Demolish/Auto-demolish Half Built enemy Derricks?

[Emdek]

bendib, yes, this is about decisions, if you made decision that it's better to abandon unfinished structure to do something else then you simply abandon it.
And if you abandon something unfinished for enough long time (which should depend on resources spent on creating it / base proximity / whatever) then others should be able to take it over.
Simple and logical.

For preserving such behaviors there should be mods / mutators / whatever.

And yes, war is unfair, but game shouldn't allow to exploit conveniences created for cases when enemy destroys your derricks and you are out of power.

[bendib]

Simple and logical.

Except that they are on different teams and that this changes the game strategy immensely. You don't play multiplayer, we DO. WE will be the ones suffering for your desires!

[bendib]

Emdek, I have NEVER been screwed over by a truck rush capping my oils. Why? Because he'd need at least three trucks to get there, and because I'm smart enough to abort production and recycle things to get power.

Make that mod if you like, but make that mod the one that alters derrick behavior, and leave the standard game alone! Mods are impossible nearly to play on multiplayer and will never attract players.

[effigy]

@Emdek, so... you realize by this logic this means the potential to have your enemy take control of a factory inside your base?

[bendib]

@effigy: Hurr, +1

[Emdek]

Except that they are on different teams and that this changes the game strategy immensely. You don't play multiplayer, we DO. WE will be the ones suffering for your desires!

I don't say that I don't play, I've said that I nearly don't play.
Also this isn't going to be changed (if it will be changed at all) in near future (3.1 is frozen already, and new release will take probably months to complete).
Moreover, this is not my desire, this is not me who started this discussion.
This is simply my opinion in this discussion which doesn't force anyone to implement this.
And in discussion we need valid arguments.

effigy, no, I've mentioned already few times proximity value, no taking over of things which are less than at least 10 tiles from middle of base (or HQ).

[bendib]

/me predicts some moderator will lock this topic because he doesn't like people disagreeing

[Emdek]

bendib, please don't take this personally as I don't do that.
I'm simply answering to others arguments, that's all.

[bendib]

Emdek: if you can beat me on a game on startup I'll surrender on this issue. Join IRC.

[Emdek]

bendib, I'm all the time on IRC, but not on -games channel (since I don't have time for MP).
Also such way of dealing with it is not best one.
This topic was meant to discuss this issue, to generate ideas if and how to overcome it.
Decision to if do something with this belongs to developers, which don't need to listen to players (but usually should, to not lost them, as without players their work is mostly void), who codes, decides.

So, I'm proposing continuing discussion to seek best solution, and later, in separate topic, create poll if developers would like to do something with this.

[bendib]

I know Cyp really does, which is what made me almost soil myself in the first place. I was there for the original IRC conversation.

[Jorzi]

I could accept the idea of removing burn time for unfinished derricks. That way you can deal with the threat and not lose an "unfair" amount of precious time.
I know that many players like the kind of minigames such as denying the enemy oil, but since an economic delay in warzone can be very critical, I think it needs a way to be dealt with so that the outcome of the game doesn't depend solely on this.

If all the pro players like this minigame and want it preserved, I guess that's reason enough to leave it in. However, philosophically there is no real reason why you couldn't build your own structure on the enemy's foundations.

[bendib]

Same reason nexus link takes a second: electronic resistance maybe?
It just changes the game too much. That's the only reason I oppose these things. I want people to stop changing the balance, core, etc. Fix the engine and bugs, yes, make it look better, yes, change the actual game, no.

[JDW]

/me predicts some moderator will lock this topic because he doesn't like people disagreeing

The only reason this thread will probably be locked is if it breaks some forum rules. And so far I think we are just discussing dynamics of the game. Do you want this thread locked?

@Emdek, so... you realize by this logic this means the potential to have your enemy take control of a factory inside your base?

I didn't quite follow that. Who wants factories and other structures taken over?

[Emdek]

JDW, this could be result of applying such rule (allow to takeover and complete building) to all structures (exceptions should be avoided). But such thing could be avoided by disallowing to take over structures in close proximity of HQ (would be +1 to have it, as kind of protection). Also proximity could affect take over time for other structures (closer to base -> longer delay).

For me best solution would be to allow changes in core but always give way to revert them for individual games by applying mods / mutators / options.
Personally I think that scripted mutators would be best, but would require changes in engine (to allow them to change game mechanics).