Forum Discussion

3 Replies

  • Mister_Crac's avatar
    Mister_Crac
    6 years ago

    I think the mistake that was made here is this:

    It was made harder to harass the harvesters by nerfing all the early units that were good for this task, like Bikes, Pitbull, Mohawk. But then, if harassing harvesters becomes more difficult, then it also follows that there is less risk involved in using harvesters. It then follows that if the risk is lower, then the rewards must also be lower. Low risk --> low reward, high risk --> high reward. It does not really make sense otherwise.

  • igorjkriger's avatar
    igorjkriger
    6 years ago

    @Mister_Crac  написал (-а):

    I think the mistake that was made here is this:

    It was made harder to harass the harvesters by nerfing all the early units that were good for this task, like Bikes, Pitbull, Mohawk. But then, if harassing harvesters becomes more difficult, then it also follows that there is less risk involved in using harvesters. It then follows that if the risk is lower, then the rewards must also be lower. Low risk --> low reward, high risk --> high reward. It does not really make sense otherwise.


    But this is the game mechanics. I think the developers will not change the game mechanics. This makes no sense. The game is almost dead

  • Mister_Crac's avatar
    Mister_Crac
    6 years ago

    If a balance patch can be made to change a value for a unit, then surely a balance patch can be made to change a value for the harvesting of Tiberium. It's the same effort.

About Command & Conquer Franchise Discussion

Chat about your favorite games in the Command and Conquer franchise and get help from the player community.13,574 PostsLatest Activity: 2 days ago