Am I The Only One Who...

What I prefer is a game actually having a mid and end game.

Thus my suggestion (as the point of the commander is spesificly to defend againsr rushes) to equip commanders with a effective AA weapon.

Well, yeah. My point was that asking the game developers to solve a social problem with game balance is terminally stupid. The answer to 'I don't like rushes' is not 'screw up the game so the style of gameplay i like is the only one', it's 'maybe I shouldn't play with random strangers on the internet'.

How would equiping commanders with AA weapons screw up rushing?

Unless you belive that commanders having any wepaons at all is a bad idea?

But as a joke about before, whenever people make comments about changing the early game there are always comments from people who complain that players should simply predict rushing and adapt accordingly.

It seems like thouse players are awefuly defencive of their rushing, and seem afraid about the posibillity about it being taken away.

So is it the inexperiance of players? or the fear from expirinced players not wanting to adapt from their favorite noob bashing stratigy?

I was responding to your earlier post. AA on the commander is a great idea, actually. It fixes early air rushing without breaking anything.

Rushing is high-risk/high-reward and it totally has a legitimate place in online play. As long as the completely broken rushes are balanced out there's no reason at all why it should be impossible to rush, it should just be one option out of many, and rushing should impose enough of an opportunity cost that if it fails, the rusher is in serious trouble.

Then at least we were constuctive today.

Ah. But is it a standard weapon, or a special ability? The D-gun, while sweet against ground units, did not have any traits that made it good against air. Something else will be needed. Maybe a D-flak? :roll:

The Comm may not need an AA weapon at all, if another ability ends up nearly unbreakable through air. There aren't many ways to pull that off, but it's possible.

Having a mid and end depends on the players. If the player is significantly better, he will eliminate his opponent in the beginning. If you got rid of rushing, than he would still win, but it would take longer.

The most annoying thing I find about annihilation type game modes is spending extra Tim winning a game you "won long ago". If I can beat a player in 5 minutes, I don't want to spend 15 minutes playing him.

I would suggest just a normal weapon.

and just becuse I am that kinda guy, I home it will also have AOE as to ward of small groups of gunships too.

afterall we gotta cover the weapons most OP form before people do it for us!

I remain skeptical that a standard weapon will have the necessary kick to handle air threats. It is by design that air units can skip past defenses and rush for the prize. If the Comm is in their sights(a good incentive to stay out of sight!), no force in the verse can keep them away.

But then again, if keeping aircraft away is such a concern, maybe the solution is to bring them in a bit closer?

I guess it could have an EMP effect to totally lock enemy craft down.

Magnitizing aircraft? What, did you fall asleep while playing supcom 2? :lol:

RTS games are all about efficiency in terms of time and resource usage. Being faster is always going to be a good thing compared to being slow, and because of that rushing is pretty much always possible in some form.

if rushing is too hard then the early game will be fairly stagnant IMO.

It seems igncom isn't talking about "rushing" but a very specific kind of rush that ruined his game in a very specific game that is not PA.

I think it's a bit early to complain about that kind of broken strategy, especially considering "broken strategies" are in a different category than "rushes".

This, and people should not confuse a rush and an all-in rush.

Well can you blame me?

I feel that as long as a player has the time to build a bunch of economy and a factory, and also has a commander who can defend from any attack then we should be alright.

But you couldn't actually magnetize aircraft in supcom 2. Virtually nothing cool worked against air units.

:lol:

I dont like rushes that much, but just tureling and massing an army is even worse.
I think tureling is just pretty lame, because there just happens nothing, its like u playing alone! Some Sim-City playstyle at the beginning is ok... but if nothing happens until both have an maxed Army, its just super lame.
People who do sth(map control, expanding, some sort of attacking) should be rewarded, like with more ressources. Of course there should be defencive structures. but theese shouldnt be to strong, the same for sieging units/anti siege, wich can make a game freeze for hours.

siege/assualt should be very efficent at their job.

And as I have suggsted before, advanced defences that cost energy to fire will mean that you will require a large economy before defensing becomes easy, so turteling will require a player to have a fair part of the map before teching to balistic missiles.

I have nothing against turteling as long as siege is just as effective, as turteling is as valid as any stratigy, and should require the resources of any normal stratigy.

If the commander can defend any attack (I assume not any so I'll say any attack possible in the first 5 minutes) then there is no point attacking. Each game would have 5 minutes of no player interaction which is effectively build order time.

The part of the game before the players interact is at best time spent reciting a boring build order and at worse it is a build order with blind RPS. I like to have player interaction as soon as possible (interaction includes scouting).

Reclaiming.
Map scouting.
Harassing.
Grabbing and denying extractors.
Spotting enemy build orders.
Racing to planetary conquest.

There's no shortage of ways to gain an advantage in the early game. Just don't expect to beeline for the throat. Although if you do good enough, the game would be over pretty quick.