5127 replies to this topic

[Verthunder]

Personally...The sound that arises while any building is being built. it's too loud come on guys !  hate that ugly sound ughhhhhh  

if I remember correctly that sound was added in MO 3,0

[Handepsilon]

Uh, it's actually just the original sound with an added buzzsaw sound on the background. Doesn't seem too loud for me

[Verthunder]

What about the sound that arises while Tesla Trooper increasing Tesla Coil's firepower? IMO its defninietly too loud sound 

 

P.S

Btw tesla trooper can increase tesla coils firepower from the inside of catastrophe tank coool

Edited by Verthunder, 14 January 2018 - 01:59 AM.

[StolenTech]

the first one is supposed to sound that loud, it always did ever since vanilla, and it's supposed to be scary (though right now tesla coils are the least used base defense outside of campaign)

[Divine]

One thing I love about Twisted Insurrection is the tons of gameplay options for skirmish games. I mean seriously, look at this.

 

 

All these options give so much freedom, and allow the player to shape single player experience to their own taste. Things like Instant Building also make quick testing / debugging possible, which would be also useful for you, Mentalmeisters. Could we have at least some of these in MO? No support powers and Base Props would be especially nice. Like, being able to build the soviet propaganda billboards, guard towers, sandbags etc.

[Speeder]

I consider most of these pointless or designed against the general idea how the game is supposed to play or be balanced. For example, in MO Support Powers are integral to the balancing of the subfactions, they shouldn't be all removed with a click. Similar thing applies to making all infantry immune to crushing.

[Divine]

I consider most of these pointless or designed against the general idea how the game is supposed to play or be balanced. For example, in MO Support Powers are integral to the balancing of the subfactions, they shouldn't be all removed with a click. Similar thing applies to making all infantry immune to crushing.

I understand your reasoning about support powers, and I also agree with it, however, the abdundance of support powers make one VS many skirmish scenarios unreasonably hard, because offensive support powers from multiple opponents are often enough by themselves to beat a player into submission. This was not a problem in vanilla, even against the US, I had great fun when 7 brutal AI's rained the Airborne on my base constantly. But in MO support powers are much more plentiful and powerful too. What harm can it do to allow the players to decide if they want to deal with that? Perhaps support powers could be separated into categories like "offensive" and "reinforcements" and "support" or something.

Edited by Divine, 19 January 2018 - 04:09 PM.

[mrvecz]

I hate offensive support powers (One of the reasons i hate RA3 btw, uncounterable unit removal abilities in form of super secret protocols).

Others are fine and i would love to have an option to disable them in the skirmish menu.

 

Its an option, so no harm done, people who like it can play with them, and people who dont, wont. I was actually gona ask for it here aswell but it seems Divine thinks the same.

Edited by mrvecz, 19 January 2018 - 04:15 PM.

[CLAlstar]

Taking away support powers = taking most of possibilities in game and making it back into "spam units into oblivioun and smash them hoping for best result". SPowers allow us to actively affect the battlefield and conditions. I dont agree with "press a button to remove them all" idea.

[Solais]

Well, one could argue that simple unit spam gameplay is what made C&C games more accessible than other RTS games, especially SC1/2. I'm sure people like TotalBiscuit would explain that in a hour long video or something.

 

It's actually something I'm wondering nowadays. I like MO, and all its options and whatnot, but I wonder if it doesn't do away many core aspects of what made C&C what it was. Hmmmm. Food for thought.

[Divine]

The way I see it, it's better to have something when you don't need it, than not have it when you need it. The beauty of gameplay options is that it's up to you if you use them. I'm not saying that an option should be added for every tiny little thing, but I think TI did it right.

[FELITH]

would be cool if modders/mappers can add their own gameplay options to the list.
noted: I was using Free Radar.ini for my custom option and it's causing a cheater message.

Edited by FELITH, 20 January 2018 - 06:00 AM.

[StolenTech]

there is no nice way of doing it, you have to give them the edited mix and/or map and they have to place it manually for it to not detect a discrepancy between the files and call you a cheater.

[FELITH]

if there is a way to auto download the custom map from host to players. <is this fixed in 3.3.3?

there might be a way to auto download other files.

Edited by FELITH, 20 January 2018 - 06:21 AM.

[mrvecz]

Taking away support powers = taking most of possibilities in game and making it back into "spam units into oblivioun and smash them hoping for best result". SPowers allow us to actively affect the battlefield and conditions. I dont agree with "press a button to remove them all" idea.

 

It would be an option so no harm done.

And besides, we are talking about offensive support powers like Mercury satellite strike, not things like shadow rings or unit reinforcements.

Edited by mrvecz, 20 January 2018 - 12:48 PM.

[Allied Commander ???]

I wanted to ask if we can put back the old Soviet Radar from the vanilla for the sake of the early mission campaign.

Decided to bring this up again. No offense, IMO it's an eyesore seeing those 2x3 Field Bureaus fitting weirdly in some locations which was meant for the 2x2 Radar Tower in the campaign.

Maybe we build Radar Towers before we have access to Drakuvs (coz it'll be weird coming out from a radar tower) and Airbases in the campaign, or at least make the Radar Tower Infantry war exclusive.

Edited by Allied Commander ???, 20 January 2018 - 04:31 PM.

[Solais]

I think a problem is that the Field Bureau is technically the Radar Tower by its ID.

[Allied Commander ???]

I think a problem is that the Field Bureau is technically the Radar Tower by its ID.

But the IDs can be changed right? IIRC both the Field Bureau and the Radar Tower are "NARADR", maybe Field Bureau can change to something like "NAFBUR" (this is actually the UI name for the Field Bureau) or if it is too bothersome to edit the files the devs can try for example "NARADR2" when adding the Radar Tower. If the Radar Tower only gets to appear in some missions, the problem can be solved with INI editing within the map files I think (NARADR, the Field Bureau will just get a reskin as the old Radar Tower). Nevertheless these are just my suggestions.

Edited by Allied Commander ???, 21 January 2018 - 12:35 AM.

[mrvecz]

Here comes another idea, when playing without short game on against Epsilon or anyone with stealth units. It would be nice if their invisibility was removed once base power and correct building were removed.

So blowing up Epsilons refineries and bio reactors will reveal all their harvesters. Blowing up Bastion's war factory and wind farms will reveal sweepers and so on....

Since its annoying to hunt them down, sweeping the entire map with detector kill squads.

 

Or, the simpler solution, units marked as concealed or invisible arent considered a legit units for non-short game option. Just like tech structures and garrisoned units are. So once you destroyed everything you can see, enemy is defeated, no matter what.

[Handepsilon]

How about turning short game on? I think with how the game is now, having Short Game off will just hurt yourself