Or does anyone still play SC? At this point I've played both CnC/SC. Although the former has a better presentation, the latter is just a much better, deeper game. Sadly, Supreme Commander seems to be heading the way of Total Annihilation. 
So Supreme Commander got a patch that increases performance...
- Thread starter Ichigo
- Start date
Kromis
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2006
- 5,214
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Ichigo
Or does anyone still play SC? At this point I've played both CnC/SC. Although the former has a better presentation, the latter is just a much better, deeper game. Sadly, Supreme Commander seems to be heading the way of Total Annihilation.
I didn't like Sup Com.
Not quite a lot of variety among the units (I think). I mean, each race has a mirrored copy of the other races' units except for the experimental units.
If I'm wrong, tell me!
I found that Supreme Commander performed well on my Opteron 144 and 8800GTS 320mb at 1920x1200.
The game was too slow and too monolithic for me.
TA was big, yet playable. SC is TOO big. It's uncontrollable and hard to follow.
C&C3 is way more fun.
The game was too slow and too monolithic for me.
TA was big, yet playable. SC is TOO big. It's uncontrollable and hard to follow.
C&C3 is way more fun.
I guess on the surface it could be possible to see each faction's units as carbon copies, but they're not. Their armour is different(some have shields, others just straight up armour), different movement abilities/speed(a cetain Cybran water unit can crawl onto the land, while the other factions' equivalents can't), ballistic properties(it is a completely simulated physics system, not just random dice rolls, so whether the damage is AoE, laser-based, etc. makes a huge difference), the kind of stuff you discover after a few battles.
The game is not slow. Well, it depends. Played at any kind of competitive level, matches take maybe 10-15 minutes. I think this assumption is just people not giving SC a chance, whereas with CnC they're compelled to by the name.
CnC3 is, in my opinion, has really archaic gameplay with a very pretty exterior. The structure building system makes no sense (pops out of the ground, no chance for damage before construction?), *many* useless units (most infantry), very basic damage system, micro-managing isn't intuitive like Starcraft, *currently* broken online (tank rush, I mean), lack of strategic zoom (it's hard to go back), etc.
The game is not slow. Well, it depends. Played at any kind of competitive level, matches take maybe 10-15 minutes. I think this assumption is just people not giving SC a chance, whereas with CnC they're compelled to by the name.
CnC3 is, in my opinion, has really archaic gameplay with a very pretty exterior. The structure building system makes no sense (pops out of the ground, no chance for damage before construction?), *many* useless units (most infantry), very basic damage system, micro-managing isn't intuitive like Starcraft, *currently* broken online (tank rush, I mean), lack of strategic zoom (it's hard to go back), etc.
c&c3 is the 'dumb mans RTS'.
it doesn't take a lot of skill to play it. designed by 'pro gamers', and i use that term lightly, it takes strategy out of the game and in turn replaces it with strict build orders.
supcom online takes strategy and tactics. experimentals are not game breakers either.
it doesn't take a lot of skill to play it. designed by 'pro gamers', and i use that term lightly, it takes strategy out of the game and in turn replaces it with strict build orders.
supcom online takes strategy and tactics. experimentals are not game breakers either.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
Play online in CnC3 and tell me that noone uses strategy.
I consistently get owned by something I've never seen someone do before.
I enjoy SupCom as well as CnC3. Unless you have also extensively played CnC3, don't say that there is no strategy involved.
I don't like SupCom online, though, because the AI offers enough fun for me (and I really just like to make maps and mod it)
This patch does increase performance, guys!
EDIT: Oh, and rape-rush in SupCom is 6 land factories at the beginning of the game. I played online a few times and that tends to work pretty well.
I consistently get owned by something I've never seen someone do before.
I enjoy SupCom as well as CnC3. Unless you have also extensively played CnC3, don't say that there is no strategy involved.
I don't like SupCom online, though, because the AI offers enough fun for me (and I really just like to make maps and mod it
)This patch does increase performance, guys!
EDIT: Oh, and rape-rush in SupCom is 6 land factories at the beginning of the game. I played online a few times and that tends to work pretty well.
Most of what I've seen are tank rushes in CnC. Maybe a Shadow Team rush, but... more or less it gets narrowed down to a few simple ones. Like I said, I heard the new patch may change that. And hey... you haven't played SupCom extensively.
Most of what makes SupCom slow to new players in the economics structure. Once you figure out its intricacies, you begin to learn when to build troops and when to tech. You'll learn not to run into mass/energy deficits which cripple your economy and the game gets a lot faster if you get to that point. I'm trying not to preach too fanatically about SupCom's graces or anything, I'd just like to see some people give it a real chance and try something that, in my opinion, is truly amazing once you touch its core.
