We are allowed to talk about CnC4 (and the CnC Con) as much as we want (but we were forbidden to make pictures of the game) and it looked like Muldrake was taking a lot of notes, so I guess you will get a lot of more informations when he is back
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:27 pm Post subject:
Some bits of information:
Mutants are a whole faction apparantly, unplayable, but they have Crawlers (which are actually War Factories from previous C&C's (not sure, information was vague)), Mutant Hovels, Visceroids, and generally more types of mutants then in Tiberium Wars. Let's hope it's true and done correctly.
Online, you can only play Nod vs GDI. Not Nod vs Nod or something. When playing 2 vs 2 or something, it's the same. A whole GDI team versus a whole Nod team. Online will be worse then ever!
However, the hope is still here. The beta will start in a few weeks, but EA told the people at CommandCOM to not reveal information or something, for everything is in very Pre Alpha (yeah right, with a beta in a few weeks, still, there is hope). Apparantly, every complain, from no base building to no tiebrium harvesting to unit caps, has been informed to EA and they know about it. Now let's hope they remake the whole game. Or make all those features optional, like that you can unlock Crawlers via those RPG elements. _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
"Tiberian Twilight" won because the survey was a pretty huge landslide in the voting/competition.
I'd say it was originally supposed to be a competition, but also as a voting survey. Abd thats effectively what it turned out to be, a survey, with a landslide of "Tiberian Twilight". If there had been a landslide on another (reasonable) suggestion, the developers would have probably gone for that. The idea of suggesting stuff being original, fitting and creative are givens in any kind of competition/survey, and would have been necessary if there wasn't such a noticable favourite. I'm not sure they were expecting such a landslide for this one.
EDIT: Also, Apoc has said he'd reveal the top 10 later on.
The cover art was, I believe, done by Apoc, and I thought was absolutely brilliant.
What I can definitely say however, is that it was designed to try and involve the community, and thats exactly what it did.
The people had their say, and the developers listened and gave them what they wanted. Yet still people aren't happy? Seriously, this community can be impossible at times.
And I think that "Tiberian Twilight" is fitting because it will be the conclusion of the story arc.
Cheers for the update Stygs (was great to meet you!) and yeah.. I have a LOT of notes. I'll do my best to write it all up as soon as possible, but I'm damn tired now! _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. Last edited by Muldrake on Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:38 pm; edited 3 times in total QUICK_EDIT
"Tiberian Twilight" won because the survey was a pretty huge landslide in the voting/competition.
I'd say it was originally supposed to be a competition, but also as a voting survey. Abd thats effectively what it turned out to be, a survey, with a landslide of "Tiberian Twilight". If there had been a landslide on another (reasonable) suggestion, the developers would have probably gone for that. The idea of suggesting stuff being original, fitting and creative are givens in any kind of competition/survey, and would have been necessary if there wasn't such a noticable favourite. I'm not sure they were expecting such a landslide for this one.
Yes it is indeed ironic considering originally it was, and I quote:
"We will select the top 10 based on creativity, originality and relativity to the C&C 4 story"
...unquote. And somehow it ended up becoming "majority vote wins". It is, as I mentioned on another forum, the biggest anti climax ever.
Consider that there were already early statistics to show Tiberian Twilight had garnered a ton of votes 99% of which were probably from Westwood fanboys plus the fact that EA could get a nice shiny poster printed and set up there (these things don't happen overnight since you gotta make the poster beforehand and fly it to Germany, etc unless it was done there in Cologne) at CommandCom makes me strongly suspect they already decided on the title way earlier, and that the contest was just to get people fired up to snag free beta keys. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
The contest had been running for a while, and was partly run by guys in the community. Hearing from them, it was pretty obvious early on what name was going to win.
