Even players who start off with 2 harvestor without any unit, and i start with 2 missile or laser troops before i build a harvestor, they still get away with it half the time. These days u got so many players with 3 to 4 tech units in their deck, and for a reason too. How can the devs not notice this? Its totally nuts.
The game was multi dimensional before. Now its just a race to getting tech out asap. Sad situation.
It seems that tech is the new meta, and the reason behind this is harvesters. Those weaponless armored vehicles should be given a Nerf so tech is not much of a problem. I'd say one is allowed to use up to 4 harvesters, the unit limit is increased by 3 more bars and each harvester ordered after the previous one gives 25% less of the tiberium harvester by the previous one. !st provides 100%, the 2nd is 75%, the 3rd is 50% and the last is 25%. Tech is so annoying to players who don't use it, I'd ask the units to be more expensive and durable or cheaper and weaker. I don't want cheap and durable tech units or expensive and weaker tech units. First one's a nightmare and the other is just plain ridiculous.
@EinarThePillager wrote:It seems that tech is the new meta, and the reason behind this is harvesters. Those weaponless armored vehicles should be given a Nerf so tech is not much of a problem. I'd say one is allowed to use up to 4 harvesters, the unit limit is increased by 3 more bars and each harvester ordered after the previous one gives 25% less of the tiberium harvester by the previous one. !st provides 100%, the 2nd is 75%, the 3rd is 50% and the last is 25%. Tech is so annoying to players who don't use it, I'd ask the units to be more expensive and durable or cheaper and weaker. I don't want cheap and durable tech units or expensive and weaker tech units. First one's a nightmare and the other is just plain ridiculous.
The easy solution for this is for the 1st harvester to be free and each subsequent 2nd harvester has a cost of 30 tiberium. This will ensure that the player spends money defending their harvesters. As it is, many players don't even care if you blow up harvesters. They just spam another free one.
The only free one should be the 1st whether it's in the beginning of the game or afterwards if both of their harvesters are destroyed. Then the 1st harvester again is free.
@Artriedes wrote:These days u got so many players with 3 to 4 tech units in their deck, and for a reason too. How can the devs not notice this? Its totally nuts.
The game was multi dimensional before. Now its just a race to getting tech out asap. Sad situation.
I completely agree. Decks with four tech units are a disgrace. They shouldn't be viable.
I think the idea of the cost of the techlab getting reduced when you buy other buildings should be used by players more, instead of going 3-3 (any building + techlab). It's very annoying to fight these 3-3 players. I have 2 suggestions how to discourage people from going 3-3 (or 2-4 or 1-5):
1) Techlab costs 180, but cost gets reduced by the cost of the building that you construct:
When techlab costs 180 and you have baracks, you can lower the cost down to 150. This is 30 more than to this point. It doesn't seem to be much, but getting those 30 more tib might cost some time. This time is very valuable for people who want to close the game ASAP because they are running an aggro deck.
The cost of the techlab will be reduced by the cost of the constructed building instead of just 30 so that the intended purpose of the cost reduction does not change - people should still be able to squeze some tech units in their deck without having to go double harvester. This change was made to compensate for the 30 tib increase of the techlab. Very simple. If you do the math, a techlab with 150 cost and all other buildings with the current system will cost 60, and a techlab with 180 cost and all other buildings with this system will still cost 60.
So basically what I'm trying to do with this change: discourage people from going pure tech, while allowing people to use tech if they have just some tech units in their deck.
2) Rebuilding a harvester costs 10 (OR: Rebuilding the second harvester costs 30)
I really want that this change will be implemented as an experiment. I want to see what a rebuild cost of 10 for harvesters will do to both tech players and also non-tech players. I hope that this change accomplishes the following:
If a player keeps loosing his harvesters because he just can't defend them, he can't get tech out. His mission was to defend the harvesters long enough so that his tech can be deployed. If this mission fails, he should loose the game. Right now this does not always happen, because even loosing 1-3 harvesters does not necessarily mean a defeat for the tech player, which should be the case.
