Stop the highpower madness ?

[Michal]

Really, what's the point in playing Squared/NTW ? Spamming tanks or massive turltling and research ruch to ripples or whatever weapon is slightly overpowered? Or massive VTOL strike using expensive units when no one cares about costs and can spam them ?

Some say HVCannon is overpowered. I wanted to check that on 'normal map' - Urban Chaos. No alliances, advanced bases. Usually HMG/AG rock the map so I went for them only, almost ignoring rocket tech. We had a really nice fight in the center - my bunkers vs their mortar fire. And at least 5 tank battles - retreating for repairs was a must. One of my opponents managed to get HV Cannon Emplacement and used it for defence. I can tell that he had strong concrete and emplacements were hard to destroy, but... 2-3 Ripples that I researched later countered them very well.

I didn't get to fight against HV Cannon Python Tracks , but that could be manageable - its impossible to make them in large quantities.



My point is: highpower lags, almost unlimited power creates balance issues, power allocation system is not suited for it.
So, why play it? It's EXTREMELY unfriendly for new players, because requires fast research decisions, securing crucial points quickly and ends in VTOL/Arty/Tank Rush war. What's the point? Its so boring, played on maps with almost no topography...

Anyone thinks the same?

[Per]

I agree, I find such games rather pointless. But, if anyone find this kind of game fun, who am I to tell them they are wrong? Just please mark such games clearly so I do not have to join them.

[Saberuneko]

Same opinion here... A nice terrain, and the fights for getting more oil rigs. That's the true spirit of this game.

Any other different thing, is just killing the game.
Power levels only should be adjusted for making the player's advance a little faster or slower.
And having 234.943.273 rigs on your base is just boring.

[Terminator]

Really, what's the point in playing Squared/NTW ? Spamming tanks or massive turltling and research ruch to ripples or whatever weapon is slightly overpowered? Or massive VTOL strike using expensive units when no one cares about costs and can spam them ?
My point is: highpower lags, almost unlimited power creates balance issues, power allocation system is not suited for it.
So, why play it? It's EXTREMELY unfriendly for new players, because requires fast research decisions, securing crucial points quickly and ends in VTOL/Arty/Tank Rush war. What's the point? Its so boring, played on maps with almost no topography...

Anyone thinks the same?

I hate high oil maps too, so I think the same.

I think players like this kind of maps, because in this games you dont need to manage or think much, just making tank, that's all.

But from other side, there are not much low oil interesting maps. Its sucks too.

[Michal]

Yeah, making 50 HV Cannon Python Hover, attack! --> HUUUUUGE LAG !! --> Find out you got owned by 1212121ripples and 5 cannon fortresses, goto begining and repeat.

So why 80-90% of games I see are highpower? Geez, guess I have to make some interesting 2v2, 3v3 maps...

[Alpha93]

Really, what's the point in playing Squared/NTW ? Spamming tanks or massive turltling and research ruch to ripples or whatever weapon is slightly overpowered? Or massive VTOL strike using expensive units when no one cares about costs and can spam them ?

Some say HVCannon is overpowered. I wanted to check that on 'normal map' - Urban Chaos. No alliances, advanced bases. Usually HMG/AG rock the map so I went for them only, almost ignoring rocket tech. We had a really nice fight in the center - my bunkers vs their mortar fire. And at least 5 tank battles - retreating for repairs was a must. One of my opponents managed to get HV Cannon Emplacement and used it for defence. I can tell that he had strong concrete and emplacements were hard to destroy, but... 2-3 Ripples that I researched later countered them very well.

I didn't get to fight against HV Cannon Python Tracks , but that could be manageable - its impossible to make them in large quantities.



My point is: highpower lags, almost unlimited power creates balance issues, power allocation system is not suited for it.
So, why play it? It's EXTREMELY unfriendly for new players, because requires fast research decisions, securing crucial points quickly and ends in VTOL/Arty/Tank Rush war. What's the point? Its so boring, played on maps with almost no topography...

Anyone thinks the same?

Quoting this for truth, I've ranted enough on IRC about it if you ask some of the other"IRC crew of lols WZ Team" members (yeah, I'm one of the IRC Crew of lols team, I'll explain you later why it is the IRC crew of lols ). Though you can manage to tank an entire wave of hovers just with 10 or 20 flamer tanks DERP (ask effigy on IRC lol).