Most of what makes SupCom slow to new players in the economics structure. Once you figure out its intricacies, you begin to learn when to build troops and when to tech. You'll learn not to run into mass/energy deficits which cripple your economy and the game gets a lot faster if you get to that point. I'm trying not to preach too fanatically about SupCom's graces or anything, I'd just like to see some people give it a real chance and try something that, in my opinion, is truly amazing once you touch its core.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
So what? Just because somthings old dosent mean it bad. Especially considering how
successful c&c's gameplay was when compared with other strategy games.
Its a game, the build system dosent have to make sense, games are meant to be fun not sensible.
To be honest these "useless units" actually only become useless late game, or are only useful in a certain situation. If youve ever played c&c 3 you would know that infantry are FAR from useless, in fact nod shadow teams on certain maps cannot be stopped, infantry can garrison buildings (useful for early warning) they can clear garrisonned buildings, they can scout, snipers can spot for juggernauts which can shoot across the WHOLE MAP! Infantry are far from useless. With two opponents of equal skill level, they have many uses.
C&C3 has angle dependant armor, it also has REVERSE MODE, which goes along nicely with the armor system, does starcraft have reverse mode? I think not!
Online is fun, you dont like tank rush? Tough, c&c has always been about tanks, deal with it.
Lack of strategic zoom?? Who needs strategic zoom??? Oh yes, sup com fanatics, the only type of people who would moan about a games lack of it.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Um, those of us that like seeing more than a 10x10ft square at a time. Hell in SupCom I never used the pan functionality to move around the map I always just zoomed out, moved my cursor to where I wanted to go and zoomed back in. The fact that there's only like 3 levels of zoom in C&C is an artificial constraint that serves no purpose and shouldn't exist.
I have to agree that the zoom in/out of supreme commander is a LOT better for micromanaging and seeing the overall picture of whats going on.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Yes, because it would be so fair for those with 8800GTX's in SLI and quad core cpu's to zoom out and see everything, whilest the opponent on the other end with a 6600gt and a sempron 2800+ can only see his own base, no more without scrolling. Very fair indeed.
Besides, theres no need to zoom out any further than what c&c 3 allows, a little more leeway wouldve been nice but what it provides is sufficient.
With that, there goes any distraction or diversion tactics in the game. I nearly lost the other day because my opponent attacked me with a slightly smaller force, and i thought maybe its a last ditch attempt, i was focused on this battle which was taking place at my outpost, but when it was over i had lost most of my army, he had lost all of his, i lost a good chunk of my main base because he dropped in zone troopers in while i was distracted. Very good strategy, and one i now use myself. I only won because im fast and managed to fend off the zone troopers and continue mammoth production.
Also commandos would be totally useless, theyre uses are pretty limited right now with EVA always pointing it out whenever one enters visual range.
In conclusion, zoom isnt a factor for c&c3, it dosent need it because it has a lot of diverse strategys, sup com (sc is for starcraft) doesnt have the same diversity, theres no sneak tactics, you cant distract your opponent etc, the zoom function enhances its core gameplay which is build a ton of units and throw them at the enemy, prey for the best. c&c just isnt like that.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
My single 7900GTX and dual core FX!60 handles the zooming just fine, once you hit a certain point it lowers the quality by changing the units to 2D icons and other things so it's not a big deal. And the other guy would still see more than his base even his machine can't handle it, the FPS would just drop through the floor.
Of course there's a reason, I want to see more of the map and be able to move locations without panning or using the minimap.
Not at all. On larger maps you can't see the whole thing with one sensor array so you need secondary bases if you want the whole thing covered and there are units and buildings that can hide from them so unless you have visual on them you won't see them coming.
I didn't say it was bad. I said CnC is old and implied that it has been *surpassed*.
It's not sensible (building system) because it takes a whole layer of strategy out.
I did mention Shadow Teams at one time and I also made a point of not including *all* infantry. The fact that you say Shadow Teams are unstoppable on certain maps makes me question more the balance on those maps...
So it has different front and rear damage for certain units. It's still based on random number generators and it's just cumbersome to micromanage whereas in Starcraft the units respond so much quicker.
And no, I don't have to deal with a broken metagame. I play what is, in my opinion, the better game.
Strategic zoom can actually be considered a revolutionary feature in RTS and definitely has many, many uses and just generally improves the UI on so many levels. And no, specifications have nothing to do with it, as you generally get better performance as you pull back because you have to render a lower polygon count. The fact that you assumed that performance would be lowered leads me to think that you may not have ever played Supreme Commander...
