Forged Alliance Forever

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-10-08T20:21:34+02:00

PhilipJFry wrote:
that's a script - you can put it in any map if you want to (adaptive maps made by cookienoob have them as an option in the lobby iirc)

But if things like this can be changed by a script that means its not hardcoded to be a "static" part of the map, which means somebody could make a script that does this, right?

@Mach An option will not hurt anybody. People that like how Setons plays out currently would not need to enable this option.

ZthueeSpam wrote:
But I don't think the mex location should literally disappear when the player dies. I think only the extractor on top if it should die. Another player should be able to rebuild it.

That would be another possiblity that doesn't punish an ACU death as harshly as disappearing mexes. But im not sure if this has a big enough impact.
Because a good player will simply reclaim the dead mex and rebuild it fast (because all the build power stayed alive) and lose only 20% of mex cost and maybe a minute of mex income. This could lead to snipes still not paying for themselves.

Statistics: Posted by Katharsas — 08 Oct 2018, 20:21

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-10-08T06:27:13+02:00

lol setons (or any match with fullshare on) isnt played like your normal snipe simulator match (aka no fullshare), in setons you snipe acu if you know that means you gain advantage for example:
- if its better player on enemy team than others, so worse player gets their eco
- if you are about to win the game because its last acu
- if that player doesnt have anything left anyways that fullshare gives his team

Sometimes you can snipe acu to restart enemy game ender or experimental because if acu dies all of their construction that wasnt finished dies

Usually for example on front, its better to just go past the acu with land units if you are winning and wreck enemy front base and eco, acu on its own isnt a threat, if you focus on it you will lose most of your land in acu nuke and then other player gets his base and wrecks YOU with double eco. Im pretty sure good front players intentionally walk into enemy army if they are losing to take it out and give teammates a chance to fight off crippled enemy army with more eco.

You just have to think (oh no!) what sniping acu will do instead of just blindly doing it like in no share matches.

Statistics: Posted by Mach — 08 Oct 2018, 06:27

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-21T07:43:19+02:00

that's a script - you can put it in any map if you want to (adaptive maps made by cookienoob have them as an option in the lobby iirc)

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 21 Sep 2018, 07:43

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-21T02:16:15+02:00

There is a map where you build on a mex location and 4 more appear around it and they spread infinitely as long as you keep building them. So I don't think mexes are inherently a static part of the map design. But I don't think the mex location should literally disappear when the player dies. I think only the extractor on top if it should die. Another player should be able to rebuild it. Otherwise there is no way to recover and have an equivalent eco to the other side.

Statistics: Posted by ZthueeSpam — 21 Sep 2018, 02:16

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-19T14:58:04+02:00

ThomasHiatt wrote:
The idea of making dead players mexes disappear is an interesting one that I hadn't thought of, but sounds like some bad hack that wouldn't be good in practice.

Would be cool if a mapper could simply define a bunch of mexes (i'd say rather low number) that disappear on death (enabled via lobby options), but that would require core engine change to how maps work (i guess mexes are "static" part of a map currently), so not gonna happen anytime soon.

Statistics: Posted by Katharsas — 19 Sep 2018, 14:58

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-19T11:52:17+02:00

man just punish them for not having enough APM

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 19 Sep 2018, 11:52

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-19T10:00:27+02:00

It is not really a setons specific problem. The game just doesn't work very well outside of a 1v1 setting because mass and energy income increases exponentially. When 1 player has 2 bases they can scale up their economy much faster than 2 players with 1 base each, and they will be able to pool their resources and spend them more efficiently as well. The optimal way to play teamgames would be to have everyone give all their stuff to one player at the start so they can scale up way faster, essentially turning it into a 1v1, and maybe distributing some units for other players to control. Better yet just play with the shared armies mod. I don't think there is any good solution outside of reworking the entire economy system from the ground up. The idea of making dead players mexes disappear is an interesting one that I hadn't thought of, but sounds like some bad hack that wouldn't be good in practice.

Statistics: Posted by ThomasHiatt — 19 Sep 2018, 10:00

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-19T08:33:22+02:00

I'm just going to fill the gap that's making both sides not understand what the other is saying. here we go :

Average Joe's setons does not play the same way as pro's setons.