But think about it like this. You have a competition. You try and get people creative, but over 30% vote for one thing. What are you going to choose? Especially considering I don't think any other suggestion went over 10%. If that wasn't the case, if the results were closer, then they could have justified choosing one, or even having a second round of community voting from the top 10. But what would be the point with such a landslide? The result would be the same again. It would be pointless. It would be unsuprising, an "anti-climax", and people would complain that they were trying to hype it up.
Or how about this? So it was a landslide for Tiberian Twilight, but we're gonna go with "Tiberian Resolution" because it was more unique, creative, etc.. You have just successfully annoyed a hell of a lot of people because you didn't "listen" to what the fans wanted.
It was a join developer-community based event. People from both sides took part in making it happen. And in the end, the community got what they wanted. They voted. They caused the landslide in votes. And guess what, EA listened. Was that wrong?
Apoc will later reveal the top 10, but if you have an issue with the name, blame the community. They chose the name. EA did what you guys wanted.
You tell me what was the right thing that they should have done.
I'm sorry for getting really flared up about this, but it drives me insane. EA listen, and its the wrong thing to do. I hate how the community can always complain about what they do.
EA as a company, may suck. It maybe a money grabbing emotionless machine, but the people who are making this game, are not. The team who are working on this game, have got perhaps too much emotion in this game, and they are trying too hard to please too many people. _________________ If there is a problem on the forums, PM me. QUICK_EDIT
so much bull over a name.
i personaly like Tiberian Twilight, this is a name we can be proud of, because it's a name the majority of the community picked or stands behind.
people are making a to big of a deal about this. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
You have just successfully annoyed a hell of a lot of people.
Well... even if everyone voted for one name, and EA chose that name at the end of the day people are still gonna find something else to get annoyed over.
"dammit guys EA actually complied here... er... quick back to bashing the lack of base building! C'mon guys there's hating to be done!"
Muldrake wrote:
they are trying too hard to please too many people.
Agreed. And imo that is a bad thing. It's been said that if you try to please everyone, often you end up pleasing no one in the end. The way EA panders to some fanboys really makes me wonder if they sometimes consider if the demands are even reasonable. For instance...
Fanboys: Where are the GDI mechs!?
EA: Read the canon, they got phased out due to practicality issues.
Fanboys: But... but... GDI MECHSSSS!
EA: Look the storyline explicitly states-
Fanboys: MECHMECHMECHMECHMECH...
EA: Ok you know what, fine, say hi to the Steel Talons, the all-new retcon made specially for you!
Fanboys: YAY! OHANDBTW DO NOTE THAT KW STILL STINKS BECAUSE THERE'S NO LIMPET DRONE SO IT'S NOT A PROPER SEQUEL TO FS!
EA: Right now here's our new product called C&C 4 available in stores, 2010! Lookie lookie it's got mechs! Even Nod has them see this one's called the Centurion and it-
Fanboys: ...where are the bases?
EA: We've decided to try an alternate system involving-
Fanboys: BASE! BASEBASEBASEBASEBASE...
...and that is the sad, pathetic state of the C&C community as it is right now. On the official forums you can see it in all its glory. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:07 am Post subject:
Look, I don't care about the name. I care about fair play. Here are the rules of EA's contest:
On or about August 8st, 2009, Sponsor or its designee, the Contest Judge, whose decisions are final and binding on all matters relating to the Contest, will independently evaluate and judge all eligible Entries received and select in its sole and absolute discretion, the top ten (10) entries (collectively the, "Top Entry" or "Top Entries") based on rankings in the following criteria: 50% Relative to Command & Conquer 4 overall story, 25% Originality, 25% Creativity. The Top Entries will then be posted on www.commandandconquer.com by August 9 , 2009, for public viewing. On or about August 22nd , 2009, Sponsor or its designee, the Contest Judge, will announce the winning entry.
They lied, and that's my problem. Not some random name. Wether it was Twilight, Dusk, Destiny, Pink Pony's in the Park, whatever, I don't care about that. _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:53 am Post subject:
Ixonoclast wrote:
Dude, chill out. Its a promotional contest for a game.
