Forum Discussion
3 Replies
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.
@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
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
Recent Discussions
- 6 days ago
- 6 days ago
- 6 days ago