*IF* one of these solutions were to be coded, it *would* be beneficial to the setons match containing sub 1100 rated players but setons containing 1100+ (all the way to 2300, or what is it now 2500) rating players this game mode would not be used as it would prove to be to unfavorable to the side loosing a player, snipes at any and all cost would become a dominating strategy again and ruin the gameplay for these levels of players, so they wouldn't use it.

with that in mind I have some penchant to the "it's a waste of resources to code" argument because :

1. there aren't enough players (split part of a tiny split of the faf playerbase that likes to play setons) to justify this size an effort.
2. if the setonner that wanted this bides his time and suddenly "clicks" and becomes 1100 + he just joins the group that wants fullshare for setons above all else.

the fact of the matter is at under 1100 there are great disparities in how much APM each player has and more than likely the player who has tons of APM but just looses all the time because he doesn't really get the meta yet and thus doesn't win much rating isn't going to die .... and inherit his teamates bases... and use that APM to roll the other team (who was and is oblivious to how killing everyone except him was the worst thing they could possibly do for themselves).

at setons where average rating is 1800 the APM has all but evened out, this is why the more experienced players in this thread have mentioned APM stating that loosing a player makes you loose APM.

it's true. at this rating, loosing a player on your team in setons is sorely felt by the team. Plus the other team know this by now and capitalize on the places where they now expect counter-APM to be lacking because of the missing player and this is extremely effective making it much less a scenarios of "oh no! double eco" and going even beyond just evening things out.

Statistics: Posted by tatsu — 19 Sep 2018, 08:33

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-19T06:09:33+02:00

Won't happen sounds like wishful thinking

Statistics: Posted by moonbearonmeth — 19 Sep 2018, 06:09

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-19T06:06:47+02:00

Turinturambar wrote:
you seem to forget that all 1-2 games there is at least 1dc. randomly killing all the eco of the dced player means every second game one team randomly looses

Help testing ICE so DCs won't happen anymore.

Statistics: Posted by Katharsas — 19 Sep 2018, 06:06

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-18T13:44:19+02:00

you seem to forget that all 1-2 games there is at least 1dc. randomly killing all the eco of the dced player means every second game one team randomly looses

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 18 Sep 2018, 13:44

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-18T12:04:55+02:00

i strongly disagree
while sniping isn't the most effective way to win on setons it usually means that the other team has less apm so unless you snipe a weak player and thus give more mex to a better player who can use them better it's a reasonable strategy

imo the current situation is fine as it is

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 18 Sep 2018, 12:04

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-18T11:57:20+02:00

I'm not insisting that we immediately dedicate resources to coding it, but I don't really understand why you don't see the benefit... As I said earlier, there is an existing problem with maps like Setons.

With full share turned off, if you lose a player early (in almost any position), the game is almost immediately forfeited more than half the time because nobody can respond quickly enough. If the air player dies (or disconnects), the enemy air player will just strat bomb the rest of the players to death. If mid player dies or disconnects, the mid player will usually just spew t1 spam at the other enemy players, which directs considerable resources to land defence and means they likely will lose air or navy. If a navy player dies or disconnects, then that pond is immediately lost and mid will be effectively wiped out by t2 navy from that side which then compounds the problem.

If full share is turned ON, then whoever inherits the dead player's eco and base will be able to eco much harder and often singlehandedly win the game by dominating (being the first to generate an experimental, or win air or whatever. There are many paths to dominating the game with a double eco advantage early on. This is usually less of a problem than no share, but it's still a problem. Basically what I'm saying is that these options effectively disadvantage the team who snipes the enemy ACU, or end the game prematurely because it's not possible to recover most of the time. It shouldn't be this way. There should be an advantage for killing a single enemy ACU obviously, but not one that is nearly impossible for the enemy team to recover from. That's why there's a benefit to a 'middle ground option' IMO. If you still don't see the benefit, I don't really know what to say.

Statistics: Posted by ZthueeSpam — 18 Sep 2018, 11:57

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-18T09:27:47+02:00

no i don't see the benefit

don't get me wrong - i'm in favor of having more options to choose from but i won't go around asking someone to code a solution that i don't see as a massive benefit

if you find someone to code the solution and make a Pull Request on github then i wouldn't mind merging it

but atm i'd rather focus on other things such as the implementation of Kyro's lobby modifications

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 18 Sep 2018, 09:27

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

2018-09-18T09:19:48+02:00

PhilipJFry wrote:
maybe you should check the available options

there is one option that will turn all units into civilians (either enemy or neutral)
with that you can capture/reclaim whatever you want already

That civilian option isn't really the solution I'm suggesting though. That seems as bad if not worse for team mates than the base simply disappearing and turning into reclaim (which can be harvested for mass faster than civilian buildings/units).

Uzurpator has the same basic idea that I do. What I was suggesting was a middle ground that allows team mates to recover reasonably quickly from the loss of their dead ally without overcompensating by instantly giving them a double eco and control over all their units. None of the current options seems to allow for that. Do you not see that it could be useful to have a middle ground that still gives the team that gets the kill an advantage without giving the team that loses the player a practically guaranteed loss because there is little chance of any kind of recovery?

Statistics: Posted by ZthueeSpam — 18 Sep 2018, 09:19