Forged Alliance Forever

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-12-10T05:46:07+02:00

Zoram wrote:
A purely macro war game would represent a bunch of generals in a war room making battle plans and leaving the tactical details to officers.

Where can I find that?

Statistics: Posted by KrogothFTW — 10 Dec 2014, 05:46

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-29T02:17:23+02:00

but i demonstrate how is this strength of raiding luck based

well that's something i don't agree with.
you know that expending engie have more value, distance/order wise. that's why you want to aim them first.
I also often send a scout before bomber, to see which unit are building e/facto. to mess up his build/reclaim order, put pressure on him => take psychological ascendant over him.

if you lose importante engie it's your fault, you should have tank to defend it.
I tried to play ladder back, some weeks ago, i was used to get first bomber on 2nd air, and the good player did always counter me, with a first inte. so it mean that you have no right to say : people that goes for early agression/raiding with bomber/labs have advantage over more player that don't.

so :
1) it's not luck base
2) attack/defense is well balance, no need to change that.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 29 Nov 2014, 02:17

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-29T00:31:32+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
Or you could simply time-slice effectively and spread your time across multiple units rather than risking all of it into one unit which might be destroyed.

yes I can, but this mostly dont happend on general palyers. Look, this is not about me i have average apm about 65. This is about make game better. When player invest so much time on enginer it is not a problem, its not bad behavior it is player attention what he invest on game, this is what we want to see and what is interesting on watching. Problem is when all that time its wasted, and this time in plenty of situation simply cant be secure.

uberge3k wrote:
"I want to be able to focus on giving many, many orders to one super unit at a time, and not lose my time invested into that unit if it dies.".

No, this is not about posible make one superior unit with tons of tasks. Its about posible to make much more tasks in general and dont loose them. Doesnt mather that is is spread of plenty of units or on one units. It depent on gamestyle of each player.

uberge3k wrote:
giving many orders to many different units rather than babysitting one "special" unit.

Again i dont want to make one super unit, when you go through my suggestion then it is go for make a single unit less important as is now. Because unit would not be a carrier of comands = units is only number, nameless one, not a special super hero who go save a galaxy, and when die special units die, jast die one from milion who is easy to repalce.
This suggestion is going for the point what make this strategy grand. give order to plenty of units and dont care when one die.

uberge3k wrote:
What I would like to see are replays demonstrating the negative effects of the current system

I demonstrate a negative effect example with 2 same player when one kill namless enginer and one kill tons of tasks enginer. It is very simple and offten situation, im sure you can imagine it whiteout raplay.
- Other demonstration again whiteout replays for simlestnes is how player build a base? And how players build a base when lose first builder with tasks. It is not build as precise as before, but it is mostly build only as line of building. Line of building is worse gameplay as precise use adjustency and "base architectures". That is another negative consequence of actual situation.

And for what lose?

Keyser: Yes it lose a something from strongnes of riding, but i demonstrate how is this strength of raiding luck based. Raiding can be pretty well effective or only effective. Actual depend of oponents and not on raider. Raiding is also nice and i hate it a much in every game when it happend to me , but after this sugg player must again found a enginer, and let him to make order. its a lots of time when enginer go on place and this time is pure lose, what is pretty painful.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 29 Nov 2014, 00:31

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T13:24:17+02:00

Aulex wrote:
Lionhardt wrote:
Aulex wrote:You invest apm to force your opponent to spend more apm

You know what that sounds like? Start Craft and co. ...

If a move gives you a strategic or tactical advantage (deny expansion, make a good tactical move in an engagement), great. If it gives you an advantage by making your opponent needing to increase his APM, meh.

Except apm is a resource like any other in the game, it's not exclusive to starcraft, it's in every rts, that's on of the rt in rts. Your attitude towards micro seems very uber-esq, where you want to completely wipe micro from the game, if you don't like micro, I suggest PA, that game is heavily focused on macro.

Except they completely failed at that and the game is shit overall. PA doesn't even have editable orders.

Statistics: Posted by Lionhardt — 28 Nov 2014, 13:24

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T12:02:43+02:00

losing recliam/build order on engie, reinforce raiding. making the game more dynamic, because there is more reward to attack.

FAF is well balance between defense and attack, when we talking about attack, we need to consider damage done (to eco : destroying expension, energy) but build/reclaim order too. When we talking about defense, we need to consider the fact that you can reclaim after fight (reclaim closer to defenser base) and the travel time for attacker.
your idea isn't THAT bad, but i will change that balance, which imo doesn't need to.

Statistics: Posted by keyser — 28 Nov 2014, 12:02

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T05:17:21+02:00

Lionhardt wrote:
Aulex wrote:You invest apm to force your opponent to spend more apm

You know what that sounds like? Start Craft and co. ...

If a move gives you a strategic or tactical advantage (deny expansion, make a good tactical move in an engagement), great. If it gives you an advantage by making your opponent needing to increase his APM, meh.

Except apm is a resource like any other in the game, it's not exclusive to starcraft, it's in every rts, that's on of the rt in rts. Your attitude towards micro seems very uber-esq, where you want to completely wipe micro from the game, if you don't like micro, I suggest PA, that game is heavily focused on macro.

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 28 Nov 2014, 05:17

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T05:09:27+02:00

Or you could simply time-slice effectively and spread your time across multiple units rather than risking all of it into one unit which might be destroyed. The problem is that it is the player building the engineer and investing so much time into it who is assuming the risk. Calling it a dice throw implies that it is impossible for you to affect the odds, which is false.

The argument boils down to "I want to be able to focus on giving many, many orders to one super unit at a time, and not lose my time invested into that unit if it dies.".

