:: 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 Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:44 am
All times are UTC + 0
 Forum index » PPM Zone » PPM Discussion Zone » Site Sections
Gamescom 2013: The next Command & Conquer game
Moderators: Global Moderators
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4 [180 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:39 pm    Post subject:  Gamescom 2013: The next Command & Conquer game
Subject description: Analysis from the perspective of a game designer.
Reply with quote

The event CommandCOM 2013, inside GamesCom, has showcased their newest development builds of the next Command & Conquer game to a group of people who were authorized to access the EA Community Lounge. They had different builds each day with balance fixes and a couple of new work in progress features. Fortunately, there is no non-disclosure agreement for whatever that has been seen in that place, so I'm willing to share my first impressions and everything that I've managed to gather about this game.

Be aware that what I've played is an alpha version of the game. It is alpha because there are many logics that were not implemented yet, although there are many people outside Victory Games studio being able to test the new Command & Conquer: Free to Play service already. So, whatever I write here might not end up in the game in 2014 and forward or might be mere speculation, based on what I could see.




Command & Conquer Free to Play client and server


The next Command & Conquer games will have a different development cycle and will be running a different business model called 'Free to Play'. Command & Conquer Free To Play is a service where the user will access to play the upcoming Command & Conquer games. The first one is being 'unofficially' referenced as 'Generals 2'. But this same live service could launch, in the future, other Command & Conquer games based in Tiberium and Red Alert storylines.



Command & Conquer live service screenshot from Command & Conquer stage at Gamescom. (Courtesy of EA TV).


The Free to Play business is different from the game box or digital copy they sold so far in many aspects:

- Demos and multiples games in the same software/package: You no longer have a demo version of the game, but you can play the game without paying for it. The advantage over the boxed model is that you can enable more features as long as you play, with no payment. Also, you can access the menu and try the game with the same client as the full game.  So, there is no need to switch to another software to pay for it, nor loose any data due to this kind of transfer. You also have access to game patches with no payments either.

- Undefined development cycle: They can develop the game and add new features for it after its release. While the support for the boxed game ended some months or few years after its release, Victory Games will be able to update the game as long as it exists.

- Undefined game duration: Your boxed game might be played as long as you own it, right?  If your grand children grab a copy of Command & Conquer 95, they'll be able to play it as long as they have a system compatible with it. I can't say the same thing from the Command & Conquer Free to Play service. If EA decides to shut it down due to lack of profits, nobody will be able to play it anymore, not even for single player purposes.

- Internet connection is really obligatory and lack of it during the game will interrupt everything. Many of the ingame actions are processed at EA servers as well and they give the final word on stuff. When we were at the Community Lounge, we played a version where server and client were not properly synchronized and the first thing we notice in these situations are units teleporting, since the client and the server processed them in different positions (one of them was using a new acceleration algorithm in that occasion). Of course that the end user will not experience this lack of synchronization, however what I want to enphasize here is that the server does process the game with your client, but the server has the final word on everything. They will be able to do balance changes in the server or change how AI behaves on it and you won't need to update the client to see some of these changes. So, your experience with the game can be different even with the same client version.

- You'll always be using the newest version of Frostbite engine. Right now Command & Conquer Free To Play live service uses Frostbite 3, but if Dice updates it to Frostbite 4, 5, 6, etc... you'll have this update as soon as Victory Games patch the game and you download it. The interesting thing here is that the system requirements of the service and the games may change during its life, while the boxed game only changes (if it does) in the expansions.



Frostbite game engine


The Frosbite game engine is a client-server game development framework created by DICE that is being used by this Command & Conquer live service, and consequently, all upcoming Command & Conquer games. The Frostbite engine is responsible for the ingame graphics rendering, physics, server and client communication, several logics and it provides a whole development environment for developers in different places of the world to develop the game, maps and other assets in a collaborative way. EA has been using Frostbite in many of their games, which helps them to reduce development costs, let their creative team focus more on the game itself rather than game infrastructure and it sets some standards on their games.

Previous C&C games used to have SAGE (that had that lovely World Builder that everybody has certainly insulted at some moment of their lives), which was developed by EALA. The advantage of developing a game engine at home is that you have no restrictions on what can be done with it. Now some of the internal logics of the upcoming Command & Conquer live service, as well as other EA games are in the sole hands of DICE. That adds a bureaucratic layer for Victory Games developers to add things such as custom map support in the game.  

