FAF gameplay suggestion

Talk about general things concerning Forged Alliance Forever.

Moderators: FtXCommando, Ze Dogfather

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby uzurpator » 17 Sep 2018, 16:41

_IF_ I may.

I'd suggest to introduce a share condition, let's call it 'eco share', that if a player dies, his/her/its mexes ( just mexes ) are:

- shared equally among his/her/its teammates, rating wise
or
- are put into capturable state for his/her/its teammates to capture

The reason for this is the same as the share on Seton's. Losing a teammate means losing the game in every game that is not thermo in less then a minute in. The game will usually drag for some time, but losing 50k+ mass in those mexes ( Assuming t3 ) and unknown quota of their income is usually not recoverable.
uzurpator
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 11 Nov 2017, 20:29
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 14 times
FAF User Name: uzurpatorex

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby PhilipJFry » 17 Sep 2018, 16:50

you may not

if you check the current options then you'll notice that we already have quite a few (most of them are not used a lot anyway)
cats>dogs
post logs
User avatar
PhilipJFry
Moderator
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: 23 Mar 2016, 21:16
Location: Austria
Has liked: 218 times
Been liked: 338 times
FAF User Name: PhilipJFry

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby uzurpator » 17 Sep 2018, 17:13

I'll do it anyway.

Current sharing options suck for one reason or another. Either the assasins get robbed of their victory because the losing team retains most of its eco or the losers can start alt+f4 immidietly afterwards, because they lost a dude. What I suggest is the middle of the road - doing an assasination is still a blow to the other team but is not a crippling one.

Take seton's for example - if the mid dude dies, then with current options his team ( or more specifically, one of his team members ) gets all of his stuff and unless the other team does an immediate attack, before the losers restart factory production, then the "winners" might be worse off. Is this the intended payoff for a successful assasination?

With "my" suggestion - the 'losers' are always on the losing side, the 'winners' are always better off, but the loss of a teammate does not utterly cripple the losers. They still have the eco, now they need to fill the role by rebuilding the lost infrastructure using reclaim and they need to cooperate because each of them got just a bit of the defeated players mass income.

If mexes are capturable after a defeat, then _winners_ can, well, capture them to get some extra payoff and strategic options to exploit.

And as a bonus - all the GAP/Thermo players such as me get the eternal trench war they like so dearly. Everybody would benefit.

Moreover - such solution would make disconnects less crippling for the unfortunate team which lost a mate - which in turn sucks for everybody ( sometimes 15 people ) in a game that was progressing for the last 20 minutes or so.
uzurpator
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 11 Nov 2017, 20:29
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 14 times
FAF User Name: uzurpatorex

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby Farmsletje » 17 Sep 2018, 17:21

Maybe people should try to git gud instead of blaming their loss on full share
FtXCommando wrote:
need to give him some time to blossom into an aids flower
Farmsletje
Supreme Commander
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: 14 Sep 2016, 18:38
Has liked: 343 times
Been liked: 416 times
FAF User Name: Farmsletje

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby PhilipJFry » 17 Sep 2018, 17:24

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
cats>dogs
post logs
User avatar
PhilipJFry
Moderator
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: 23 Mar 2016, 21:16
Location: Austria
Has liked: 218 times
Been liked: 338 times
FAF User Name: PhilipJFry

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby ZthueeSpam » 18 Sep 2018, 09:19

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?
ZthueeSpam
Crusader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 May 2014, 11:47
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
FAF User Name: ZthueeSpam

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby PhilipJFry » 18 Sep 2018, 09:27

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
cats>dogs
post logs
User avatar
PhilipJFry
Moderator
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: 23 Mar 2016, 21:16
Location: Austria
Has liked: 218 times
Been liked: 338 times
FAF User Name: PhilipJFry

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby ZthueeSpam » 18 Sep 2018, 11:57

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.
ZthueeSpam
Crusader
 
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 May 2014, 11:47
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time
FAF User Name: ZthueeSpam

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby PhilipJFry » 18 Sep 2018, 12:04

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
cats>dogs
post logs
User avatar
PhilipJFry
Moderator
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: 23 Mar 2016, 21:16
Location: Austria
Has liked: 218 times
Been liked: 338 times
FAF User Name: PhilipJFry

Re: FAF gameplay suggestion

Postby Turinturambar » 18 Sep 2018, 13:44

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
Turinturambar
Avatar-of-War
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 20:38
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 89 times
FAF User Name: 園崎詩音

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PhilipJFry and 1 guest