|
Back to the old format because I see there are some recurring themes here.
A brand is more than just a name. People associate TC with a certain type of strategy game and have expectations. Changing too much will alienate the fans who expect to see a new twist on an old favorite instead of a completely different style of game.
It's not that I dislike complex economies or other game mechanics you suggest. I just think they stray too far from what TC is. I also often disagree with the reasoning behind your suggestions.
The overpowered unit I am talking about is called the heavy soldier. In equal cost armies no unit is capable of defeating the heavy soldier (apart from the light soldier, but then you hit the soldier cap with a weak army). Of course I don't like having overpowered units in the game, the whole point is that there should be none. This problem is inevitable in the current game however, since no unit has any specific advantage (such as an attack bonus) vs any other unit. So there will always inevitably be some "best" unit untill we get a counter system.
The players I have been playing both with and against would certainly not become adepts just because of a better tutorial. The simple reason is that most would never read it no matter how obvious you make it available. Perhaps I chose a bad way to word it when I said they certainly wouldn't have a winning strategy. What I really meant here is that almost every player I ever met had some serious flaw in their strategy. I don't think the game should have a "winning" strategy at all since it would imply that there was some set plan that would guarantee victory. Instead I think every strategy should have a viable counter, forcing players to adapt.
Now that I know what you mean I can agree that the 20 minute CC bonus is just about the worst method to deal with rushing ever.
Making the economy more complex won't stop rushing if there is some build order that can be memorized that would allow you to attack early. Note that any additional complexity for the rusher counts for the defender as well.
The real effectiveness of rushing as a strategy is a function of the growth rate of your economy and the time it takes to reach your enemy. The faster the economy can grow and the larger the distance between players the less viable rushing becomes. This is because the defender has time to become stronger while the enemy is on route to his base. Currently the economy grows unusually slow (I posted a comparison of various strategy games earlier) so rushing is naturally more powerful. The lack of a fog of war prevents it from getting out of hand however.
Adding more resources automatically makes your economy more complex. I have read your entire suggestion -multiple times even- and have outlined why I don't agree that this would solve things the way you think it would.
The specific gameplay mechanics of Territories have nothing to do with my observation that trying to negotiate with the average roblox player is not fun at all. I lost count of the number of people I've seen in roblox games (any game including negotiations of sort) who simply refuse to deal with you, even if accepting is clearly in their best interest and they will face certain defeat if they don't.
While this discussion is not about Territories, but I strongly disagree that it is an RTT game. Of course it isn't a classic RTS either. Like tower defense is a seperate genre withing strategy games this type is also distinct from other games. Solarmax, Phage Wars and Civilizations Wars are examples of other games of the same type as territories. What they have in common is that "forces" are abstract and generated by capturable points in the map. This is kind of like your idea of having capturable cities generate money, hence my Territory Conquest II remark. Of course I know there is a huge difference between that and your suggestion, but I feel like your ideas would be more suitable for Territories anyway.
I noticed you apparently mean different things when you talk about money or resources. In my argument I always treat money (and any other resource) in an abstract way, treating all of them as resources. Whether the economy runs on money, oil or even donuts has no direct relation to the game mechanics apart from the method of generating/gathering the resource. So this is why I disagree with you when you say this game doesn't have a resource system.
In this sense I don't see any point in my argument where I was contradicting myself about the resource system. My suggestion from the very beginning was to keep using a simple economy but increase the rate at which you can expand by increasing income or making plants cheaper. I wouldn't be against using a dual economy (like the mass and energy from SupCom), but a multitude of resources would definitely stray too far from the original.
Nuclear plants are not better than regular plants in the short or the long run, provided you use your momentum to gain a military advantage instead of going easy on your opponent. Using nuclear plants is an example of what I call a serious flaw in a persons strategy.
Now tell me, when you say you can make a comeback after five minutes of being afk what game and what opponent do you have in mind exactly? And no, AI opponents or roblox games do NOT count.
I don't see how my opinion on the terrain reflects my ability to use it. All I'm saying is that many games have choke points, walling off to block enemies (as opposed to the meat shield walls TC has), controllable points of interest besides resources or things like high ground bonuses. All of which TC does not have. So no, I don't see how terrain plays too great a roll here.
