Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » What should C&C3 have been?
Re: What should C&C3 have been? [message #420706 is a reply to message #420699] |
Tue, 23 February 2010 17:04 |
|
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836 Registered: March 2005 Location: New York
Karma:
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
nopol10 wrote on Tue, 23 February 2010 18:32 | However, if they did the system where you chose your army before a match, it could lead to potential disaster as the scissors paper stone nature of the game would cause you to continuously get bthrashed or vice versa thanks to the imbalance.
|
How so? You would have to use the right units for what strategy you wanted to use.
-You'd take the map terrain into consideration.
-Your planned attack strategy
-Your enemy's nature and most likely actions.
You pick a small army of units to use but so does your opponent.
No two games would be the same and it that would make give the multiplayer tones of replay value.
The balance for C&C4 is not rock, paper, scissors. It's more like Rock beats paper & scissors, paper beats scissors & rock, and scissors beats rock & paper. There is no line of effectiveness between different types of units (except for maybe ground vs air.) Sure some units might be stronger vs other units, but that doesn't mean that they are weak against everything else.
The beauty of having player chosen units is that the balance is in the hand of the player. The devs just need to make sure that each unit is reasonably balanced vs everything else. But ultimately if the player decides to go all ground forces, its their own fault for leaving themselves open to air attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: zeratul on Mon, 22 February 2010 16:46
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Spoony on Wed, 24 February 2010 06:24
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Lone0001 on Mon, 22 February 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: nope.avi on Mon, 22 February 2010 18:35
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Lone0001 on Mon, 22 February 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: DRNG on Mon, 22 February 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: nopol10 on Tue, 23 February 2010 03:18
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: DRNG on Tue, 23 February 2010 05:53
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Zion on Tue, 23 February 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: nopol10 on Tue, 23 February 2010 16:32
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: HaTe on Tue, 23 February 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: cmatt42 on Wed, 24 February 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Tiesto on Wed, 24 February 2010 07:02
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
By: Spoony on Wed, 24 February 2010 12:12
|
|
|
Re: What should C&C3 have been?
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 28 05:08:13 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00960 seconds
|