Ze_PilOt wrote:Losing it to the XP is not punishing enough ? You have to give him health or do a stupid move for a RTS on top of it ?
I tend to say no it's not enough and here's why :
There's losing , cause well one loses from time to time for whatever reason, and there's losing for playing like a retard (which is not polite, I know, but fits the extreme situation where one spammed t1 against a t4).
Look at it this way, the better you played, the smaller your loss will be and the smaller the vet you gave away to your enemy, even if you happen to lose. Overall it makes perfect sense.
A few simple situations to illustrate this:
- your team mate built shields and t2 pd to counter a t4, the t4 wins still , but it's still quite damaged and gained limited vet
Another player can just finish the job for little cost, the teams gets the wrecks, etc.. The attacking team is probably in its loss wasting mass.
- same teams, same situation except that instead of t2 pd and shields, the guy built massive selen army ( ). The t4 wins and actually utterly rapes because of the super bad counter. Your team is in huge trouble. you probably lose because of a very bad play.
To me that makes sense and is only fair. The point is that winning or losing is one factor, but *HOW* you tried to counter is another important factor that needs to be punished as well.
This element TOO makes FA a great game. You simply don't throw a t4 at any type of army, you think it through, analyze the potential risks and gains. This is greatly emphasized by the TYPE of counter your opponent chose to build, thus resulting in epic bash or epic win ( a bit binary , but you get the idea).
It would be very wrong for t1 armies, in opposition to t3 armies, to provide the same damage and to induce the same loss (including the vet given away), this wether you lost or won the confrontation.
BTW can we seriously stop thinking of any other games except the lineage of TA/SC/FA to amend/balance OUR RTS ?