Your comment on the lack of diversionary tactics, I shall rebut as such. Chris Taylor had said that his goal was to produce a true "strategy" game, one in which you would be able to manage huge battles on multiple fronts, avoiding a "skirmish" type game, like Starcraft or Command & Conquer. Attacking multiple bases with multiple forces from multiple directions isn't distracting? Play before you judge So while you critique that facet of the game, it's *meant* to be played on a greater scale, proving further the importance of the strategic zoom.
Notice I am criticizing/plugging
the games based on factual accounts and am not attacking the fanbase or conjuring up specious claims. So think about that before your argumentum ad hominem backfires any further.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
No, it hasent been surpassed, the popularity of c&c 3 speaks for itsself, it obviously does things right if so many people like it.
Wrong, your original "no chance for damage before construction" is bullcrap, you have obviously never played c&c. Know what the construction yard is for? no? Sell it whilest your building a structure, see what happens. Now pretend it was blown up by an enemy commando/airstrike/alien mothership, it dosent matter. What happened to the structure? Oh its gone! Hmm yes so techinically it can be damaged before contruction.
Oh yeah because every newly released game never needs a balance patch, starcraft was perfect from day 1 huh, so was supreme commander yeah... right... sure.
Also i mentioned more than shadow teams i gave uses for many other infantry units, these arent just made up uses, i have *actually* used the mentioned infantry for the mentioned purposes, typically to win.
BS, you simply suck at c&c 3 micromanagement, go watch a replay with the *FREE* downloadable replay viewer, watch two really good players playing on tournament arena. In fact heres a replay for you, kered13 vs reach I rarely watch replays but i watched this one. Go watch it and tell me that the micromanagement is cumbersome and slow.
Awsome, keep playing it, we dont need another "AYE GOT TANK RUSHED! OMG!!11" person in c&c 3.
Wrong, specifications have an impact on it, see heres the main problem, your on about sup com where strategic zoom works, im on about c&c 3 where strategic zoom wouldnt work, can we at least agree on that? Having played both i think its very obvious.
As for performance, no it dosent get better the more you zoom out, thats garbage, if you zoom out to the point where everythings absolutely tiny and represented by icons rather than in game units then yes, performance increases, your basically looking at a glorified mini map, it looks like a color version of a strategy game from the 80's. Sure its got its uses, *in sup com* but outside that.... nah... its not revolutionary, it wouldnt be of much if any use in other strategy games. Oh and performance sucked when zoomed out so i could see most of the map, and everything was still visible i.e. not an icon. This was on an opteton 170 with a 7900GTO, not the best, but significantly better than what should be necesary to play the game lag free
I played it, which is why i have these c&c 3 is the better game opinions and cant stand you bashing it when its the better *more fun!!* game.
Originally posted by: Ichigo
Notice I am criticizing/plugging
I dont give a rats ass if you think im conjuring up "specious claims". That says to me youve never played c&c 3. Im know im right because i actually have played *both* and i liked sup com, but c&c 3 is the better game in my opinion, and the reason i argue this is because your talking trash about c&c3's faults and generally nitpicking with issues that every game has. Maybe if you had come up with something factual rather than opinionated bs i may have agreed. Oh and you can take your latin and shove it.
Originally posted by: Soviet
No, it hasent been surpassed, the popularity of c&c 3 speaks for itsself, it obviously does things right if so many people like it.
Wrong, your original "no chance for damage before construction" is bullcrap, you have obviously never played c&c. Know what the construction yard is for? no? Sell it whilest your building a structure, see what happens. Now pretend it was blown up by an enemy commando/airstrike/alien mothership, it dosent matter. What happened to the structure? Oh its gone! Hmm yes so techinically it can be damaged before contruction.
Oh yeah because every newly released game never needs a balance patch, starcraft was perfect from day 1 huh, so was supreme commander yeah... right... sure.
Also i mentioned more than shadow teams i gave uses for many other infantry units, these arent just made up uses, i have *actually* used the mentioned infantry for the mentioned purposes, typically to win.
BS, you simply suck at c&c 3 micromanagement, go watch a replay with the *FREE* downloadable replay viewer, watch two really good players playing on tournament arena. In fact heres a replay for you, kered13 vs reach I rarely watch replays but i watched this one. Go watch it and tell me that the micromanagement is cumbersome and slow.
Awsome, keep playing it, we dont need another "AYE GOT TANK RUSHED! OMG!!11" person in c&c 3.