Unlike SAGE engine, Frostbite has not been created as a RTS game engine. It has been conceived to generate any kind of game. It was actually developed to provide the best graphics possible in games that does not displays so many models at the same screen as Real Time Strategy games does, nor has some many explosions at once.




Battlefield 4 and Need for Speed Rivals, also created with Frostbite 3. (Courtesy of the official sites of these games).



The Generals 2 for the Command & Conquer live service is the first RTS game that is being created with the Frostbite engine, so they are having to implement all RTS game logics from scratch, which has been started a couple of years ago.

The graphics of Generals 2 is already better than everything that has been seen in any previous Command & Conquer game and it has potential to be better. At this stage, 3D models from Command & Conquer are using less polygons than the ones from non-RTS games that uses the latest Frostbite engine, since the Victory Games development team are trying to get a game that runs smoothly with Battlefield 3 system requirements. So, this demands some sacrifices. During the press conference, they've explained that they had to remove continuous burst projectiles (i.e.: the flame from the dragon tank from Generals) due to the massive amount of particles that was being generated and, consequently, it was lagging the game in painful ways. They are still looking for a solution for this problem, in order to bring the flame logic (and other fire solutions into the battlefield, as well as dynamic battlefield and weather changes).




Maximize this video and fast foward it to 9:22 to see how it looks like ingame.


Frostbite in action: ingame screenshot from an early construction of a GLA base. (Courtesy of EA TV)


Many of the traditional game logics from Command & Conquer games are being implemented from scratch with this new engine. In Gamescom 2013, they still have not implemented logics for airplane units (take off, landing, dog fighting), vehicles crushing infantry, buildings being captured,  the GLA salvage system, etc. Apparently, the vehicle crushing system was not implemented due to lack of animations and problems with balance. Some other features had problems with balance or excessive amount of hotkeys used so far. The others were not done due to lack of priority over the things that are being done so far. This is why the version we played did not feature all units that the public releases will have, nor all logics.



Nyerguds and I survived after these pictures were taken, because the crushing logic was not implemented yet.


In Generals 2, the maps were internally divided into tiles and buildings could only be built in four directions over the tiles. Pathfinding seemed to be a very basic A* algorithm in this development stage and the units did not poked' allies on every occasion to get out of the path when they needed to move out. I'm sure that they'll improve it in a later time. Units movements were also looking quite artificial and they were trying to solve it at the moment we were there, since there were massive complaints of that from the community after their 'King of Köln' match was showcased.



Maps subdivided into tiles in the Gamescom's 2013 alpha version of the game. (Courtesy of EA TV)


The Frostbite engine currently optimizes all maps in order to load faster and it doesn't accept maps created by users yet. Victory Games is interested on custom maps and they've said they'd do some pressure on Dice to add support for it.

For online games, Frostibite provides a much more stable experience than previous SAGE games and an advanced matchmaking service. This matchmaking system will be used in every match if you are not a premium plan user and it will choose all settings for you, except your General and game mode. Game customization is restricted to premium plan users. By game customization, I mean the ability to choose the players (human/AI and its difficulty level), player colors and other attributes in the future such as alliances, position in maps.

Frostbite provides a more reliable protection against online cheating than the SAGE engine because it processes the game on the server. It is also able to detect which player disconnects ingame and punish it accordingly.

The next sections of this report should explain what has been implemented and how does it work in game.



Generals 2 Overview


So, the first question that comes to anyone's mind is... is it a Command & Conquer game, afterall? Well... you command units... but you don't conquer bases yet, since there is no way to capture buildings because the capture logic was not implemented yet. Jokes apart, this is Generals and it plays like Generals with a heavy influence of Starcraft 2. You have to command units to destroy the enemy buildings and these units are created in your base (that you've built) by using the resources that you collect during the match. Generals is a real time strategy game and, by real time, I mean, you need to move your mouse like a freak, know every hotkey and do actions as quickly as you can. As a casual gamer, I prefer the 'almost real time strategy', where I have some time to breath and I don't like using hotkeys like a freak. I prefer macromanagement than micromanagement. Anyway, the game is designed for competitive players and while it demands a considerable micromanagement, it has less micromanagement than Starcraft 2.

Generals 2 is set 10 years after the events of Generals: Zero Hour and it features 3 factions: European Union (EU), Asian Pacific Alliance (APA)  which is led by China and the well known Global Liberation Army (GLA). In Gamescom, they've announced that  there will be campaigns.




