as example, a simple tank couldn't take on a tachikoma, it can jump, outwit the tank and act on nearly all terrain, thats the right way to develop mechas, in GITS afaik regular tanks are outdated and tachikoma is the new tank equivalent.
_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Valdez
Tiberian Fiend


Joined: 30 Nov 2008

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mechs jumping and all that would require huge breakthroughs in shock absorber technology... the very same breakthroughs that could probably enable a person to survive in a car that plummets 4 stories downwards... well yeah a tachikoma isnt piloted but still a machine that is chock full of internal hardware, wiring and electronics etc...

I do agree however on the spider design. It is definitely superior to the 2-legged stuff that's so ubiquitous in mecha design. IMO a serious mecha design should have no less than 4 legs. 2 legs only is just begging to get toppled...

Size-wise I also think small/medium size UGVs like tachikoma are definitely better than trying to make a Titan or Mammoth Mk II.
_________________

The white lady~!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rico
Tiberian Beast


Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Valdez wrote:

practicality-wise mechs are among the worst things one could probably put in an army because their cons far outweigh their pros. EA's decision to have mechs in C&C 4 is more likely just for the "cool" aesthetics factor or to reel in the mech fanboys.

Actually mech's could (theoretically) carry far more weapons than a tank ever could, but unfortunately in games its only the Mechwarrior (thus battletech) universe that has used them the way they belong, as heavily armed but expensive machines of war.
However the way TS had them was silly, giving it the same gun as an Abrams tank, what a waste.
Still, the whole class thing is good, I'm just anoyed that the bases have suddenly become obsolete, like wtf? Thats C&C, building bases.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Account Yahoo Messenger Account
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » PPM Zone » PPM Discussion Zone » Site Sections
Jump to:  
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on DiggShare on RedditShare on PInterestShare on Del.icio.usShare on Stumble Upon
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group

Wildcard SSL Certificates
[ Time: 0.1326s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0042s) ][ Debug on ]