Wrong, specifications have an impact on it, see heres the main problem, your on about sup com where strategic zoom works, im on about c&c 3 where strategic zoom wouldnt work, can we at least agree on that? Having played both i think its very obvious.
As for performance, no it dosent get better the more you zoom out, thats garbage, if you zoom out to the point where everythings absolutely tiny and represented by icons rather than in game units then yes, performance increases, your basically looking at a glorified mini map, it looks like a color version of a strategy game from the 80's. Sure its got its uses, *in sup com* but outside that.... nah... its not revolutionary, it wouldnt be of much if any use in other strategy games. Oh and performance sucked when zoomed out so i could see most of the map, and everything was still visible i.e. not an icon. This was on an opteton 170 with a 7900GTO, not the best, but significantly better than what should be necesary to play the game lag free
I played it, which is why i have these c&c 3 is the better game opinions and cant stand you bashing it when its the better *more fun!!* game.
Originally posted by: Ichigo
Notice I am criticizing/plugging
I dont give a rats ass if you think im conjuring up "specious claims". That says to me youve never played c&c 3. Im know im right because i actually have played *both* and i liked sup com, but c&c 3 is the better game in my opinion, and the reason i argue this is because your talking trash about c&c3's faults and generally nitpicking with issues that every game has. Maybe if you had come up with something factual rather than opinionated bs i may have agreed. Oh and you can take your latin and shove it.
Does this imply that you love Halo, Final Fantasy, Pokemon, etc.? Are those games "unsurpassed"?
Oh and, come on, CnC treats buildings like units. If the yard gets blown up, construction is canceled. So, "technically", it was never there to be damaged. You're avoiding the point. I said it removes a layer of strategy not to be able to attack a constructing base defence (even though they aren't exactly strong in this game...). You obviously don't care that buildings are treated as units. You find no fault in this. That's FINE. Just do not argue that destroying a construction yard counts as "damaging" a base defence that might have popped out halfway across the map.
Trying to criticize another game doesn't excuse CnC from anything.
Yes, I don't play CnC at a *high* level. I'm sorry I "suck". I'm more criticizing the difficulty to drag-select certain units within a group, the units' slow response time to my actions, etc. If higher level players are able to get past this, more power to them.
Hi, don't put words in my mouth. I do not talk like that and do not need to be generalized as such. But there sure are a lot of those people... 1337speak as they may be, their numbers still mean something.
While I wouldn't need strategic zoom to control a couple dozen units in CnC within a one mile radius, I do enjoy the ability to not have to pan the map to change my location, as some users have pointed out. It's faster and more accurate to me. It also gives me a chance to glance at the entire battlefield, but that's just icing.
And are you on the latest patch, because there is a noted performance boost, recognized by the majority of the SupCom population. I guess you may have stopped playing it, but then you'd be critiquing an obsolete version of SupCom. This is assuming you weren't playing with unrealistic settings in the first place. And by the way, I'm doing fine post-patch with a A64 3200+ and X800XL @1920x1200 with low-med settings. Fidelity and textures are on medium.
No one is attacking your love of CnC. I'm pointing out my criticisms of the game backed up with facts and my experiences. I assumed "bashing" would constitute more of what you are doing, because you do care about me thinking that you are conjuring up "specious claims", otherwise you wouldn't sound so angry. And no, I do not think you're right. That's why there's an argument going on. Every game does not have the faults that I am pointing out (huge balance issues, for example, to which you agreed and told me to deal with it).
There is no need to insult the use of what I learn in school, okay?
I find CnC to be free of the bugs and technical issues that plagued me with the Battlefield series. Sadly, this time the gameplay is lacking and doesn't hold much interest for me except playing through the single-player campaign to watch the cut scenes and Allison Cameron.
Maximilian
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Originally posted by: Ichigo
Does this imply that you love Halo, Final Fantasy, Pokemon, etc.? Are those games "unsurpassed"?
The games themselves have been, their gameplay hasent. FPS is still FPS as far as im concerned, cant vouch for the other two games.
Base defences arent strong? Base defences are very strong in this game, besides i wouldnt call attacking a half built building a strategy.... its more of a blind luck thing. "Oh look! that obelisk of light isnt finished yet, we're in luck lads! lets take it down"
Apology accepted
What you talk like is irrelevant, 1337 speek or not, people that moan about tank rushes can all be lumped into the same category. Dont like tank rushes? Dont play tank rush maps, dont play good players, dont play c&c 3, theyre all viable options.
How can text sound angry? Your ragging on an excellent game, you need to be educated on the facts about it.