Trailer of a GLA campaign that should be available some time in 2014.



EU and APA builds in a similar way, using bulldozers. EU's harvester is a chinook (as USA in Generals) and APA's harvester is a truck (as China in Generals). Both sides also relies on power plants and APA's power plants might be overloaded to provide additional power although it may damage the power plant in the mean time. When you are in low power, buildings still work, but it builds slower. You do not loose radar either. GLA is similar to what has been seen in Generals. It has workers that also harvest resources and build constructions and it does not need power. The main difference happens when you build a defensive tower. The worker stays at the defensive tower and you'll need another one to continue to build stuff in your base. All factions have one superweapon and its build limit is set to 1. Victory developers stated that they are taking into consideration to add an option to let players to define that. EU faction relies on Tech Lab and Advanced Tech Lab to unlock advanced units. There is also the SpecOps facility which builds advanced infantry (such as the almighty Railgun Squad). APA relies on upgrades at the Command Center to unlock advanced units and it also has a Heavy WarFactory for advanced vehicles such as the almighty Overlord Tank.  GLA relies on upgrades inside unit factories. The Warfactory may receive two different upgrades: Salvage and Toxic. And this enables different build trees. However, GLA's superweapon requires both warfactories. Command Centers have a scouting generals power, a generals power to buff your units in early game, a late game destructive power and the ability to build bulldozer/workers and the Commando unit. In this alpha version, airfields (EU and APA only) are only able to produce helicopters.




Official screenshot of a EU base. (Courtesy of EA's awesome USB drive)


In Gamescom, the game provided 16 Generals to be chosen (6 EU, 5 APA and 5 GLA). Only one General per faction is enabled by standard. The other Generals requires many CPs (currency obtained by playing the game) or fewer VPs (currency obtained by paying money). I don't know exactly how many CPs you get by beating AI in a match, but I wouldn't be surprised if each General requires more than 15 matches to be recruited. Of course that it can be recruited faster if you have a premium plan (paid, of course). Bear in mind that EA is spending several million dollars to create this game and they'll need this money back in some way. Generals differentiate themselves with at least one Generals power that is hardly destructive and it is usually used to add a buff towards your units or a disadvantage towards the enemy units, one or more additional units, some excluded units (sometimes it is radical: the APA Nuclear General has no infantry) and maybe something else. Generals may be updated with Skill Perks that may add very light advantages under the cost of many CPs at the categories: Command, Control, Conquer and Global. Each category from each general may receive up to 3 upgrades.



Nitro general is one of the new GLA generals presented at Gamescom 2013. (Courtesy of EA's awesome USB drive)


The version of the game that we've played had the following gamemodes:

- PvP (player vs player, 1 vs 1)
- PvE (player vs environment (AI, in this case), 1 vs 1)
- ??? PvP (I don't remember the first word and it is unreadable in the video that I've captured for myself. Sorry. At the event, it started with T. Anyway I think the alpha might have this option already)
- Team Battle (2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3, not sure... all humans, of course)
- Onslaught (It was disabled at that time, so I don't know what did it do)
- Custom Skirmish (Premium plan option only which lets you customize the map, the enemy player (AI or human), AI level or who is the human that you are inviting to play against you and your player color.
- Practice PvE (also player vs AI and I don't know the difference between that and PvE).



The game's automatic matchmaking system. (Courtesy of EA TV)


You start with 1 supply depot, 1 idle bulldozer/worker and 1 harvester/worker that is already harvesting the resources. In the version we played, you start with enough money to build more harvesters/workers, command center, power plant and barracks on most cases. If you tried to build a warfactory after that, you'd get a warning that you do not have enough credits. This is the first RTS game with the Command & Conquer label stamped on it where you don't start with a command center (or similar building). The developers are still discussing if these are the ideal starting units and the ideal starting resources.

