Morning Q&As

  • Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars
    The Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars Q&A Computer and Video Games discusses the RTS sequel with executive producer Mike Verdu: "Raw fun-factor and high-level, competitive RTS gameplay. What we're trying to do is create a game that has really good fundamentals and appeals to people that want to play RTS games competitively, either in tournaments or against each other to get onto the leaderboards or the ladders. At the same time we're trying to make the counters really well understood, with a predictable ruleset where you win because of how good you are and the skill you bring to the table, and we've re-engineered our pipeline and the engine to get rid of any hitches and lags and anything that gets in the way of fine control over units and speed of gameplay. So what you get is a very fluid experience where the units react when you tell them to."
  • Year-end
    2006-2007 Game Developers Survey Q&A - Part 3 on FiringSquad talks with Remedy's Matias Myllyrinne and Tilted Mill's Jeff Fiske about this past year in gaming, and what to expect from next year.
View : : :
5.
 
Re: ...
Dec 28, 2006, 22:47
5.
Re: ... Dec 28, 2006, 22:47
Dec 28, 2006, 22:47
 
So what you get is a very fluid experience where the units react when you tell them to.

While this is good in concept, I fear it may upset the balancing of some of the stronger units. In the videos I've seen, the Mammoth tanks turn instantly, as do their turrets. Since the Mammoth tank is supposed to be a slow unit with lots of armor and firepower, having a slow turning speed for both the unit and its turret would be more balanced, as it would allow for quicker, less powerful units to outmaneuver it. You could do this against Overlord tanks in Generals and it worked well (if you had good micro), promoting unit mixing to balance out the weaknesses of any given unit.

If every unit in C&C3 can turn and aim instantly, there will inevitably be balance issues.

Avatar 20715
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 28, 2006Dec 28 2006
2.
Dec 28, 2006Dec 28 2006
3.
Dec 28, 2006Dec 28 2006
4.
Dec 28, 2006Dec 28 2006
 5.
Dec 28, 2006Dec 28 2006
  Re: ...
6.
Dec 29, 2006Dec 29 2006
   Re: ...
7.
Dec 29, 2006Dec 29 2006
    Re: ...