However, this change can affect non-tech players negatively too, since loosing their only harvester is a bigger drawback now. This is why I had another idea to solve the tech-problem:
Rebuilding your first harvester is free. That means if you have 1 harvester on the field and it gets destroyed, it won't cost you anything, even if it gets destroyed multiple times. But if you had 2 harvesters on the field and 1 gets destroyed, you will now have to pay 30 tib. If you had 2 out and both get destroyed, rebuilding the first one is free, but the second one costs 30. This change will directly target the tech players and will hurt them, should they be unable to accomplish their mission - defending their harvesters.
These are the ideas I have. At least one of them should be implemented. Any one of them will greatly help the aggro players to fight tech players, while still giving tech players a chance if they manage to defend their harvesters.
I have thought this idea was ridiculous ever since I heard it, but I just remembered a game where a my opponent didn't even try to defend his harvesters. He only built a few wardogs at the beginning. I killed three harvesters. Then he started pumping out Mammoth tanks.
I lose very few harvesters, but when I do, it's usually fatal. I don't really understand how I can kill three harvesters and still get overrun by multiple mammoths.
@Zardac_the_Great wrote:I have thought this idea was ridiculous ever since I heard it, but I just remembered a game where a my opponent didn't even try to defend his harvesters. He only built a few wardogs at the beginning. I killed three harvesters. Then he started pumping out Mammoth tanks.
I lose very few harvesters, but when I do, it's usually fatal. I don't really understand how I can kill three harvesters and still get overrun by multiple mammoths.
See? There needs to be a bigger punishment if you loose your harvesters.
I really think my suggestion of setting the rebuild cost of the second harvester to 30 will be very impactful. However, rebuilding your first harvester should still stay free.
I have played every C&C title I've ever come across. It was a real surprise to rebuild harvesters for free. This is the first time I've ever had that happen. I think I would probably not be averse to paying for rebuilt harvesters.
Sounds reasonable to me. Now how can we convince them to change the implementation?
@xMaksuss wrote:See? There needs to be a bigger punishment if you loose your harvesters.
I really think my suggestion of setting the rebuild cost of the second harvester to 30 will be very impactful. However, rebuilding your first harvester should still stay free.
@Mister_Crac wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me. Now how can we convince them to change the implementation?
They already added the option to surrender. There was a thread here that suggested an implementation of a surrender button. This shows that the devs are reading the posts. They just don‘t reply (which they should tbh). That means if we make it clear that tech is not in a good state right now, they might change some things.
Devs, add an experimental 10-rebuild-cost to harvesters for a week. I want to see how much this will affect the game. Or add the 30-rebuild-cost for the second harvester (as I explained above) as an experiment and see how people react to it.
@Mister_Crac wrote:Sounds reasonable to me. Now how can we convince them to change the implementation?
@xMaksuss wrote:See? There needs to be a bigger punishment if you loose your harvesters.
I really think my suggestion of setting the rebuild cost of the second harvester to 30 will be very impactful. However, rebuilding your first harvester should still stay free.
Well, let me just forecast what would happened if they allowed tech players to dominate the meta for too long. It would be an impending threat to their player base as most high ranking players use aggro instead of tech. If tech is allowed to dominate, new and old players would leave out of frustration (more on this later). It is often quite difficult to defeat tech players cause the units are like 2x stronger compared to their non-tech counterparts. A wolverine can mow through more infantry than a rhino can and predators are diminutive compared to centurions or titans.
New players leave and their curiosity for the game gets sapped cause of tech. They don't know how to beat it and begrudgingly quit. We would probably lose more new players on a daily basis if tech is allowed to dominate the meta than for aggro. Old players would have a hard time climbing up cause of all the tech players around. When a player goes tech, he can easily wrestle control of the missile pads and remove the player who doesn't tech. Most players prefer aggro as the units are not expensive. It is also difficult to defeat tech if your using a two way counter.