The ingame user interface tries to get the smallest space from the screen as possible. The icons end up being too much small, as well as the text. So, it's highly recommended to play the game using big screen sizes. Playing it at the laptop is annoying, from this point of view. Several options only show up when a unit, builder or factory is selected. While the user interfaces leaves a huge space for the battlefield, which is a good thing, it has its limitations. The worse of them is the 9 units building queue. It forces you to keep visiting your factories very often to keep building your army, although there are some interesting shortcuts to access them without moving through the map. The other problem happens with the lack of access to all your infantry and vehicle options at once at the moment, depending on the faction or General that you are playing. I.e.: in EU, infantry is splitted between the barracks and the specops facility and you have to alternate between them to view all your options. It's bad for those who are getting started with the game and doesn't know all buildable units possibility, getting the wrong idea that the faction may only have 2 or 3 infantry or vehicle types. However, the shortcut to access the factories, builder, idle builders, commando, etc ends up being quite effective ingame. The pictures below may give you a better view of the situation:


This picture shows the user interface ingame, from the Gamescom's 2013 alpha version of the game. (Courtesy of EA TV)


Our analysis of the ingame user interface. Note that the build queue only shows up when a factory is selected. When you select units, it shows something different.


Starcraft 2 is seen by the Victory Games studio as a successful sample of competitive RTS game and several concepts from it were incorporated on early alpha versions, ranging from starting units and harvester/worker already mining, user interface features (number of workers per resource building displayed for the player) to gameplay mechanisms such as Oil as second resource type (in early alphas Oil was a second resource used for advanced units like Vespene), EU power system (power plants for EU faction worked like pylons in terms of base building, so buildings had to be built near power plants) and map design (symmetric maps with one or two entrances at the starting base locations with limited resources, close to a slightly less safe base expansion with a more open area and other potential resource centers around the map). Victory Games developers have noticed that their implementation of some of these ideas were not adequate for their game and they've recently removed the second resource type, the 'pylon system' (as it was just being an unnecessary disadvantage for EU) and the upcoming maps won't have such tight choke points and they may have more open areas.



Starcraft 2 influence in the game is officially recognized by Victory Games.



The truth is that there are differences between the way the first Generals was designed and Starcraft 1 and 2. Command & Conquer games do not have build limits and Generals 2 doesn't have it as well. Starcraft 2 does have build limits and advanced units have a higher population cost than low tier units. In Starcraft, it is done in such a way that they were able to balance low tier units to make them more relevant against high tier units. That doesn't happen with Command & Conquer, where it's harder to defeat hordes of advanced units using low tier units.

In Gamescom alpha versions that we played, this difference between high tier units like Overlord tank from APA and most of the lower tier units was critical to win or loose the game, depending on the General that you choose. If you choose a bad EU general, you can still beat an AI player using railgun squads (I forgot the real name of that unit). However, APA generals with no decent high tier vehicles had no such unit and I had a terrible time against most AI generals with that. Take into account that game balance is something that will change on every upcoming patch. I still hope that they will eventually understand that units that are strong against buildings have to be nerfed against everything else, since the main objective of the game is to destroy all enemy buildings. A mixed group of Overlord tanks with Gatling tanks and Overlords with propaganda towers are unbeatable, even being slow. They are good against everything. Generals: Zero Hour had some systems that could beat that such as EMP, vehicle crew shooting and vehicle thieves. I hope they resurrect these options later.



This is... unbeatable. Not really, but certainly can be overpowered (Courtesy of EA's awesome USB drive)


Resources is also something that is being studied by the development team. Early versions of the game had two resource types and both exhausted very quickly, forcing you to spend more money expanding to new places than building troops. It was hard to build advanced units under those conditions. That bad implementation of the second resource type has caused many complaints at the alpha forums. In Gamescom, we've played a patch where Oil was removed from the game and we only had one resource type. The resource centers takes longer to dry and oil derricks provides additional funds every few seconds and takes some years to become useless, serving as a late game resource extraction structure. Now you don't capture oil derricks anymore. You have to build them over Oil Wells and, if the enemy builds one, you have to destroy it to build another at its Oil Well. That change has given much more money to players, allowing more battles and, in a certain way, a cat and mice game. While you destroy the enemy main base, the enemy is building another one in an expansion and you have to hunt it until it has nowhere to run. Part of the responsibility for this cat and mice game to happen is that resource depots builds harvesters and builders (EU and APA bulldozers or GLA workers). Thanks to that, the importance of the Command Center is reduced in game and it does seem to be just a glorified scouting structure.