[Dalton]

It's all a matter of personal opinion, I prefer high power over low power simply because thing go along a bit faster and I see more of the tech tree without a 2 hour game when I have only 4 oil. So why stop it if you don't like the map host your own game.

[Olrox]

It's all a matter of personal opinion, I prefer high power over low power simply because thing go along a bit faster and I see more of the tech tree without a 2 hour game when I have only 4 oil. So why stop it if you don't like the map host your own game.

We don't need to eradicate people who use high-power maps or eradicate the maps with high-power themselves. It is a matter of taste (bad taste IMO as well, but we've got to respect everyone's opinion), so let people choose what kind of maps they want to host a game with.

What we really don't need is people whining about high-power maps' problems, that's boring and makes really no sense since it is a question of personal taste. You choose what maps you play, so it's fine as long as you don't complain about the quality of those if the author didn't ask you... With flaME, you can easily delete half of a map's oil in question of minutes, really.

My personal opinion is that a good map is the one that has something to present even if you erase every oil from it. Maps that have nothing interesting if you erase all its oil are just plain bad.

~Olrox

[icefire]

I like both, and what's better is I don't complain and rant to everyone about either.

And now for the real point,
I have seen more people play and like High resource maps in Warzone more than most rts games I've played. And I think I know why. Warzone, in terms of it's income system, is the SLOWEST I've seen in a long time. Pumpkin tried balancing out an infinite supply of income with no units needing to attend it by having it give you almost nothing for your immediate use. Even with 30 oil in your base you're still hitting 0 most of early game until you get more power improvements.

With most rts games you have enough resources at your starting base to get a decent defense or offense going for early game. With Warzone's standard 4 oil you have just about enough to get a base going, That's it. And given that most stock maps only have 3 or so oil around your base you're going to need to really take the fight to the enemies doorstep just to get the resources you need to actually do anything exciting.

Of course this doesn't bother me at all because unlike most players I've seen on this game that are completely passive, I'm always aggressive and usually one of the first guys already out there taking and fighting for oil

And of course with high oil maps, people are rewarded for turtling, which goes with the comment about passive players perfectly.

[Zarel]

Warzone, in terms of everything, is the slowest RTS out there. It seems the simplest solution is to make game speeds like 1.5x the default.

Anyway, it's not only that - it's also that most RTSes have concentrated collections of resources, so you gather all your resources at your base, or at a few well-defined "expo" locations. The "expo" model does have the benefit of less positive feedback, since you can have a strong economy without having significant map control.

Warzone forces you to rush out and cap resources, instead of staying at your base and building up like other RTSes do. It's questionable whether or not this is a good thing, but it's how it is... It does add more complexity than just "build large army, send to enemy base", though. And it emphasizes map control.

[Olrox]

I've came up with a solution.

Instead of adding more oil resources to the player's bases to allow building more structures an units, why not add oil drums instead? This way, the player can manage to build up fairly good defenses and infrastructure in the early game, but won't have an infinite, easily defendable power source inside their bases (thy would need to expand no matter what).

I think that it would improve maps that currently have too much oil resources inside the starting position. Instead of granting an endless flow of power, you give a boost for starters.

~Olrox

[icefire]

...Instead of granting an endless flow of power, you give a boost for starters.

You could just raise starting power levels if you want to do that. Would save people from editing maps too

That and how oil cans get in the way of building is really really annoying.

[Olrox]

Would save people from editing maps too

Really, with flaME, editing maps is really a matter of will.

~Olrox

[Michal]

It's just that 90% of games I see are highpower, and, personally, I don't see much fun in those.
Recently I was hosting UrbanChaos advanced bases quite a few times and the continous fight for center was so exciting! Mortars, bunkers, cannons...
I think I have to try more T2 games at 'standard power', just to see how they will go. I've seen only T1s or T3s.

As I was fiddling with FlaME recently, I got the idea of 'reformed highpower' - a lot of oil, but not only in base. Now on highpower maps we get quite the opposite of "Warzone forces you to rush out and cap resources, instead of staying at your base and building up like other RTSes do".