It isn't like the secret service lied about WoMD, or shot the president...
Well, why are there still Nuclear Missiles in C&C 4 then?
So, with all those contests here (like the lego one), should the judgers just ignore the rules? I bet many people would get angry. But when EA does it, it's all fine. Yeah right... _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
Edit: Nah, okay. There is a community. A divided one but there is. But the part of it which rants C&C4 over official boards all the time is no good.
Lucky, we've got a peaceful, hm, yeah, peaceful part of C&C community here, which looks at C&C4 with distance and continues own modding duties. Or does it? _________________ mentalomega.com QUICK_EDIT
It's no use trying to have any sort of actual discussion with the lowest common denominators of the community.
Removing base building entirely seems a bit overkill, but I do agree that some sort of change to the way it works is in order. When C&C3 was brought to such a competitive level some issues with it became apparent to me. Like building a barracks and watchtower, then selling them off just to get that advantage in early game scouting, or building tons of refineries and harvesters to sweep tiberium fields within minutes, then move on to the next one just to keep up with your opponent. Sure, it's a clever twist on the mechanics, but ultimately it's not a playstyle I enjoy and it's not something I want to be pigeon-holed into doing when playing multiplayer.
What I do like about C&C4 multiplayer is the teamwork emphasis. I'm a turtler at heart, and C&C3 was pretty unforgiving in that regard. In 4 I can focus on my little niche while complementing the rest of my team. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Removing base building entirely seems a bit overkill, but I do agree that some sort of change to the way it works is in order.
I definitely feel that it was overkill, and that if EA had put in just a goddam bit more effort, we could have had 2 gameplay modes, one with classic RTS style where you have bases and everything, and a more RTT-styled gameplay mode with class-specific things that plays exactly like what the current C&C 4 plays like. Imagine that, it could appeal to a huge crowd. The RTT-style gameplay mode in particular would be good for competitive scenes because it jumps right into the action with combat from as early as 60 seconds into gameplay. _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject:
What about unlocking Crawlers with the experience thingy? So you have bases and Crawlers in one game. Pop cap should be optional, and there should be 2 versions of every map. 1 with normal resources and such, and 1 with the new node thingy. _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
hmm having both things ingame would turn out just like supreme commander, wich wouldn't be a bad thing if it's RTT you focus on leveling up your crawler and create camps on hotspot areas, wich will be quite difficult to manage but not impossible, this would allow a greater battle expierience thus the maps would be needet in drastical large sizes, but it would definately be a nice twist. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
What about unlocking Crawlers with the experience thingy? So you have bases and Crawlers in one game. Pop cap should be optional
Well if the game necessitates popcap I think it would be unreasonable to eliminate it entirely. Rather I'd sugest making it adjustable, at the very least a range from 0.75 times the default popcap to 1.5 times the default.
need my speed wrote:
there should be 2 versions of every map. 1 with normal resources and such, and 1 with the new node thingy.
Nah why bother, just stick both on one map. C&C 3 already did it successfully, it's called Tiberium Fields and Tiberium Spikes
(also 2 versions of every map would be hell to make modifications to because you need to edit twice) _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject:
Why would it be unreasonable? There is no excuse for not making it optionable. _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
Depending on gameplay mechanic, a certain RTS may need popcaps to apply a threshold on strength of force to avoid instances of 'overkilling' (i.e. a person with the upper hand growing exponentially stronger by churning more and more units even as he plows through an enemy). Besides if there were the option to turn it off, wouldn't nearly everyone simply turn it off anyway? _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
You can't just demand that without taking into consideration issues with balance and other factors. Would WiC for instance be more fun if it had no popcap and you could just amass more and more and more and more stuff and hurl them at the enemy without care or concern (since WiC has no economy instead using a self-replenishing point system)? _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:35 pm Post subject:
I don't know, I never played it. However, I'm 99,9999999999% sure that I would enjoy it much more, seeing as I like to play skirmish with bases everywhere and send stupid forces like 3 Rifle Squad's to the enemy.
