Warzone 2100 Forums

We sure are putting a lot of labor into the first 5 minutes of the game.

You people don't play multiplayer! You people don't suffer with this! You people won't be largely affected! WE WILL! Why does everyone want to MUTILATE this game??? I'll support adding proportional burn times, but anything beyond that, especially derricks with price, is NOT WARZONE 2100!!!

/me pops a vein in his forehead

I think the biggest flaw in 3.1 is no half builds, now maps like urban chaos wont be fun anymore, who ever gets first mg tower up in mid wins, this is just furthering the deletion of bugs that inadvertently produce more strategic oppurtunites that make the game a whole lot more interesting.

Thx Wisler, I agree. Half builds added extra fun to the game as a whole, for us multiplayer folks.

Anyone who says it's unfair must also think using VTOL is unfair or that taking enemy oils in front of their base is unfair.

bendib wrote:...

Anyone who says it's unfair must also think using VTOL is unfair or that taking enemy oils in front of their base is unfair.

/me finds spamming 1%-built derricks unfair, and using VTOLs fair and taking enemy oils in front of their base (without using 1%-builds) fair (except that it unfairly fails to enemy 1%-builds, if the enemy has a good mouse and is a fast clicker).

The problem isn't really half-builds, it's 1%-builds (which people call half-builds), actually.

It's not a bug Cyp. It's NOT. It's only unfair if you are on the receiving end. It's been part of the game since god knows when, and everyone is used to it! Removing it will mess with game strategy in a huge and detrimental way (don't get me even started on derrick prices, there goes high oil!!!) . Even Wisler, all the OTHER good players, (a couple exceptions) agree that this should not be touched! If you apply this change I (and I imagine at least two others) are leaving this community and possibly starting a fork. We've been pondering one for a long time.

Cyp: One more thing; it's not unfair if THE OTHER GUY CAN DO IT TOO.

Iluvalar wrote:in NRS, yep absolutely, you'd build civilian, financial center, you'd keep interest and you'd research reactors with more emphasis.

But in standard... I'm not sure... but I suppose we would simply crash on each others viper wheel mg with the starting power. Nobody would take time to build a derrick at that price.

After a couple of tries with Cyp, it turned out that at 400$ we actually try to build some oil and seem to protect it like mad with mg tower. But soon. Around 4-5 derricks, we are constantly choosing research and army instead of another derrick, even if there is unprotected free oil around.

I believe that cyp will agree that while it made some few enjoyable games, derricks at 400$ is not really warzone2100 anymore .

bendib wrote:...

Cyp: One more thing; it's not unfair if THE OTHER GUY CAN DO IT TOO.

The important word there is "if". If the other guy can't click fast enough (because of mouse or reflexes), or starts 1 tile further away, the other guy can't do it too, and it's not fair.

It's supposed to be a game of strategic skill (RTS), not a game of reflexes (FPS)... Even if the multiplayer netcode of 2.3 and earlier was implemented like a FPS for some weird reason...

Iluvalar wrote:...

After a couple of tries with Cyp, it turned out that at 400$ we actually try to build some oil and seem to protect it like mad with mg tower. But soon. Around 4-5 derricks, we are constantly choosing research and army instead of another derrick, even if there is unprotected free oil around.

Thought you said you got up to 12 derricks, not just 4-5 derricks.

Iluvalar wrote:I believe that cyp will agree that while it made some few enjoyable games, derricks at 400$ is not really warzone2100 anymore .

With derricks costing 400€, it's still Warzone 2100. Just not as playable/fun (except for a game or two for novelty value).

Make the behavior UN-profitable.

zany wrote: I picked all options because I can
do a real poll with only one option allowed

So basically, you're pretty much abstaining from voting because it allows multiple choices? I allowed multiple choice so that players could promote solutions that they liked (alongside their favorites), and so that they could leave solutions that they didn't like alone.

bendib wrote:If you apply this change I (and I imagine at least two others) are leaving this community and possibly starting a fork. We've been pondering one for a long time.

It's a shame that you'd want to leave and start a fork if the majority of people on here wanted to make a change that you didn't like, when you could've just stuck with the current version here. Good luck out there.