I can read fine thank you. Saying that terrain plays too great a roll implies that you think this is a bad thing. If you do not think it is then you should ommit "too". The way you say it now you are directly contradicting yourself. Now how am I supposed to know what your stance on the matter really is?
This is not the only unusual sentence you constructed. What am I to think for example of something that is not central, but key to the issue? Is it important or is it not? The whole reason I pointed it out is because you were trying to make this inevitable binary decision (to rush or not to rush) seem like some problem that could and even should be solved.
The build order comment was to point out that initial actions are important in any RTS, not just here. This is a well established fact, but since you are seemingly unaffected by being afk for five minutes perhaps everyone was just wrong about this all along?
Again, I feel the need to stress that I don't think your ideas would make for a bad game. Releasing it as TC3 however would be a terrible mistake, since players would forever compare it to a game that isn't remotely like it.
I have a good reason to argue that players would try and grab the cities asap when the game starts. They work similar to the territories in Territory Conquest, being capturable npc "things" that generate income. (for Territory Conquest this is abstracted since income = army) In Territories it is obviously best to expand as fast as possible, so the idea is that the same would hold with your idea.
Being "distracted" by the need to gather other resources as well does not negate this point. Ultimately you would still (within reason) go for a land grab. The effectiveness of a rush would not be decreased by this. The only thing that would change is the time at which you strike. You wouldn't be able to prepare better because of that however, since the defender also needs to split his attention to different resources.
Extensive means things like "covering a large area" or "comprehensive". Capital refers to non-financial assets used in production of goods and services. Applying this to the game the resource generating facilities would be the capital.
Back to what you originally said, giving more purpose to money would make your power plants, oil rigs and whatever cover less area or be less comprehensive? I do not understand what that means. Please explain it to me using simple words that I don't need to look up in an online dictionary or wikipedia.
Again, to me money is a resource. The reason I say that the overpoweredness of the heavy soldier makes money key is because it takes away other aspects. If I could somehow counter soldiers (and every other unit in the game) then I would have a way to overcome an opponent with a superior economy. This isn't the case now, so getting an economic lead is more important since it is harder to overcome.
There is some logical contradiction in trying to make diplomacy key to a game while at the same time keeping a zero diplomacy approach perfectly viable. If I can win without trade, why bother? But if I can't then I really will be more dependent upon my ally. So you see it's kind of hard to satisfy both conditions at the same time.
Here is a test. Read the following line, keeping the context in mind, and try to interpret what it means:
"Nowhere in your entire argument does it even occur to you that having one obviously overpowered unit might be a more important thing to work on."
This means that...
a) The game needs to have a totally overpowered unit, and we should work on that.
b) It is good that the game has a totally overpowered unit, but we should make this more obvious so that everyone knows to only use that unit.
c) The real problem is that there is an obviously overpowered unit, we should focus our efforts on making sure no unit is overpowered.
d) Instead of writing all of that, you should have focused your attention on trying to acquire a totally overpowered unit.
Ok so maybe the way I phrased it made it a little ambiguous. I did not account for people who might assume that I would suggest adding in OP units for the sake of it. I am also vaguely aware of the possibility that your last paragraph might be entirely sarcastic. But as you probably know sarcasm does not convey well in text based communication. |
|
maxomega3Join Date: 2010-06-11
Post Count: 10668 |
@Enzo, he "tried to sell Robux".
Also, I think that if someone starts halfway, and are still alive, they should get a small bonus, say 100 dollars? |
|
maxomega3Join Date: 2010-06-11
Post Count: 10668 |
@HH, Yeah, I don't blame you for insulting Gus. He'd be a hypocrite if he claimed he hasn't done it himself.
*COUGH COUGH* BASHING ZAKZAK *COUGH COUGH* |
|
|
@Maxomega3 A feature like that could be exploited by someone with a fast internet connection who rejoins the game just to gain money. |
|
AlkanJoin Date: 2008-12-04
Post Count: 907 |
I never intended to insult him. All I know is that I've done a lot of testing to make TC as lagless as possible, and I just dont see that with Gus and his game.
If I want to really change The Conquerors game style, I can name it something like The Destroyers and free myself from any limitations. |
|
rike619Join Date: 2009-03-17
Post Count: 240 |
@alkan
Perhaps you should retain the conquerors brand. Make an expansion; for instance, 'The Conquerors: The rise of nations'. Now that was merely an example. I'm sure you could come up with better, especially if you asked your fan base to come up with something. |
|
AlkanJoin Date: 2008-12-04
Post Count: 907 |
If I name it something else, I free myself of any limitations created by The Conquerors brand, and I can create new VIPs without feeling like I ripped anyone off.
|
|
|
I suggest adding a few new game modes;
Hit list: if a certain player or team is eliminated, and they were your target, then you win (otherwise normal game)
Budget: no power plants or nuclear plants, you start off with a ton of money. not sure how it would work entirely, but it would probably be a short round type.
Colonization: first player to have a nuclear plant or power plant on every crystal, and 3 houses win.
Aswell as some units;
Hydrowalker/Landship, a boat which can walk on land
Wingmarine, a plane which can sink underwater, like a submarine.
Caedo, an expensive infantry which can hack into tanks and boats at melee range, instantaneously killing them.
Juggernaught tank, basically juggernaught, in the form of a tank. more health, more damage.
Heavy space fighter, the heavy alternative to the space fighter.
Nuclear submarine, submarine which can carry and generate nukes, stealthily.
Hound, a fast tank with short range, and heavy damage. sort of like a ground stealth bomber.
You like? :) |
|
|
Oh yeah, and some sort of commander unit, sort of like a hero, which could possibly boost certain aspects of the game? and possibly a choice of what sort of statistic your commander has, such as boosting income of nearby power plants, or swapping the damage of your nearby units with nearby enemies (in your favour of course). |
|
rike619Join Date: 2009-03-17
Post Count: 240 |
Now I realize it has taken me some time to respond, because I had to deal with my education and personal life.
- That is an extrapolated assumption – exclusivity of branding is not restricted to merely just strategy. Also, this view is jam-packed with logical fallacies. There currently exists no specific strategy in TC. There are numerous game modes, in concert with several different types of maps, all of which require an innovative and different line of strategies to deal with. If you believe that one of these strategies would assume prominence over the other and so it should follow that there is drastic need for rebranding.
- Most people (not including you) have higher standards. Customer loyalty is not manufactured by absence, people expect: new updates, updates that actually offer far-reaching changes to enhance gameplay. Such as, adding a navy, adding new units, adding new maps, adding new strategies, adding new Interfaces, adding a range of newer and different updates. We expect change, we invite it. Without change the TC you’re familiar with would not have existed. Moreover, I know no other way of alienating people then to leave the game in its current state… the game is losing players on record numbers. Therefore, your argument holds little water; people get tired with the same thing over and over. Also your pretending that this is “completely different” of a “style of gameplay” is a lie, which should explain why you’re the one saying it.
- I keep telling you and offering you detailed explanations that this in by no stretch of the imagination complex; yet, you refuse. Of course, it doesn’t. We shouldn’t be debating how not to improve gameplay, we should be debating how to change and improve it for the better – precisely what I am doing.
- If there should be none, then stop wasting our time by suggesting it in the first place. It is inevitable! That is precisely why I ask for change in the strategic position the game currently subscribes to. You are very broken in the thinking you are attempting to convey. Do you want change? Do you not want change? By opting in for change means that we can have the counter system.
- I fail to understand how you can decide for other people, whether they would want to or nor want to read a tutorial simply because from the looks of it, you wouldn’t want to. Yes, you did choose a bad way. The simple solution is, just stop choosing! It should save me the trouble of addressing such imbecilic statements. They notion of a winning strategy, is subjective upon the state of gameplay the player is residing in. Of course there should be counters and of course there should be no absolute method of winning. That is specifically regulated by the economic and diplomatic system I am suggesting.
- Finally reason prevails. Again, that can be treated by have random spawning of resources or cities. Therefore, the players will be pushed to develop strategies to suit their situation. This also eliminates the excessive geographical advantage of plant spots. Also, before you suggest that ‘what if all the good cities and resources spawn next to one player? The others would be put at a disadvantage.” Well, that is easily scriptable. It needs not to be all placed next to one player. I would at this point substitute the term complexity with unfamiliarity. It is not ‘complex’ as your rhetoric would lead one to think. Like you said, the counter system is sufficient for dealing with such scenarios.
- I agree with you. A fog of war might be a reasonable suggestion, one that I have often wanted. Also, it is a function because the growth only offers to accumulate capital which can only be expended on making military assets. So the economy should be also based on trade (also economic requirements) this disincentives rushing. I agree that there should be bigger maps, and yes this does assist in eliminating rushing. Making the economy grow any faster does not change the fundamentals – if I can get 300 faster, I will simply make more units. You have just inflated the requirements, it has not changed the amount of time and if you have not changed the pricing mechanism to suit this inflation, you have merely just magnified the issue.
- Whether you enjoy something should not dictate whether others enjoy. In fact my experience, the people I have played with and against enjoyed negotiating. Also, the point isn’t that they might refuse. That is an idiotic argument. I negotiate with people in the games current state all the time, sometimes they refuse. How does that change anything? Refusal is merely an alternative avenue for those who do not appeal to reason or the negotiation does not advance their interest. How does that excuse negotiation? Social interaction is healthy for a game. All major or good games facilitate social interactions.
Also, if they don’t accept the diplomatic discourse you have engaged with them and as you have stated that it does not work in their interest that is their problem, no one else’s. In fact, even in the current state of the game, social interaction still exists; it is not something you can regulate out of an RTS game. That is an absurd idea. This anti-social unorthodoxy is what we should not even debate, it is idiotic, it is illogical, and it is not needed.
- Well, it is perfectly acceptable that you would endorse territories. Albeit that I do not. Also, the classification is not important, that can be an endless topic – it is irrelevant.
- I understand your thinking of ‘resources’ and agree with your understanding. However, your passion for vagueness doesn’t justify your positions.
- You agree with the mass and energy, but you’re contradicting me? All the resources I have suggested essentially pertain ‘ONLY’ to mass and energy; Oil or Uranium to make either an NPP/PP. Even though I have suggested that the resources could serve minor other functions, has not dismissed its central role. Also, I have not suggested too many resources.
- Your opinion on the best strategy is a subjective view, whilst I may or may not embrace it as a player, I do not understand why you feel the need to make irrelevant statements. I make a comeback after five minutes in TC. Why does that demand excessive reasoning? It should merely highlight my skill and the fact that it is indeed possible.
- I agree that the degree to which it plays a role is not monolithic – that is not the main issue here. Now I understand that you have become upset due to my perceived vagueness. My position isn’t that people shouldn’t be enabled to exploit the terrain. Also, you’re right. I should have been clearer on my position. My dislike is of the fact that the geography enables some people to access plant spots more easily – now that has not worked against my favour, I am a pro in manipulating this to my advantage. Based on this experience, it is pointless to argue against my position for promoting the betterment of others.
- Maybe you need a dictionary… well, it is a binary decision, which I am against and you are for. That is why I propose economic and diplomatic regulations to counter it. I am flattered. Initial actions are important, although I am not unaffected by this, my initial actions are always important. I just overwhelm any advancement made due to my inattentiveness by utilizing my diplomatic, economic and military cognition to “own” the noobs that would test my hegemony.
- You are without a doubt confused about my position. My system isn’t any different from the current. Instead of placing plants around green spots, you place a new building on a spot in the city… instead of being able. The visual and strategic aspects have been changed. Even if one player has more, that is regulated by trade. The money in this actually operates as a medium of exchange. The resources are traded for the money.
- Yes, people will go for grabs resource points. Isn’t that somewhat of the point? It is part of competition, get used to it. Yes, how so dividing your attention to different points any different from now? People have multiple fronts to engage with enemies, it has always been like that. Stop beating a dead horse. Also, you definitely need a dictionary! Extensive is defined as “Large in spatial extent, range, scope or quantity.” It does not conflict with my use of the term. To the extent of my knowledge there are seven nouns of Capital; what your describing fits in with one of them, however, my use of the term is not wrong. Capital also refers to “Wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value.”