Oil derricks have to be constructed by your worker now and provides a fixed amount of gold every 8 seconds. (Courtesy of EA TV)



The way scouting in the new game works is also being studied by Victory Games developers and the path they've chosen seems to make the game slightly more predictable than previous Command & Conquer games. There is no shroud, only fog of war. The map is revealed by default and the radar works during the whole battle, regardless if you have power or not. By default, you are able to view the position and the kind of building that your enemy places in the map, until it buids a Command Center. Once the enemy builds it, you won't see its new buildings unless it is an AI player (I still don't know if the AI issue is done in purpose or if it is a bug, although I did complain about it when I had the opportunity to do it). Their idea is to either announce that your enemy will rush you or prevent the cheese, since Command Center takes a while to build and it is expensive. The Command Center always has a Generals Power (in this game none of them costs money, so it follows the old Generals rather than C&C3) that can be used to scout, reveal stealth units, etc. So, you don't really need to send many infantries to scout the enemy base, since you can use the generals powers and sent infantry straight to the places where you know your enemy will expand to (it's all displayed in the map). You also know exactly where to expand and you don't need to scout to figure it out. The map has no tech buildings yet, although Victory Games developers are considering the possibility of bringing them back. What matters in the maps are the resource centers and the oil wells.



You can see enemy buildings with little to no effort. (Courtesy of EA TV).


AI in this game plays in a very interesting way. It's not really aggressive at the current stage, although it is expansionist and seem to defend well. It creates oil derricks and it places supply depots around the map, creating barracks, war factories and other base buildings around these expansions. So, once you wipe its main base, the cat and mice game starts and you have to hunt it at the rest of the map. Usually, one of the expansions is very well defended with soldiers, vehicles and aircrafts, while others are more vulnerable. Sometimes, it is brave enough to build a base near yours, so watch out. Although its aggressiveness is limited, it is perfectly able to wipe out your base, if it's not properly defended with units (defensive structures is not enough to handle it). Since AI difficulty levels were not implemented, I don't know if I've played the easy, normal or hard AI.



My overall experience with the game

I must admit that I had a lot of fun playing the game on both PvP and PvE modes. I've played much more PvE... and only one PvP game. The game usually ends up being a cat hunting mice game at some point. You just need to be good enough to be the cat. When I was the mice, I was extremely annoying, which happened in the PvP game as well, where my rival had to look at my screen to figure out where were my remaining buildings and bulldozers.

The game will suffer a lot of changes until it goes public. They'll slowly open it for more people. Right now, they are slowly inviting those who bought the C&C Ultimate Collection. The game should reach a public release status sometime in 2014. And until then, your experience might be completely different than what is being reported here.


That's what happens when you win the match. (Courtesy of EA TV)

Last edited by Banshee on Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:16 pm; edited 52 times in total

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm being lazy to write about the C&C game I've played in Gamescom, so, I'll be updating this post during these days.  Right now, I've just started with the Free to Play business model. The next step is talking more about Frostbite engine. You guys can post comments here about what I write and as soon as I update this post, I'll warn it in a reply, even if I get double, triple, quadruple, etc, posts.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Martin Killer
Missile Trooper


Joined: 27 Nov 2005

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Internet connection is really obligatory and lack of it during the game will interrupt everything

We all know that's a bullshit, and they just want to enforce everyone to be logged in all the time to "avoid piracy". Of course, there will be no cracked offline versions of the game (hint -> Simcity 5)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote that because in C&C4, you need to be logged in to play the game, but if you loose connection when you are already playing it, you can still finish the match. With the new generation of Command & Conquer games, you'll be in trouble.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Gamescom 2013: The next Command & Conquer game Reply with quote

Banshee wrote:
- Undefined game duration: Your boxed game might be played as long as you own it, right?  If your grand children grab a copy of Command & Conquer 95, they'll be able to play it as long as they have a system compatible with it. I can't say the same thing from the Command & Conquer Free to Play service. If EA decides to shut it down due to lack of profits, nobody will be able to play it anymore, not even for single player purposes.

This is a trend lately that annoys the heck out of me. It is less with F2P games, but with games you buy with money (as Martin Killer mentioned, Sim City 5) I want to be able to play it when the hell I want, even if it's after 10 years.
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Martin Killer
Missile Trooper


Joined: 27 Nov 2005

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's a really bad trend that's being enforced in last 2-3 years to play only being connected to Internet. I don't buy any games via Steam/Origin and any other online shop - I don't believe in longevity of such a source, there is no better option than a box version with your cd-key inside.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm with you guys here. This kind of policy lets' your buy something that might be taken from you later without your consentiment and that's quite bad.

