The reason for "finalizing" after building?

[fuegerstef]

I really would like to know the reason for the few seconds of "finalizing" after a building is finished.

You get the audio signal that the building is finished but you still have to wait a few seconds in which you cannot build as the building is "finalizing".

Why not just tell the building is finished after it actually is finished??


I mean, look, I am really really glad they changed the dreadful way things are built in C&C (user unfriendly) and maybe the finalizing is the "inconvinience" C&C fans are expecting when building (we all know how fandom goes: "Building doesn't suck as much in Tempest Rising. So it is not in the spirit of C&C. So the game sucks.")

[Lotor13]

Originally posted by fuegerstef:

I really would like to know the reason for the few seconds of "finalizing" after a building is finished.

You get the audio signal that the building is finished but you still have to wait a few seconds in which you cannot build as the building is "finalizing".

Why not just tell the building is finished after it actually is finished??

+1
Yes, this should be fixed,

Originally posted by fuegerstef:

I mean, look, I am really really glad they changed the dreadful way things are built in C&C (user unfriendly) and maybe the finalizing is the "inconvinience"

I also like how buildings are build in Tempest Rising. There

Originally posted by fuegerstef:

C&C fans are expecting when building (we all know how fandom goes: "Building doesn't suck as much in Tempest Rising. So it is not in the spirit of C&C. So the game sucks.")

These people, who complain about (irrelevant) details are minority, most of the C&C fans are glad, that Tempest Rising in classic C&C is comming.

[JefferyNothing]

Yeah I agree with this. There doesn't really seem to be a reason for it and it just adds unnecessary time onto the construction

Why not have the little drone take off from the con yard as it nears 100% instead of having it do it after during the finalisation part

Tbh though I'd rather it just be like C&C where you click a building to build and it just does it in the side bar, once its ready you place it. So much easier

[fuegerstef]

Originally posted by Titus:

lding to build and it just does it in the side bar, once its ready you place it. So much easier

No, it is actually not.

1) You have to go to the sidebar once and click the building.
2) Now you either wait and waste time until the "building" is finished or do something else.
3) You have to go to the menu again, select the building and place it.

So, you either wasted time waiting or have to go to the menu a second time if you had done something else during "build" time.

So much slower, more cumbersome, less user friendly and definitely not easier than going to the menu once, selecting the building and placing it.

And to make matters worse, C&C and RA had a "finalizing" animation too after you placed it. Maybe it carried over to Tempest Rising from there.
But the whole thing should have changed right after Dune 2 (where no finalizing was present and the building took place in the sidebar due to memory constraints and totally different building mechanics) instead of being carried over to C&C.

[JefferyNothing]

Nah it’s much easier and faster. Plus you actually know when the building you’ve built has been built. You’re wasting time early on waiting to do something on either one anyway. The finalise animation is the construction animation once you place the building. And it doesn’t last as long as the one in this.

[fuegerstef]

Originally posted by Titus:

Plus you actually know when the building you’ve built has been built..

Yeah, right. One never knows when the building is built in other systems. Are you trying to be funny or collect Jesers with your posts?

EDIT:
Oh, I see. The reason no other bigger RTS than C&C (Tempest Rising abandoned it for a good reason) uses that dreadful system you love so much is evidence enough that you aren't serious in what you write. Additionally the lack of explaination how having to access the menu twice is faster than only once makes it obvious you are going for Jesters. So I gave you one. :)

[JefferyNothing]

Yeah it’s so bad that’s why it was used in pretty much every base building RTS. Seems like you’re the joker here you can have one too

[fuegerstef]

Originally posted by Titus:

Yeah it’s so bad that’s why it was used in pretty much every base building RTS. Seems like you’re the joker here you can have one too

It wasn't used in other major RTSs.

And maybe you can explain why the other modern C&C-Clones here on Steam (GC, CL, etc ...) use the better system?

Not even Petroglyph is using the old style anymore. (Petroglyph = lot's of Westwood people). Even if their newer games have the same menu layout as C&C they use the better building system now.

And look, C&C Generals also had switched to the better system.

EDIT: Oh, I see. A Level 0 account for smurfing and farming clowns. That explains it. :-)
Now, that we have cleared that and agree with all RTS-devs out there that the new system is better we can finally talk about the "finalizing" again.

[Dalv]

It wasnt used in other major RTS indeed, and for good reason. That was a bad concept that didnt really work. Imagine a situation late game where you have to lay down lots of buildings at once, but they are actually stuck on the menu bar like you have only "ordered" them for now, you gotta now pick them up from there, scrolling and cycling through different columns for different building types and see which is ready, when in reality you already clicked them to be built, so you shouldnt do it again for placing them down. The placing down layout for building should be enough for a building to be built, after which the building is built there by a worker or through time.
It's the same reason they didnt do that for units being recruited. You click the units and they are trained and they show up on the map, you don't have to click again for them to deploy. So why have that for buildings?

I would argue here that they could have used a builder system like in Age of Empires or Starcraft, having a builder unit that needs to build it. This adds depth to the game because the worker can be killed, thus needing to be protected, thus involving a risk and creative process.