Iluvalar wrote:After a couple of tries with Cyp, it turned out that at 400$ we actually try to build some oil and seem to protect it like mad with mg tower. But soon. Around 4-5 derricks, we are constantly choosing research and army instead of another derrick, even if there is unprotected free oil around.

I believe that cyp will agree that while it made some few enjoyable games, derricks at 400$ is not really warzone2100 anymore .

$400-per derrick?! Seriously? I didn't think that anyone here would've wanted to add a price higher than $50 per derrick.

By the way, as of the time that this post was made, the majority of the votes cast seem to favor reducing oil fire duration in proportion to how complete the derrick was upon destruction. The 2nd-place runner-up seems to favor not setting the well on fire when the derrick was incomplete when it was destroyed, and the 3rd-place runner-up seems to favor adding some sort of price to derricks.

Still, I'll leave this poll up until March 15 so that more people could be given the chance to cast their votes, or to switch votes if they change their mind.

Shadow Wolf TJC wrote:...

Iluvalar wrote:...

$400-per derrick?! Seriously? I didn't think that anyone here would've wanted to add a price higher than $50 per derrick.

...

It was more of a theoretical discussion about whether or not building any derricks at all was a good idea, if the derricks cost over 300€. I don't think anyone here actually wants to make them cost that.

Wisler wrote:this is just furthering the deletion of bugs that inadvertently produce more strategic oppurtunites that make the game a whole lot more interesting.

i remember you used half-build generators elsewhere
it was funny, but only for winner who was faster in clicking mouse
game still contains many funny things, half-build generators was strongest strategy and you did not need any another strategies

half-build structures and such dirty strategies makes new players angry and some people left Warzone
such issues make game good only for "old" players

if you care only of yourselves, and cry for each change which can make your bug-using tactics useless - leave community, for me, better have 10 new member than 3 old members


may be we can add new check-box in start game UI: "allow use bug with half-build oil derricks and structures"

FWIW, it's not the lack of HP that makes "1/2 build" pgens worthless in 3.1, it's the inability of units to shoot over them. The other big impact was that you can't throw one down to protect trucks while you build some defense to counter enemy defense (at least not as easily).

"1/2 build" oil derricks don't benefit anyone because they don't produce power. They do give the person who makes the "1/2 build" the chance to claim them first, though.

At this point, I'm mostly surprised this has become such a large topic. It's only applicable for the first 2-5 minutes of a game. You can get your first units ~2minutes. I insist, this is only a "dirty" trick when you don't know the map, or when your out-skilled.

As far as APM is concerned I think we could make the same argument that, "1/2 builds" actually increase APM in regards to pgens. Since you can't fall back to your base and have it guarded by pgens + (whatever)tower you're expected to rush into mg viper wheels before choosing a strategy.

This stage of the game is all about finding/capturing oil. I suppose we're only RTS after the first couple minutes?

effigy wrote:it's the inability of units to shoot over them.

This is main issue of "building shields", defenses / units won't shoot over them but target it first.
I wonder if this is due to lack of ability to that or targeting algorithm that prefers shooting to (unfinished) structures first?

Apart from that I would like to have possibility to set preferred target type (globally would be enough, but I'm not sure if it wouldn't get too complex due to various turret types...).

After discussing this issue with a pro player (who is really good at 1v1) , I am sort of leaning towards another the other possible solution because it seems to sort out many other issues in one go.

His opinion is that incomplete derricks should be made neural. Which means that if a enemy leaves an unfinished derrick, any player can claim it if he completes it without having to demolish it or destroy it. And for all those guys who like realism, lets say the derrick is the same technology for everyone , so why can't it continue from where the enemy left off? Anyway, realism isn't a big deal to me. Anyhow , this would surely stop people from making the minimum percentage hp of unfinished derricks as it would be totally pointless to attempt this. They would need to build complete derricks and then proceed to the next oil well.

Making the unfinished derrick neutral solves another issue, it would mean that you could shoot at the enemy if he is right behind the unfinished derrick, and it would no longer serve as a shield.

Another problem this would solve is the burn time. Since you no longer shoot at incomplete derricks, only completed derricks would be destroyed. And hence, you got burn time only for destroying completed derricks.