Update 1: I've fixed a couple of things in the first post and also added a note about dynamic system requirements at the 'You'll always be using the newest version of Frostbite engine' section.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 2: Just a draft on Frostbite section has been written.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, instead of creating a new engine they butcher an FPS engine and even sacrifice details because the engine can't handle it? And yes, I am fully aware creating an engine isn't something you do in a week or 2.
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that's pretty much it. The tendency is that every EA game uses Frostbite in the future, so they can save resources and money when developping their games and upgrading them.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Graion Dilach
Defense Minister


Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Iszkaszentgyörgy, Hungary

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good, EA officially is stupid now.
_________________



AS Discord server: https://discord.gg/7aM7Hm2

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ModDB Profile ID
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graion Dilach wrote:
Good, EA officially is stupid now.

This. I slowly loose the bit of hope I had for this game. Welp, MO (when it's released) it is then.
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see why EA is officially stupid by forcing Frostbite into some of their franchises. They are trying to save money and make certain parts of their games become a standard for all studios.

Update 3: I've added some pictures and more text to Frostbite. I'll continue to write about Frostbite with the features that work and differences over SAGE.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Graion Dilach
Defense Minister


Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Iszkaszentgyörgy, Hungary

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can't really force a style-oriented engine for generic usage.

Look at Renegade, and the fact that it had plenty bogus design-wise issues because it's an overhacked RTS engine.

This would make sense as putting an aircraft simulator onto the Quake 3 engione. This was not designed with that in mind and doesn't make sense.

Even you told us that it can't implement flames. Heck, in SAGE we had flamethrower-looking flamethrowers. In 2002-3.

10 years later that's impossible?! That's why I say it's officially stupid. I don't mind all the rest except the fact that Frostbite does NOT make sense to be used as an RTS engine.
_________________



AS Discord server: https://discord.gg/7aM7Hm2

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ModDB Profile ID
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be honest, Graion, it depends on how flexible is the engine, the quality of the team working on it and the time they have to develop it. Frostbite seems to be a quite generic engine and many other types of games were successfully implemented on it. Of course that, for a RTS game, they'll have to use less polygons per model and less particles on the explosions than they would in a FPS game.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 5: I think I'm pratically done with the Frostbite section. I'll write about Command & Conquer and its gameplay mechanisms in the next section later.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 6: First draft on Generals 2. I still have to talk about complex build tree, scouting and other things, as well as adding more pictures to the Generals 2 Overview section.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 7: Added some basic overview on the factions and gamemodes. I'll still talk about complex build tree, scouting and other things.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This game is designed for competitive players

So the casual RTS players who don't want a clickfest are screwed? Eugh. I really dislike the way this game taking. If I want bloody StarCraft 2, I play StarCraft 2 (which I have played for a couple of days and never afterwards). I may give it a try, but most likely I'll be back to the original Generals in no time with the current direction. Hell, maybe I will save me the bother and consider the story of Rise of the Reds as the proper continuation of the Generals storyline instead of this increasingly worser looking game.
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Graion Dilach
Defense Minister


Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Location: Iszkaszentgyörgy, Hungary

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banshee wrote:
To be honest, Graion, it depends on how flexible is the engine, the quality of the team working on it and the time they have to develop it. Frostbite seems to be a quite generic engine and many other types of games were successfully implemented on it. Of course that, for a RTS game, they'll have to use less polygons per model and less particles on the explosions than they would in a FPS game.


So, Sims 4 will use Frostbite 3?

I don't carev how much you recolor the facts, the truth is: the game sucks. The more you tell the better it feels so.
_________________



AS Discord server: https://discord.gg/7aM7Hm2

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ModDB Profile ID
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Many of the traditional game logics from Command & Conquer games are being implemented from scratch with this new engine. In Gamescom 2013, they still have not implemented logics for airplane units (take off, landing, dog fighting), vehicles crushing infantry, buildings being captured,  the GLA salvage system, etc. Apparently, the vehicle crushing system was not implemented due to lack of animations and problems with ballance. The others were not done due to lack of priority over the things that are being done so far. This is why the version we played did not feature all units that the public releases will have, nor all logics.

Several years of working and still not these basic C&C stuff? I again reference to my previous post about creating their own engine.
Quote:
For online games, Frostibite provides a much more stable experience than previous SAGE games and an advanced matchmaking service. This matchmaking system will be used in every match if you are not a premium plan user and it will choose all settings for you, except your General and game mode. Game customization is restricted to premium plan users. By game customization, I mean the ability to choose the players (human/AI and its difficulty level), player colors and other attributes in the future such as alliances, position in maps.