[jonoliveira12]

Originally posted by Dalv:

It wasnt used in other major RTS indeed, and for good reason. That was a bad concept that didnt really work. Imagine a situation late game where you have to lay down lots of buildings at once, but they are actually stuck on the menu bar like you have only "ordered" them for now, you gotta now pick them up from there, scrolling and cycling through different columns for different building types and see which is ready, when in reality you already clicked them to be built, so you shouldnt do it again for placing them down. The placing down layout for building should be enough for a building to be built, after which the building is built there by a worker or through time.
It's the same reason they didnt do that for units being recruited. You click the units and they are trained and they show up on the map, you don't have to click again for them to deploy. So why have that for buildings?

I would argue here that they could have used a builder system like in Age of Empires or Starcraft, having a builder unit that needs to build it. This adds depth to the game because the worker can be killed, thus needing to be protected, thus involving a risk and creative process.

Peon systems (workers) just slow down the gameplay, and make peon sniping way too great a factor in gameplay, which actually made Generals rather annoying to play against GLA, for example, since they were great at diving in and sniping Dozers/Workers, for very little investment, which would just stop both other factions in their tracks (GLA themselves had a lot of workers, and Tunnels to hide them in, so they did have some counterplay to their own strat), and made GLA far too dominant in the MP scene.

I prefer the ConYard system, it is easier to work with, and avoids worker micro on the building part, making sure you only have to defend both your base and Harvesters, which is not only truer to C&C, but also fairer for such a fast gameplay style.

[Bovril Brigadier]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Peon systems (workers) just slow down the gameplay, and make peon sniping way too great a factor in gameplay, which actually made Generals rather annoying to play against GLA, for example, since they were great at diving in and sniping Dozers/Workers, for very little investment, which would just stop both other factions in their tracks (GLA themselves had a lot of workers, and Tunnels to hide them in, so they did have some counterplay to their own strat), and made GLA far too dominant in the MP scene.

To be honest the MP scene for Generals was dominated by GLA and China because the USA was just so cost inefficient. You did occasionally see them in a team game but they weren't great, too reliant on mid-late game stuff. Then again USA also arguably has the most cut content, especially in ZH, a lot of which would have given them a better fighter chance early game.

[Cat]

Ah yes, GLA building tunnel networks all over the map because their workers are too efficient. Put some Scud launchers in them and you basically have a long-range wmd base defense that only costs $800 as long as your launchers are in there.

Generals building system favours the GLA, especially when they don't need power. Building outposts and tunnels at multiple supply docks simultaneously really gives good map control.

[Bovril Brigadier]

Originally posted by Cat:

Ah yes, GLA building tunnel networks all over the map because their workers are too efficient. Put some Scud launchers in them and you basically have a long-range wmd base defense that only costs $800 as long as your launchers are in there.

Generals building system favours the GLA, especially when they don't need power. Building outposts and tunnels at multiple supply docks simultaneously really gives good map control.

That is if they don't crush you with a Marauder rush in opening minutes.

[Exar kun]

Originally posted by Cat:

Ah yes, GLA building tunnel networks all over the map because their workers are too efficient. Put some Scud launchers in them and you basically have a long-range wmd base defense that only costs $800 as long as your launchers are in there.

Generals building system favours the GLA, especially when they don't need power. Building outposts and tunnels at multiple supply docks simultaneously really gives good map control.

Have to chime in and add how OP GLA really; No they don't NEED power but if they get a jarmen kell to neutralize a dozer- then make a scaffold at their home base a worker can finish that building which leads to GLA getting +100% build speed... GLA have the worker that doubles as a resource gather AND builder at the same time and is built at 2 bulidings while the other factions don't. GLA buildings can't be 1-shot, even if you do there's gonna be a manhole left that will spawn a worker to rebuild it after a short time.

But lets get back to topic here, Yes Tempest Rising as it regards to building constrution is stupid; its trying to have Conyard construction and worker (drone) construction while trying to be the worst of both with none of the advantages... Conyard would you let build, lets say? A guard tower, you build it for when a enemy engineer gets close to your buildings, when they do you plop it down but that finalize command prevents it from being useful even if that's removed the time delay for the drone to put said structure there still makes its horrid. Only thing it does do is make is the gap in PVP between low vs high apm players MUCH greater, which leads me to believe this is not a new CNC but new SC.

[jonoliveira12]

GLA could just mass Quad Cannons and win, that is how broken they were.
Even China could not really compete, specially because Dozer sniping mecanics heavily favoured GLA players over both USA and China players.

That is why I am against the Peon system for games like this. Keep that for the -caft and AoE titles.
Modern warfare is too fast and brutal, to have players microing workers away from combat. Even Stacraft mostly plays like a fantasy game, not a futuristic warfare one.

[Exar kun]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

GLA could just mass Quad Cannons and win, that is how broken they were.
Even China could not really compete, specially because Dozer sniping mecanics heavily favoured GLA players over both USA and China players.

...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyfapHlD7Ug
Counter THAT, any of that, I dare you to try... Well Aircraft General might be able to rush out fast enough but not sure which GLA General is the most OP, they all were and then there was the unreleased BOSS GLA general which is in the game just you couldn't face them, due to no map or whatever but..... Quadtank, there was other stuff he has but its that thing scares me.