Well I have, and my stance on WiC matches C&C 4. The popcap (which is not adjustable) should have been, adjustable just so fewer players can wage larger scale battles. However, a lack of popcap would tempt people to regard their forces as expendable assets that they can just hurl at the enemy because even while they're doing that they're already building the replacements for when their units get taken down. And that's why I don't go about saying WiC's popcap should be removed.
"Build a gazillion units and throw them at the enemy?" Been there, done that. Many times in fact. I recall one YR skirmish where I had 144 Black Eagles in 8 squadrons of 18 each and I just flooded the enemy base with them. And then I did it with Overlords in Generals, and PACs in C&C 3. By then the novelty had worn off for me... _________________
The white lady~! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject:
Yes, that's fine for multiplayer and campaign, but not for skirmish. I still don't see a reason why there shouldn't be an option to set the popcap to ANY amount you want. From 1 to infinity (ok, 999 ), to no popcap. You would probably set it to, say, 10, so it doesn't matter. _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
Popcaps will make people think more in this game if you ask me. I mean look at say, Tiberian Sun. Its pretty common for people to do titan massing/rushing online. Of course if you put popcaps in it will make people revert to actually putting some thought and tactics into their attacks rather then it being a game of 'I have more unit X then you have unit Y, so I win because I spammed while you attempted a tactic'. _________________ Victory! QUICK_EDIT
they still would put a titan rush on and try to fill all the resources in as most titans as possible as early as possible cause it's the strongest early game unit _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Location: Netherlands! Banned: 3 times
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject:
Yes, plus, you keep mentioning online. I nearly never play online, I prefer skirmish.
Take for example Civilization 3. I've downloaded an Earth map of 362 x 362 (the biggest size). I modified that map, so that I start with 10 Settlers, everything only takes 1 turn to build, costs nothing, and only I can build wonders. Further, all units are avaible from the start (research is useless), and they aren't replaced by others (so I have both Tank's and Modern Tank's for example). Then I go build a huge empire across the globe. I name my cities and units by myself. That's how I like to play.
So, I want to be absolutely free in deciding what I want to do. If there is popcap in skirmish, skirmish won't be fun. It will be online without humans. It will be about who wins. I can't have as much fun as I want. Do you understand my point of view? _________________ ☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Become one with your heart's desire:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/command-conquer-red-renegade1
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭ QUICK_EDIT
Also Known As: evanb90 Joined: 20 Feb 2005 Location: o kawaii koto
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject:
Ixonoclast wrote:
Amen to Muldrake.
It doesn't matter what EA does, anti-fanboys will whine anyway.
Let's hope PPM doesn't transform in some kind of NMA "Everything used to be better" asylum for the elderly.
When I was playing FO3, I stumbled upon NMA.
I suddenly realized that CNC fanbois are only the tip of the iceberg. _________________ YR modder/artist, DOOM mapper, aka evanb90
Project Lead Developer, New-Star Strike (2014-)
Former Project Lead DeveloperStar Strike (2005-2012), Z-Mod (2006-2007), RA1.5 (2008-2013), The Cold War (2006-2007) QUICK_EDIT
a solution were sandbox systems in RTS games wich would also come in handy online, freedom of gameplay, thats what would be a good approach in RTS. _________________ Hydraw Art on Facebook QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 Location: Teamblackistan Posts: Over 9000
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:48 pm Post subject:
you don't need popcaps in TS because it takes so long to build a massive army.. and in the time it takes to build such an army, an experienced opponent will be able to build upa counter for it, whether in defenses or a preemptive attack.
ehrm oh yeah.. EMP.. _________________ The Fall of Hammerfest - Epic Tiberian chain story
Tiberian Odyssey mapping department. Discord The Team Black Index QUICK_EDIT
You cannot post new topics in this forum You can 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