So what the bloody hell is this? First they say that the game launches with Skirmish and MP for free, and now you need to pay to choose what enemy you get? This is frakking ridiculous
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
freedom fighter
General


Joined: 14 May 2009

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For online games, Frostibite provides a much more stable experience than previous SAGE games and an advanced matchmaking service. This matchmaking system will be used in every match if you are not a premium plan user and it will choose all settings for you, except your General and game mode. Game customization is restricted to premium plan users. By game customization, I mean the ability to choose the players (human/AI and its difficulty level), player colors and other attributes in the future such as alliances, position in maps.


What the fuck don't scare me like that! Those are like some of the most basic features in pretty much ALL RTS. Does this really mean I have to pay a couple of bucks just so I can scroll through the remap colours and choose a gay pink colour? This is madness!
_________________
The future belongs to The Forgotten!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Killer
Missile Trooper


Joined: 27 Nov 2005

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

freedom fighter wrote:
Quote:
For online games, Frostibite provides a much more stable experience than previous SAGE games and an advanced matchmaking service. This matchmaking system will be used in every match if you are not a premium plan user and it will choose all settings for you, except your General and game mode. Game customization is restricted to premium plan users. By game customization, I mean the ability to choose the players (human/AI and its difficulty level), player colors and other attributes in the future such as alliances, position in maps.


What the fuck don't scare me like that! Those are like some of the most basic features in pretty much ALL RTS. Does this really mean I have to pay a couple of bucks just so I can scroll through the remap colours and choose a gay pink colour? This is madness!



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry guys, but there is no free lunch.

Do not expect EA to spend millions of dollars in a game and not get anything in return. Paying to customize skirmish may look wierd, but it makes sense. The main thing you expect in a game is to customize your gameplay experience and this is where they charge. They are still giving away much more than they used to give in demos from previous C&C games.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 8: I've revised parts of the text, fixed some mistaken information about CPs required to recruit Generals, added information about Generals Skill Perks, scouting, command centers and factories, fixed a wrong information about EU power plant, etc.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
OrangeNero
Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2012

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice work banshee, appreciate the info a lot. yo guys generals 2 used to be a full price game, why wouldn't you want to pay money for a game you want to play? I bet many of us bought several c&c twice or more.

ofc it sucks how they communicated it and how they're doing it. But did anyone expect any better after going f2p? At this point i'm happy as long as it doesn't get abolished and turned into a moba like... gulp... EoN.
_________________
Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 9: I've improved the General Skill Perk text, added content about user interface, AI and my conclusion about it. I think I'm done with the content itself. I'll just revise it later before announcing it.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
OrangeNero
Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2012

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The campaign missions reveal video has some very odd similarities with the game Victory from petroglyph, odd for petroglyph.
_________________
Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade!

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


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banshee wrote:
Update 6: First draft on Generals 2. I still have to talk about complex build tree, scouting and other things, as well as adding more pictures to the Generals 2 Overview section.



basically, they dumbed the game down for idiots, i don't see why it would be complex, learn the game, then play, it's that way with every game, that's what makes a challenge good, by having button A and B only, you don't learn a thing.
_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The complex buildi tree was a term used in Victory Games's presentation. I do not necessarily agree with it, although, compared to previous C&C games, the build tree is less simple indeed.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 10: Fixed spelling problems and added a paragraph about starting units.

Now I just need to increment it with a couple of pictures and I should be done with it in the next hours.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banshee wrote:
I'm sorry guys, but there is no free lunch.

Do not expect EA to spend millions of dollars in a game and not get anything in return. Paying to customize skirmish may look wierd, but it makes sense. The main thing you expect in a game is to customize your gameplay experience and this is where they charge. They are still giving away much more than they used to give in demos from previous C&C games.

Paying so you can play against your friend instead of a random decided stranger doesn't feel right to me. Hell, there are dozens of ways EA can get players to pay (look at other F2P games) for stuff (colours, skins, maps, etc), but instead they use this 'premium' system. Why do so much bother for making it F2P? Make it a normal game you buy then.
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 11: And that's it. I'm done with it. Many pictures have been added.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
m7
Commander


Joined: 17 Apr 2009
Location: The Fang

PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great article. It has given me more hope about this new CnC game, and I like that Victory games is putting so much into this to create a product that will both be enjoyable in a competitive environment as well as true to the Generals formula.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update 12: I had to fix few remaining sintax problems at the end of the text. Now I'm really done with it.