- You really do need a dictionary. Extensive is defined as “Large in spatial extent, range, scope or quantity.” To the extent of my knowledge, Capital has 7 nouns. What refer to is similar right, however, my usage of the term is not wrong either. Capital refers to “Wealth in the form of money or property owned by a person or business and human resources of economic value.” Now stop beating a dead horse.
- What I meant is that the function of money is monopolised into just creating military assets. So people naturally want to rush. There is no diplomatic, economic or strategic competition.
- That has not eliminated the underlining issue with the economic system at this moment which I have addressed in earlier posts.
- There is no contradiction, where have I expressed any “Opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas?” Well I have not. If a person chooses not to adopt a policy of diplomacy, he is harming no one but himself. Also, he is under no obligation to do so. If he is good, why should he have to share that success? It is no more different from now. In fact, you have contradicted yourself. You choose not to ally yourself, so why do would you say something inconsistent with your own practices? Firstly, how someone could achieve a position where no trade is required is beyond me. Also, he has merely made the game harder for himself, because, he is competing against those players who have an advantage of trade - autarky has penalties. No, it is not hard. Either you want to ally or you don’t. Personally I want to ally depending on my mood or my situation in the game. Why should that be taken away from me?
- You must elaborate on what you mean, because so far, on the several opinions I have gotten, they have all come to the same conclusion. Why would you say the game needs an overpowered unit to only focus our efforts on making sure no unit is overpowered? I will not dignify ‘a)’ with a response. You are riddled with logical inconsistencies. Be clearer. And saying it is a little ambiguous is an understatement.
|
|
|
I definitely know how you feel there. Posts like these take time to write and I'm lucky if I can write a reply right away. Thank you for replying in the end. Not many people would bother to read, let alone write an elaborate reply to one of my posts.
I feel like I need to take my time to carefully think about how I'm going to clear up the many misunderstandings here. But let me begin by saying that I do not oppose change. Not all change anyway. I just believe that if this game is to be called TC3 then there should be enough connections to the original for this name to make sense. I feel like an economy as you suggest would stray too far from the original to be labeled "TC". Of course if the name were to be changed then there would be no problem at all with any level of change.
I think there is also a fundamental difference between adding a new map or unit and redesigning the economy to such a far extent. In the end things also depend on what else is changed. If only the economy and diplomacy were changed then there would likely be no problem labeling it TC3. If however we also completely overhaul the unit system along with it then what would it have in common with the original apart from the name?
I don't understand why you call this opinion a "lie". I really do think this would alter the genre of the game, more specifically to a 4X game. I refer to your idea of an economy as a "complex" economy partly in comparison to a "simple" economy and partly because, well, I have to call it something to be able to talk about it right? Since it's your idea perhaps you can also come up with a name for it?
The next part I am only going to say once. I believe that overpowered units are a bad thing. There is currently at least one game-breakingly powerful unit, the heavy soldier. I suggest redesigning the unit system to solve this issue. By no means do I wish for overpowered units to be put into the game on purpose. It was wrong of me to assume that the above statements are obvious and could be taken for granted. I should not have constructed a sentence that relied on the previous assumption to clear up ambiguity.
I would prefer it if you didn't constantly try to draw conclusions about my personal play style from my arguments. It would save me the effort of trying to clear up all of the misconceptions. For example, I am actually the kind of person who would always read the tutorial for a game, even if it is self-explanatory enough for me to understand without help. I was merely relaying my personal observation that many roblox players do not read the help. I can tell that they don't because if they did they would be significantly more competent on average.
Another dead give-away is that people will often ask things that are clearly explained in the help section. Now this game is simple enough for me to explain to anyone willing to learn. I am just concerned that if the game becomes too complex this will no longer be the case, making it harder for new players to get into the game.
For the sake of clarity I will now outline my view on the effect the economy has on rushing, rather than trying to write an incoherent explanation while I reply to all of these points individually.
Rushers are like stars. In the same way the light from a star was emitted years in the past, the attack from a rusher is composed of units that were built a minute ago. We are effectively defending against our opponent as he was in the past, a minute ago.