I argue that this is an intrinsic part of the game, and helps reinforce FA's core concept of grand strategy - giving many orders to many different units rather than babysitting one "special" unit.

What I would like to see are replays demonstrating the negative effects of the current system. Show us replays where investing too much time into a unit which proceeded to die caused a negative impact on the outcome of the game. I am willing to bet that when and if it occurs, there are many, many other factors in the game which contributed to the loss. This does not negate the negative player experience - the sense of "unfair" loss when it occurs - but it is different from being imbalanced.

What would be interesting is to see ideas on how to reduce this player frustration that do not alter the delicate balance of player attention. But I fear that this is a case, much like bomber first, in which player perception overrules empirical evidence. In which case, the proper method is to first better educate players on the present 'metagame' so that they can more easily learn how to avoid the situation themselves, and should that not prove enough, look at alternative ways of reducing the negative feedback whilst preserving the intended gameplay.

Statistics: Posted by uberge3k — 28 Nov 2014, 05:09

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T03:08:58+02:00

Aulex wrote:
removing that aspect removes some of the advantages of raiding.

It dont remove raiding, raiding also destroy expansion and plenty of attention. not deleted tasks jast make game less frustrate and less luck based.

Aulex wrote:
but if you know where the reclaim is you can probably guess there is an engie there with lots of commands

You cant be sure whit one it is, maybe he spend him atm to base enginer who is loking as autoreclaiming in base, or he make tons of order with enginer who is 3th in lane and simply go on expansion as second and first one move and dont have any order. It is luck based. player cant be sure and for same effort have very different reward mostly in most important part of game. losing enginer fulled wth apm and kill nameless enginer from oposite side is something what can change game for start losing only for this.

and for what is is good? for what is good when player lose plenty of atm instead of when this atm can make gameplay more precis, and more complex? You will not rather look on game where player rather make thins honest with some idea inside instead of as fast as posible ?

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 28 Nov 2014, 03:08

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T02:38:06+02:00

Aulex wrote:
You invest apm to force your opponent to spend more apm

You know what that sounds like? Start Craft and co. ...

If a move gives you a strategic or tactical advantage (deny expansion, make a good tactical move in an engagement), great. If it gives you an advantage by making your opponent needing to increase his APM, meh.

Statistics: Posted by Lionhardt — 28 Nov 2014, 02:38

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-28T02:28:21+02:00

You invest apm to force your opponent to spend more apm, removing that aspect removes some of the advantages of raiding. Also, usually an expanding engie has more orders than an engie in base unless there are rocks or something in base, then there is an exception, but if you know where the reclaim is you can probably guess there is an engie there with lots of commands. It's not that hard to guess.

Statistics: Posted by Aulex — 28 Nov 2014, 02:28

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-27T20:37:23+02:00

Vee wrote:
The problem with bomber first is exactly the opposite: it's high risk high reward.

Mrs Vee bomber is not a topic, i dont want to say it this is op and let prohibit this behavior, dont want negate reward from first bomber, but remove unfair reward what is base on luck. But this topic is not linked specialy with bomber, it same with labs, or with tanks.. it is look more as way how to miss a point.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 27 Nov 2014, 20:37

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-27T20:37:33+02:00

to be fair, while I believe micro is part of the game and not all of it should be removed, the topic at hand seats, imho, on the blurry line between "cool" and "too much".

We already have templates, saving the build order of a killed engie would just be extending the template functionnality (albeit in a different way).

There are obviously more important things to think about, and I'm very weary of changing anything to the game (beyond bug fixes), but Ithilys_Quo point is not that ill-thought, that could be tried out in a mod, if someone was willing and able to implement it in a clever way.

Adding that as a feature to the core game is another topic entirely, but the idea is not straight out bad.
It would not automatically send another engie to pick up the job, so if you're not paying attention, you still lose precious time.

I also don't believe that many people do extremely complex long build orders (or they have saved templates for that). so all in all, I'm not sure it would have such a great effect, beyond saving oneself from the hassle or placing those 5 factories again (might be more useful on the few maps with uneven terrain where it's a pain to place a factory).

Statistics: Posted by Zoram — 27 Nov 2014, 20:36

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-27T20:31:00+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
If going bomber first is so incredibly powerful and risk free, why not do it yourself? I think you will find that it is *anything* but "lazy" and that the risks are far, far greater than "nearly nothing".

The problem with bomber first is exactly the opposite: it's high risk high reward. Bomber first is pretty much the only way a noob can beat a superior player. It's like throwing dice at the start of the game and getting that many engi kills. I don't want to play yathzee, that's why I hate bomber first.

Statistics: Posted by Vee — 27 Nov 2014, 20:31

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-27T20:08:48+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
If going bomber first is so incredibly powerful and risk free, why not do it yourself? I think you will find that it is *anything* but "lazy" and that the risks are far, far greater than "nearly nothing".

he is saying that it is a game of chance to kill an engie with tons of orders assigned to by pure chance, which sucks. If by killing that engie not all orders would be deleted, the maximum benefit would be reduced. Less chance is better and also easier to balance, because you don't get as crazy effectiveness spikes every now and then just because you got lucky!

You guys are doing a real good job at apparently intentionally not getting his point(s).

Statistics: Posted by Lionhardt — 27 Nov 2014, 20:08

Re: not disappear build order after builder die

2014-11-27T19:59:27+02:00

uberge3k wrote:
If going bomber first is so incredibly powerful and risk free,

im not talking about first bomber in general. But something that can come deny all your tasks where you can make total same effort bud dont denny nothing because you chose units whitotu task, where simply cant know whith units have task and whit not.

for same effort its big reward differences.

Statistics: Posted by Ithilis_Quo — 27 Nov 2014, 19:59