The game itself is very fun and it has potential to be great. What I'm afraid at the moment is the way they'll monetize it. People who have access to the official alpha forums are very worried with that.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
freedom fighter
General


Joined: 14 May 2009

PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just find it unnecessary to monetize the game's most basic features like that. In fact, I didn't see how you could monetize that. Its usually the gameplay orientated stuff (like items, levelups, cosmetics, etc) :/
_________________
The future belongs to The Forgotten!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Exley
Cyborg Commando


Joined: 09 May 2011
Location: X-Files

PostPosted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

over raped series
_________________
Ordosherrscher wrote:

though you can add a spawn animation with veins it will give you some weird ... stuff
it spawned veins, but also Rocks, Brigdes ...

Tony wrote:

Bridgehole Monster Laughing

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


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

apparently they give you premium access account in command & conquer....for a limited time period...so in order to maintain premium features, you have to pay in periods from 3 to 90 days........bullshit, you have to pay and have a limited amount of time access to....player colours and skirmish customization? are they mad? this isn't world of warcraft.
_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Premium lets you customize skirmish and it also speeds up the experience gain for each game (so you can recruit Generals and other content faster).

The problem is that their monetization plans and the price to keep this premium plan active for the end user is that it has to be setup properly. And the direction I've seen so far for it is not looking good at all.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
OrangeNero
Commander


Joined: 11 Jan 2012

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

time periods are the absolute worst. it forces you to play and expires while you eat sleep piss and shit.
_________________
Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade!

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


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah...i'm not really interrested to support the game with this kind of pricing model...
_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait, it's not even you buy and you stay premium forever? Since when is C&C an MMO?
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's still a bit early to take conclusions, but their current premium model gives you higher experience awards per match and ability to customize skirmish. It lasts for a limited time (3 months, I think, I'm not sure). When you install the game, you get a premium trial of 30 days.

I do not like this monetization model at all. C&C is not MMO, but they are trying to treat it as one.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Dutchygamer
President


Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Location: Dordrecht, the Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banshee wrote:
It's still a bit early to take conclusions, but their current premium model gives you higher experience awards per match and ability to customize skirmish. It lasts for a limited time (3 months, I think, I'm not sure). When you install the game, you get a premium trial of 30 days.

I do not like this monetization model at all. C&C is not MMO, but they are trying to treat it as one.

As said, there are enough stuff they can make money from (units, textures, maps, hell even the Generals). But nooooooooo, they need to have a use a game feature that pretty much everyone uses and make it not a 1-time buy but a bloody subscription. Fucktards, that's what they are.
_________________
Please, read the signature rules of the forum.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Skype Account
Banshee
Supreme Banshee


Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Location: Brazil

PostPosted: Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dutchy, this is just their base idea and it is subject to changes. I trully hope they change this idea.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Skype Account
Atomic_Noodles
Defense Minister


Joined: 05 Oct 2011

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EXP Boosts & cheaper Maps,or Alt Skins are a-okay.

But making something so minute that most often controls the match entirely. (Selection of Faction,Map Selection) already makes the game seem bad in my opinion.
_________________
~ Excelsior ~

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


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

as atomic said, i feel this will hurt the competitive factor.
_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

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


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Location: Unknown

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atomic_Noodles wrote:
EXP Boosts & cheaper Maps,or Alt Skins are a-okay.

But making something so minute that most often controls the match entirely. (Selection of Faction,Map Selection) already makes the game seem bad in my opinion.


They may, but I doubt they're going to lock changing of a map or even faction selection. But think about it for a second, if they don't monetize the customization, what else would they be monetizing. They could of just of locked a faction or a series of generals. All in all, I think they picked things that do the least damage. I'd still prefer a one time buy though.
_________________

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


Joined: 11 Jan 2012

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggest problem I see is that certain generals are there to counter others or simply work better vs certain others. From how the generals look like its something you're supposed to wage out who to take rather then "randomly use someone and kick some ass". the moment where people understand that they'll either pay or go.
_________________
Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade!

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


Joined: 31 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a leveling and "earning generals" system alone will ztype the competitiveness of the game.
_________________

Hydraw Art on Facebook

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 4 [180 Posts] Goto page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
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: 0.4654s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0767s) ][ Debug on ]