This small time window is the advantage the defender has in order to repel the rusher. In that time he can gain a small cash advantage over the opponent. My argument now is that the faster your economic investments pay off the greater your cash advantage will be. Key now is that this advantage is unique to the defender. The attacker can not negate it unless he can get his army to his target instantly or if the defender has no income.
In the case of TC the speed of the economy is low, so the advantage gained is also minimal. To illustrate, suppose two players spawn on a small island with only three crystals (one at each base and one neutral). One player opens with NPP + PP at center while the other opens with PP + Barracks. Given (reasonably) optimal play from player 2 there is no way for player 1 to avoid a loss without help from allies. The attack on the center plant will occur long before it can ever pay for itself, making it a complete loss. Of course given the short distance and scarce resources a rush may be hard to stop in this scenario no matter what. The point here however is that the slow economy makes the problem worse.
As for another thought experiment, imagine the game had fog of war added in in it's current state. Making too many plants would suddenly become a huge risk, since an attack could come with far less warning time. Plants take six minutes to pay for themselves at best, so that is a really huge window of opportunity for a rusher to exploit. In the current game a lack of fog of war is what stops rushing from being a viable strategy. I do not rush because a) it is not an optimal strategy against the average player, who tends to turtle and b) it is easy to thwart since the enemy can just place a barracks the moment they see you build one.
Don't get me wrong now, I am not saying fog of war would be a bad thing. I'm just saying the game isn't ready for it, since lack of FoW is what prevents things from becoming an utter mess. It's all theoretical anyway, since FoW is a complex mechanic that is likely beyond what is possible in this game.
Perhaps part of our disagreement simply lies in the way we view the average player. While I believe the majority is incompetent, irrational and unwilling to learn or adapt I see that you may have a different idea here. It's not like I believe all players to be like this, just most of them. Hence why I would rather not have diplomacy as an important aspect of gameplay. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here, since our view of the player base is obviously a personal opinion.
Something I do wish to point out though is that there is a conceptual problem with the way you have described this diplomatic aspect to me. You see, on one hand you repeatedly stated that the whole thing would be optional while on the other hand you also see it as a key feature. The thing is, if diplomacy is crucial to obtaining the resources you need then clearly opting out of diplomacy is not a real option if I want to win. If however I can do things by myself just fine without any serious disadvantage then clearly diplomacy is not a key feature. In short, these two things are mutually exclusive. A feature can not be both key and optional at the same time.
- I personally prefer the word "abstraction" rather than vagueness. This means that I generalize details that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, such as whether units are bought with money or metal or some other resource. Perhaps you could do with a little less abstraction yourself though? From what you have been saying I still don't have any idea how your proposed economy would work exactly. All I know is that it would have multiple resources and that cities play a role in it. I seem to recall you saying something about refining resources as well.
Now for example would be a good time to create some clarity about this. See, I go ahead and say that while I think one or two resources is fine, having more than that would change the core of the game. And now you seem to be telling me that your suggestion was a dual economy all along? Clearly the problem here is that the way I interpreted your suggestion is different from the way you envisioned it.
When I talk about making a comeback after five minutes I am talking about games such as Age of Empires, Supreme Commander or StarCraft. While I have to admit that I never actually played any of these online against human opponents I reckon that going AFK for five minutes means certain death in any of them. Mostly because games like that have a matchmaking system which pits you against opponents of similar skill level. TC doesn't have that, so if you are better than most it should be easy to make a late comeback in many cases.
In fact, as long as your enemies are incompetent enough you could turn a game around even after 20, 60 or even 90 minutes. The thing is, this has nothing to do with my own skill. I can only do this because some people are so bad at this game that even a 90 minute head start isn't enough to make up for it. If I were to play against someone of my own level even one minute would likely cost me the game.
"My dislike is of the fact that the geography enables some people to access plant spots more easily."
Am I understanding this correctly when I say that the problem is that some maps are not well balanced, with some spawns being better than others? If so, I definitely agree. Some maps are just plain unfair. I'd prefer all maps to have balanced spawns, but that is the responsibility of the mapmakers.
