Start game conditions (changed in master)

[Emdek]

Per, yes, in theory it is simple and logical, but apparently pretty big change not in favor of players (at least not absolutely for everyone).
In case when something is taken from someone then he should get something instead.

Just an idea, what about to give player (that one who was direct previous owner of that structure) ability to rebuild oil derrick earlier, decrease time limit and allow them to build even when it is still on fire (while other players would still need to wait to take over it) or simply allow them to put that fire out to keep it more logical.
This would be kind of compensation for that change (and all such changes preferably should come that way along, when something is taken from players then they should get something new instead, at least in most cases).

[Reg312]

@Rommel
- high oil games does not count as standards games. so balance and other gameplay stuff did not designed for high-oil games.
(but i suggest add high oil maps and adjust balance for high oil).
- price of derricks does not lead to more micromanagement
playesr just adjust their build orders and strategy

@aubergine
- run out of cash = lose.
and you can use barrels, recycling, destruction of buildings.
"balance" applied only to Multiplayer games
- "additional constant power" - sounds weird for me, but i think it cannot do worse

@NoQ
"Please don't help players recover once they have been defeated."
strongly agreed!
looks like other disputants dont play MP games
Hey people, i'ts is balance thread, and balance applied only for multiplayer. Things like random barrels and constant oil income making MP games worser in several aspects.

@Emdek

In case when something is taken from someone then he should get something instead.

why???
one of major rules - dont make things more complex. we should not implement additional functionality if not need.
free derricks produce some issues like truck race, too fast expand (defensive tactics dont work in most low-oil games)

@Per
- paid derricks should be tested more before implement it in game. i wait for warzone release with fixed map-mod bug, so i can create map-mod for testing future balance changes. Tried paid derricks 1 time - players was angry of paid derricks and left game (but i think they just noobs)
- derricks also should receive more HP and armor. now is better spent 100$, build mg tower and damage 2-3 enemy derricks.(you spend 100, enemy lost 300). it is impossible to protect your base derricks from early mg tower rush (if enemy build mg tower close to your derricks)


Paid derrick can do work only for early game and truck racings.
I see problem in team game or in ffa (4 player and more), if someone leaves game or lost base - winning player get additional base and increases his forces twice.
Capturing a base should not increase forces in 2 times.
So i suggest to make derricks upgradable or decrease power income with each next derrick... dont know..

[Emdek]

@Emdek

In case when something is taken from someone then he should get something instead.

why???
one of major rules - dont make things more complex. we should not implement additional functionality if not need.
free derricks produce some issues like truck race, too fast expand (defensive tactics dont work in most low-oil games)

Yes, things shouldn't be made more complex if that doesn't give benefits, but there is another issue, since this is a change done to already established "ecosystem", so even purely good changes (and I don't consider it as best solution for real issue) can be met with criticism.

[NoQ]

- paid derricks should be tested more before implement it in game. i wait for warzone release with fixed map-mod bug, so i can create map-mod for testing future balance changes.

I wish for everybody to get a master snapshot and go play it (:

[Reg312]

..since this is a change done to already established "ecosystem", so even purely good changes (and I don't consider it as best solution for real issue) can be met with criticism.

i think it's ok if some player will hate devs after such changes
better do good thing than keep good face and do nothing

"ecosystem"? most games happen on flat maps with 40 oil's per base, and in same time such games counted as non-supported.
so current MP players forced to spend additional 4000 power (this is about 60 twin mg tanks!)

criticism cannot be avoided anyway, so i think is wrong to try compensate effect

I wish for everybody to get a master snapshot and go play it (:

first problem - you need install it every time and check version with another players (i say about win-users of course)
i can ask 2-3 good players for such testing games, but better and easier to use map-mod.
also it is just hard to find opponents for good game on master version or map-mod

[Emdek]

Reg312, as "ecosystem" I mean current game rules plus current players.
So current players are accustomed to current rules, they won't like changes, especially if their strategy dependent on them, they will need to adapt to them, and nobody likes to change own customs.

And compensation rule was meant to be more generic, not necessary to be applied to each such change, but if we will be only simplifying things we will sooner or later end up with single unit class that does everything.
That was joke, but making things simpler isn't always good. Look at all those games that pursuit over simplicity to try get more players but that do disappoint those who want real challenge...

[Reg312]

That was joke, but making things simpler isn't always good. Look at all those games that pursuit over simplicity to try get more players but that do disappoint those who want real challenge...

i agree
i just think better add nice functionality like orders for defenses, more informative design UI, accuracy system etc., than add functionality to compensate something.
May be better way to compensate is just reduce changes twice (set derricks price as 100/k, where k - is compensation coefficient and k = 2)

[aubergine]

What if when last derrick is destroyed, player is given $100 so they can at least build another derrick. Easy to implement in rules.js:

Code: Select all

function eventDestroyed(obj) {
  if (obj.type == STRUCTURE
      && obj.stattype == RESOURCE_EXTRACTOR
      && !countStruct(A0ResourceExtractor)
      && playerPower()<100)
  {
      setPower( 100-playerPower() );
      console("Running on emergency power! Build a derrick, cancel production/research orders, recycle units/buildings to gain power.");
  }
}

Those players that refuse to gg in mp are going to refuse to gg in mp no matter what you do. At least this way their remaining truck will stay put while it tries to build a derrick, making them easier to find and kill.

BTW: AI's currently can't cancel factory or research orders and are very susceptible to death by derrick destruction. They can have huge army and base, all it takes to knock out an AI is some well targeted VTOL strikes on their derricks.

[Emdek]

Reg312, well, but compensation in form of adding even some unrelated but very appreciated change is also better since player will need to adapt once, not twice. Simply release more than one bigger change at a time, it's probably better to "break" things once than more often (that applies to changes that are more like revolution than evolution, not sure where to put this one, it's too relative...).

aubergine, I would like more some other way, like ability for that player to extinguish that derrick earlier etc.
Since how it would be logically explained source of such power bonus? Power generator would be somehow able to get power from oil burning freely?

[aubergine]

Backup power = just like when your laptop runs out of power then suddenly announces it's got a secret stash of power that's just enough to let you save your work and shutdown before all is lost. I think it's a concept end users will be familiar with. And it can't be cheated - eg. user can't just keep destroying their one derrick to gain power, as the power gained = cost to rebuild the derrick.

[Emdek]

aubergine, maybe a bit too secret (laptop starts warning when it shows that it still has at least 5% battery available, also such things are more like side effect of how batteries works than intentional).
But maybe in a form of option to set such reserve for critical situations (enabled by default)?
Or a way to store some power in form similar to oil drums, but available (and visible only to) player?
Well, it is hard to get concept that would be logical enough and not too complex.

[Iluvalar]

You don't need such bad explanation. The power come from the same source than the starting power. In warzone, there is only in cam1 that you are the only survivor of your clan. Anywhere else there is other bases outside the map.

[Emdek]

Iluvalar, yeah, but for MP is not exactly like campaign.
Also there is a bit difference between power from nowhere when you start and power transferred from nowhere when derrick explodes.

[Iluvalar]

That's why I suggest to give 1/3 of the map power generation straight to the player and reduce the oil derricks to 2/3 for the remaining. That would also explain where that power come from. Since a player with 2 part of the map would produce 5/3 instead of 6/3. The last 1/3 being sent to another area.

[aubergine]

I guess that could work, it could be explained that the "oil resources" are vents from Fracking, and they're all connected under ground. So the first few vents you tap output more, but then as you tap more vents the pressure drops...?