Technical question : random spawns fixed race

[tatsu]

How doable would it be to create a mod that allows the host to set a race for a slot but have random spawn locations?

so then when you're playing say..... all random setons. you can be sure that air is an aeon?

maybe add flexibility for the race of the other spots ect.

at first it would be a mod with no UI elements and hard coded races for each spot and then work from there?

[Sir Prize]

I don't play Seton's (or any team games when I'm sober) but I can see why this could be really good... One team getting no UEF at all and Cybran in the front and back vs another team with UEF front and Aeon back? Wouldn't that mean that the side with access to UEF T3 navy on the sides, the extra ACU HP/better general turtling at the front and Aeon T3 Air/ARAS have a massive advantage?

In general, giving people more control about setting up their games in lobby seems like a *good thing* to me.

[ZeRen]

see everytime Aeon vs. Aeon on air is boring, same with UEF vs. UEF navy...

[Sir Prize]

Which is a balance issue that will hopefully be fixed in the short/medium term - it's also not as boring as Aeon air and especially UEF navy autowinning in a random faction, random spawn Seton's game.

This suggestion actually helps manage those things as well - you can make both back players be a non-Aeon mirror match and have no UEF on either team.

[tatsu]

see everytime Aeon vs. Aeon on air is boring, same with UEF vs. UEF navy...

aeon vs cybran air is potentially much more boring since cybran consistently looses.
this mod aims to only hit the air spots, the rest can stay random.

perhaps also have a 50/50 chance of being either seraphim or aeon for air

[Swaygin]

This is a great idea (for Seton's especially).

If, say, one player as UEF and one player as Aeon both spawn middle, UEF has an obvious advantage. This is a silly source of risk when playing random position spawn; why not eliminate as many of these as possible?

I had my own thoughts about random slots (I found this thread looking to see if my suggestion had been made before); why not let some players be random and others fixed? Similarly, why not let a player specify, say, "Beach," and then they will spawn as Beach on one of the teams (but unknown as to which).

The benefits I see are:

(1) There wouldn't be a risk of both 1800's on the same team (I'm not sure if there is some kind of restriction on this when randomizing)
(2) There wouldn't be positional mismatches (i.e., both 1800 players have a mirror who is 1000).
(3) It would lower the number of variations of a game hosted and wait time.


(1) and (2) would actually improve games IMO. Let's say we had two 1800 players and six 1000-1400 range players. If the 1800 players were both "random air", then the game would be far more balanced than if an 1800 and a 1200 were air (1) and/or both 1800 players were on the same team (2). This and tatsu's suggestion increase the expected balance of the game, and therefore fun (as far as I'm concerned) by removing luck; I think they would be good changes for the same reason I think randomizing the number of a position's nearby mass points would be a bad change.

For point (3): multiplayer games require many people to play (obviously), and so the greater the number of "special versions" of maps there are, the greater the difficulty of a particular game reaching the player threshold to begin. For example, there could be a Seton's with no mods, one with Total Mayhem and a third with BlackOps, each with a couple of people and all taking a lot longer to start (during which some people will join but get bored and leave). I don't think a variety of options is a bad thing necessarily, but whatever the case, these are all modifications of the rules of the game which affect everyone; we can't have some players with Total Mayhem units and others without in the same game (or we could, but it would obviously be .... problematic).

Any mod which creates new units, greater/lesser income, etc., impose "dealbreaker" conditions, whereas allowing more specific randomization has no effect on the actual game. Unlike these other variations, more specific randomization should actually lower game differentiation, since players who are particularly bad at one or more positions can still join the same game in which other players are randomizing. Right now, a game with random spawns is a dealbreaker for many people (me personally) and a game without is seemingly a dealbreaker for those who like random spawns; greater control over the degree of randomization allows both these types of players to be in the same game. It will also expand the difficulty brackets of hosted games since there is more control of positional balance, and so there won't need to be as many games offered.

As many people know, there are times of the day when it can take 30 minutes to an hour to get a game going. People learn to expect no game to play and stop trying to find one. This effect builds on itself, however, since the fact that fewer people are getting on to play increases discouragement for other players, who also stop trying (or at least, look less often). In other words, the player base becomes increasingly sparse. This would be a programmatically straightforward change which would combat this effect.

[Iszh]

I think thats a useless idea to fix factions to spots. briang lol cybran asf are not so bad especially on seton and 1700+. their ras does more e than any other first ras and stealth is deadly you can get the enemy unprepared for battle and kill lots of bombers or asf before he can react or snipe somebody and nobody can see those bombers coming.

[Swaygin]

I think thats a useless idea to fix factions to spots.

because......????

[=M.V.K.=]

If it was say "integrated" for the design, concept, and construction for say use rather then specific to a point, I'd think it would be a good idea, but rather say "easier" , I don't know..

Cause you think are asking still for more "automated" which out of would still only be gained "manually' for automated worth against say design, concept, and construction..

Which might still be fine given the outcome is as such, but just say popping in on any lobby and having the difference, would probably be out..perhaps still..

I mention given maps varied numbers is my point anyways, but yours is still probably the answer for the same in short..but still not all "my" words..but for a samething, probably..

[Mycen]

What if the players don't want the faction the host thinks they should have? I know I would be very annoyed if I was playing a map and hoping to get a certain faction or factions and the host was like, "nope, you're getting this faction, because I think it's the best."