I will again refer to the part where I mentioned my stance on rushing as a strategy, as well as request again that you stop trying to draw conclusions about my personal play style.
The key of the "land grab" argument is that it would not stop rushing as you seemed to originally imply. Your comments on it seem to be based on a misunderstanding of what I meant to say. I will hence not reply to them.
Your definition of extensive is the same as the one I found. Capital is a more "interesting" case. It's exact definition isn't really clear to me, since I'm not an economist. However, when I substitute the definition you gave me it still isn't clear to me what you mean.
"In concert with a new trade system, the money has more purpose. It is not so capital extensive."
If money has more purpose, wouldn't that increase the scope of capital rather than decrease it?
I disagree that the function of money is monopolized by military assets. Much of the money I get is invested in economy, and getting a better economy than your opponent is very important. So I would say there definitely is an economic competition. This competition is of course not separate from military competition, both strongly influence each other. I would also like to point out that if the new game ever gets made there will be a new area to compete in, research.
You are right that my comment on heavy soldiers does not answer all of your concerns about the current economy system (nor was it meant to). So allow me to recap my point.
-"Firstly, normal plants are pointless"
I would say that it is instead the nuclear plants which are pointless, but the essence is that there is a redundancy. In this sense there is indeed a problem.
-"Late comers can not compete."
I'm not sure if this refers to people who join a game late, or people who only recently started playing and have yet to learn the ropes. I think that the insanely high number of bad players in this game invalidates your argument either way.
-"Secondly, the plant system facilitates rushing."
As I mentioned before, it is the slow income rate that does this. If you feel that it is the very mechanic of building plants at power crystals for cash that does this then you should provide arguments to support your case.
-"Moreover, they pose no difficulty, it lacks a challenge." (skipped geography argument since this still isn't clear)
This may be a problem in your opinion but others may think that the focus should be on war instead. Many good RTS titles keep the economy simple so people can focus more on the military side. Personally I would say that the only "challenge" a strategy game should have is your opponent.
-"In addition to that, it is also very unrealistic."
How so? I thought it was widely believed that in the future energy companies would become so powerful that they could support their own military branch, taking "competition" to a new level by literally fighting wars over energy sources that look like glowing green bricks?
In all seriousness, this is what we call an "acceptable break from reality". How many players do you think ever stop to think about the absurd situation of building nuclear reactors in a war zone, and the consequences the destruction of such facilities should have? Most people I've pointed this out to had never thought about this until that point.
The contradiction lies in the illusion of choice you present me with. You say that it would be my choice whether to negotiate or not but admit yourself that I would be at a great disadvantage if I opted not to. I don't like this since diplomacy would change this game from something I do to relax to something I find stressful.
As for the last part of your post, well I did say I would only say it once, so you will just have to scroll up if you want the answer. |
|
maxomega3Join Date: 2010-06-11
Post Count: 10668 |
Do what all devs do to attract attention! Add:
*zombies
*aliens
*space in general
*space-zombies
*All of the above |
|
Enzo01234Join Date: 2011-03-24
Post Count: 6131 |
b
-
Joined October 2010
+1038 posts |
|
|
Maybe like some sort of mech unit, or space ground troops |
|
|
Helicpoters, Anti-Air Submarines AircraftCarriers. And Moar! Apc Too. And Missile Truck |
|
dan5552Join Date: 2010-04-22
Post Count: 18 |
I would suggest better plant defenses I mean turrets cant even defend a plant from a 10 solider army. I also believe that there should be a limit for the amount of turret defenses (Similar to building limit). This means that their should be new buildings called something like Plant turret (Not really creative but you get the picture) This will make it easier to defend plants. Its really kind of annoying when your plant gets attacked and you cant get your army there in time |
|
|
Dead? :( C'mon, don't let this thread die! |
|
|
VIP should be much more useful: giving you the difference between buildings(squares) and units(triangles) as well as having the ability to zoom in and show you specific unit and building types when you click on a specific area. Maybe you could also have a time-time-log( don't exactly know what to call it) thAt tells you in real time what the enemy is doing( for example: red team builds tank factory, blue team brings 13 troops to reds plant, red team builds five tanks, blue team goes to reds base, reds tanks attack blues troops, the blue army is killed) which would cure all the blindspots given from the currently existing radar and stats VIP.
Speed should be cheaper than strength in order to make the game more aggressive and intense thus making it more entertaining. For example: an airport should cost 250 $ with heavy planes costing 90$ whereas tank-factories should cost 300$ with heavy tanks costing 100$.
The mathemAtics should be easier with a clear spectrum: for example the cheaper the unit the more cost effective but the more expensive the unit the more powerful: fore example a heavy plane and A space fighter should kill each other in a tie rather than the heavy plane flat outkilling the space fighter.
Buildings should have a clear 20% defency compared to the equivalent cost of units. For example: it should take exactly 9 heavy soldiers to take down a fort.
Things should go in threes: for example as we have: light soldier, heavy soldier, juggernaut. We should also have:gunboat,battleship,destroyer and light tank,heavy tank, and some sort of juggernaut tank.
The naval maps appear to be rather unplanned. You should make small changes such as having naval units to give more bang to the buck( for example a battleship should be able to kill a fort rather than being slaughtered by one), and on each and every naval map each person should spawn on a separate island in order to make things more fair( every currently existing naval map, except one, has at least six islands so all you have to do is move the spawn points)
New players can't appear to understand that in order to build a plant you have to bring soldiers to the Crystal, as lack of money is the bane of these players, when a person first steps onto the conquerors they'll need to watch a video of a person bringing his troops to a Crystal to make a plant.
Absolutely no one uses transport planes, whatever argument you use to justify their current existence appears to be void, transport planes should be converted into transport helicopters which although slightly more expensive than jeeps and transport ships, they'll be faster. Transport helicopters should not be completely defenseless with troops firing from its open cargo bin(similar to the clone transports at the battle of genosis.) |
|
|
Also houses should be eliminated with everyone automatically beginning on their full unit cap.This is a simple fix that could go a long way as the 180$ used for houses could go to three plants which will actually pay you back. Houses have very little use for anything but increasing the unit cap as they're low on health and if you actually use them to build a docks then in most cases you're little bit noobish to say it politely.
With houses I feel like I'm forced to waste 180$ on each game when they're reAlly not that necessary. |
|
|
@cubicbeserker: this is a reply to your second post: there actually is a chokepoint in two maps, the one with six islands with two players spawning on three islands where if you have six battleships in the center you can block people coming in and out relatively useful- when pulled on me I find it extremely annoying, and there is also a chokepoint on the house map where basically every room is a chokepoint- just add walls. |
|
|
I've also should have put this in earlier: nukes should be more realistic: for example they should be transported in a bomber-plane rather than being transported on their own. The docking and undocking of a nuke from a plane should be done in the same way as putting troops in a transport. |
|
|
I don't like Wraith's idieas.
Besides, the game is BEING REMADE, SERIOUSLY. Not updated. You're giving ideas like he's going to make the game same, just with a few new units or stuff. |
|
|
Somehow many of my posts are getting eaten when I lose internet so im going to keep it short:
A simple way to make a counter to the heavy soldier would be to just increase the range of a sniper so that you can kill a heavy soldier before it has time to walk to the sniper and kill it in turn.
A simple way to add resources would be to make uranium necessary for nukes and steel necessary for vehicles.
There should be no restrictions on nukes, get rid of the time limit and plamt requirement.
Make the plants pay you back twice as fast, theyre slowing the while game down
Alkan is never going to remake tc3 all at once, instead he should just do it piecemeal adding update by updatw until he makes a superior conquerors.he himself said that his scripts are already very efficient so I dont see why he needs to rescript the whole thing. |
|
|
S. Bombers cannot be seen by turrets, HQ, CC, fort, etc, only by units
Why no un-allying? "allies green player (NonNoob)
Oh no green left and theres a guest i cannot un ally omg nooooooo |
|
|
Alkan has alrrady said that his scripts are efficient so why does he want to rescript tc? How do you eat an elephant?one bite at a time-alkan should make tc3 update by update not by doing it all at once. |
|