Yes thats because every game gets patched, c&c 3 has not had its balance patch yet, its only been out for a few months. Most strategy games need a balance patch. The balance issues are not huge for c&c 3, they are few in number and easily fixable.
Originally posted by: Ichigo
Sadly, this time the gameplay is lacking and doesn't hold much interest for me except playing through the single-player campaign to watch the cut scenes and Allison Cameron.
I liked the gameplay, it is similar to RA2 and c&c TD. Jeniffer morrison was a hottie in it too agreed on that one point :thumbsup:
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
How can a game be surpassed but the gameplay not? What are you trying to say?
Attacking half built base defences is not "blind luck" more than sending waves of predator tanks and hoping that they'll overwhelm the opponent's scorpion tanks.
You're completely illegitimizing their complaints by saying there's no problems with balance at all. If you don't like your country's government, you should move out or just stop complaining altogether? An exaggerated analogy, but still.
I've played the game. I know the "facts". And a fact is not "It's an excellent game". Whether or not you like it, it does not discount its faults.
Since you're ignoring the tank imbalance, I guess there really isn't a big problem.
Hey, at least your grammar has steadily improved with each subsequent post. ^5
Attacking half built base defences is not "blind luck" more than sending waves of predator tanks and hoping that they'll overwhelm the opponent's scorpion tanks.
You're completely illegitimizing their complaints by saying there's no problems with balance at all. If you don't like your country's government, you should move out or just stop complaining altogether? An exaggerated analogy, but still.
I've played the game. I know the "facts". And a fact is not "It's an excellent game". Whether or not you like it, it does not discount its faults.
Since you're ignoring the tank imbalance, I guess there really isn't a big problem.
Hey, at least your grammar has steadily improved with each subsequent post. ^5
I'm digging SupCom. It's the interface that makes the difference. Period.
C&C hasn't really improved their control structure in a couple games. It still feels like Warcraft 2. In SupCom it's just far easier to see what's going on and change it. You're micromanaging unbelievable numbers of units but it doesn't feel like micromanaging.
Zoom out, point at area of interest, Zoom in. Tada! Use the 2nd monitor at the strategic level or zoom it on your home base or that bottleneck you expect trouble from.
There's also quite a bit of attention to detail in the SupCom interface. The radar and point defense ranges for example. The ability to drag waypoints around. Technically it's also a "farm" type of RTS but it just doesn't have that hassle of traditional resource gathering. I guess all this stuff is what TA was renowed for but I never really played it.
As for hardware - I don't consider this a valid gripe for any game. If your hardware won't cut it and that's an issue for you maybe you should consider buying a console. SupCom pulls off more with hardware than any game out there (yes, any game). It spins up all your multiple cores and multiple graphics cards and actually makes use of your investment. What SupCom has done with hardware borders on revolutionary. Why aren't other game developers doing this? They know gamers buy the pimp stuff but nobody outside John Carmack seems to leverage it.
Me? Running 1280x1024 on one mon, 1440x900 on the other. Everything maxed, shadows bumped down one notch. Runs smooth as silk and I've not yet applied the "performance" patch. All this on a top end machine from about 6months ago AMD 4600x2, NVidia 7950gx2, 2gig ram.
C&C hasn't really improved their control structure in a couple games. It still feels like Warcraft 2. In SupCom it's just far easier to see what's going on and change it. You're micromanaging unbelievable numbers of units but it doesn't feel like micromanaging.
Zoom out, point at area of interest, Zoom in. Tada! Use the 2nd monitor at the strategic level or zoom it on your home base or that bottleneck you expect trouble from.
There's also quite a bit of attention to detail in the SupCom interface. The radar and point defense ranges for example. The ability to drag waypoints around. Technically it's also a "farm" type of RTS but it just doesn't have that hassle of traditional resource gathering. I guess all this stuff is what TA was renowed for but I never really played it.
As for hardware - I don't consider this a valid gripe for any game. If your hardware won't cut it and that's an issue for you maybe you should consider buying a console. SupCom pulls off more with hardware than any game out there (yes, any game). It spins up all your multiple cores and multiple graphics cards and actually makes use of your investment. What SupCom has done with hardware borders on revolutionary. Why aren't other game developers doing this? They know gamers buy the pimp stuff but nobody outside John Carmack seems to leverage it.
Me? Running 1280x1024 on one mon, 1440x900 on the other. Everything maxed, shadows bumped down one notch. Runs smooth as silk and I've not yet applied the "performance" patch. All this on a top end machine from about 6months ago AMD 4600x2, NVidia 7950gx2, 2gig ram.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter