I was bored, I know, no suggestions just because you were bored ... ... but if I wouldn't have been bored, I wouldn't have made a suggestion that I had in my head for a while. Actually another post in this forum got me at it. http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?t=8679 Ok so here we go, remove tickets ... Tickets are a imo a useless remainder of battlefield. Battlefield worked completly different than empires. You dont have research. In empires one team usually gains a technological advantage and end the game before tickets run out anyway. Basically it creates an imbalance and enables one team to crush the other. This imbalance doesnt exist (or well at least it doesnt change) during a game in battlefield. Also tickets dont really add to the classic mode. There are little classic maps won by tickets (do numbers exist?) To avoid endless fights (i doubt there would be many anyway) the players spawn time should be affected by his spawns. Make it a multiplier between 1 + 0.25 per 5 spawns and 1 + 0.5 per 5 spawns, so server owner can still manipulate this. This means a player respawning 5 times suffers a 25-50% increased spawn time, after 10-20 death it will double and so on. the effects on gameplay are (at least the ones i can think of) - it promotes not to die This is the most obvious effect. Atm you only lose one ticket of your team, nothing that hits yourself. - revive As tickets are eliminated revive isnt an absolute must, but it still will get you a serious advantage over an enemy that doesnt revive (apart from staying at the front and be able to keep the pressure on) Also a player using a respawn suffers a personal disadvantage, so it might even encourage to wait for revive. - killspawning Well, this is tricky. On the one hand I guess you wouldn't want to encourage killspawning by dropping out of the rule and dont count as respawns, on the other you shouldnt have a disadvantage because you are the one that spawns back to fight of the light tank harrasing your commander. Maybe someone else has an idea? Some alarm button for the commander maybe, but thats exploitable too ... - death in tanks As you cant be revived when you die inside a tank (or only with squadrevive, but thats teamwork already and totaly ok), dieing in tanks much will be punished aswell, imo no real disadvantage :D - flag maps Flag maps are the only maps where tickets really make sense. I think its basically because they work more like battlefield (the capture and hold priciple), where the tickes are from. Keep them or remove them too, i guess both will work out. The first CaH mods didnt have spawn tickets either, so if there is need you can implement a point counter and its the same (like in company of heroes for example). - escort style maps (as there would be many ) This is the only tricky map style as it uses asymetric tickets as sort of timer. There need to be a way to scale the factor for each team (pretty much as it works with tickets atm) plus a timer that end the map after a given time period. BE suffers less wait time increase, NF more - it should basically have the same outcome ... In theory at least ... ideas anyone? - sudden death Will get obsolete. In my oppinon its an annoying situation anyway, - final base siege, where you think getting them to 0 tickets might save you Well this element will drop out of the game too. But lets look at how it is. Its so rare that it doenst really makes a difference. But if you really survived a siege, lets say they have arty, and took lets say 40 tickets from them during it, your team should be good enough to find another way to turn the game around ... Conclusio. I think removing tickets could add to the classic game mode. It promotes good players that manage to survive a fight. Iit also promotes teamplay, as players are encouraged to wait for an engineer, which is easier close to your team. I dont really think that many players have the tickets in mind when they press respawn unless someone yelled "hey guys watch the tickets" over mic. With my suggestion it would hit them personally, but not others. It might encourage someone to reconsider in him not being the superawesome light tank driver that can kill the comm on his own while there are about 1000 turrets around. It might even get guys to take defusal while driving apcs! This also gives the loseing team a bit more of a chance, as you can play more offensive and dont have to care that much about ruining the game for everyone, especially if tickets are low and you died maybe twice (talking of 1-5 ticket situations). Finally games could last longer, it was voted as something people would like to see - including me. Shitty games dont last until sudden death anyway ... Plz mind the numbers are out of my head, they for sure will have to be adjusted, but i'd really love to see that tested out.
meh. Tickets are a tricky thing. Typically in order to gain ground you lose tickets, unless your team is just that awesome. What they are useful for is limiting stalemates. Then again, if we can easily get into a stalemate mode is that even a good thing to begin with? I'm confused how removing tickets makes revive more useful? After all, why wait for revive? Just respawn. It doesn't take any tickets if you remove the ticket system.
No sir, I don't like it and here's the main reason why: I'm sure quite a few of you played Natural Selection the HL mod and one of the things that really bugs me about it was that a losing team almost never recovers simply because you need to be winning in order to gain ground (resources) and you need ground (resources) in order to win. In Empires you can win by simply capping refs, getting research and building a fleet of vehicles, BUT you can also win with a surprise all out rush on the comm or by playing strongly defensive and taking tickets or the occasional ninja. During my first games of Empires this was what I liked the most and I'd like for it to remain. I do have a complaint though. It's as Flasche says, it rarely happens that tickets decide a game, this is because in the latest patches mappers have been adding stupid amounts of tickets to their maps. Especially, ESPECIALLY that one urban infantry map with a mono-rail overhead. I don't know who the genius was that decided to draw out an already tedious map by adding more tickets, but hour-long games on that map are freaking boring. But there's also the other maps that have gone the way of slaughtered and simply give 400 or 500 tickets per team. THIS IS BORING FOLKS. Whats the point of tickets if you give out so many that they don't even matter anymore. So rather than removing them from the game just slash the amounts in half and empower a team that revives and stays alive.
I agree with flasche, remove tickets from comm maps. And cause nobody seems to read the text, he said the more often you spawn the longer is the timer til you can spawn...
Tickets prevent stalemates IF one team runs out and gets steamrolled. If the ticket counts are close it turns into a revive contest, making the game sllooowwww. I like this idea because it still gives penalties for dying, but it gives them to each player. No more 'hah now you cant spawn because you just joined and your team has already wasted its tickets' No more emp_recruit blowing through your last 20 tickets because he has no idea whats going on. This could encourage people to sit around and fortify base or camp (== do nothing) but they do that anyway.
tickets on the occasion do cause stalemates. but by far the largest influence of tickets is a sort of "mercy kill", ending the game earlier than just total defeat, for when one team is impossible to dislodge for an end position and is just dragging out the game out of the natural sense of "i suppose i should shoot the enemy". games which last forever over the same area of map get stale quickly. we don't have a timer, as TF2 does, instead we have tickets, which means that if both teams are unable to kill each other then eventually the team which has done progressively worse throughout the match will suffer for it. I think there are solutions to the stalemates, but that we need tickets of some sort to end the game when one team wi One idea i like is that instead of each spawn deducting a ticket, each death does. I know this is a large change to gameplay, but it means that it will be more difficult, nay, impossible to end up at a stalemate where either team is preventing sudden death. I'd also like to have some other sudden death mechanics, such as all walls and commander placed turrets dying, to break deadlocks
Don't add an increasing spawn time, because it's very boring and frustrating if you lay arround dead and can't do anything. Teammate: "Attention. There is a HMG rifleman/Scout/some mines in barracks" You: Too late. Dead. Wait 20 seconds and spawn You: Dead again Wait 25 seconds and spawn You: Dead again ... Sounds like a lot of fun If you want to keep the enemies away from battlefield, then destroy their barracks so they have to walk a period of time.
I just won two games the other game via tickets. One of the games we were clearly down in, with them having a turret wall of level 3 turrets such that we couldn't make a serious advance. Tickets mean that you don't need to charge blindly into a wall of death and lose just because it could get you an extra resource. With tickets, you can make them fight your defense and have them torn apart for it. If they did not exist games would be longer and there would be no good way to break into highly fortified areas.
i hate how reading comprehension is a unused skill in this fucking reallife game ... ... the strangest thing is, the few that really read what i wrote, mostly agree :D thanks for you time and comments :D
I believe you are rationalizing that those who disagree with you did not read what you said. You want people to have gradually increasing spawn times as they die. This makes certain win conditions invalid and disperses the problem among individuals. I player who is playing well will die, what, 20 times at most in a game? In order to gain victory be denial of enemy units, you must force the enemy into a position where they are unable to properly reenforce or defend a location because they lack sufficient troops or the costs will be too great. This does not permit that as a valid solution as the troops will have a delayed effect rather than an immediate one. To make my meaning more clear.. Current method: Troops-> Death-> Less troops defending->Time-gap->Less maximum troops defending Your Method-> Troops-> Death-> less troops defending-> Time-gap-> Less of a rate of return to maximum troops defending. If you already cannot beat the wall of fire with your maximum forces this will not permit you to all of a sudden. Instead of having a hard advantage at end game, the advantage becomes soft as both sides have had a continuous disadvantage created. You have less units to attack and they have less units to defend, barely, at any given time. I have never seen a match where there was such a huge difference in deaths that your means of calculation would cause a meaningful impact upon the game unless it was set to such parameters that noobs would rightfully complain to no end that they couldn't do anything for half the game.
well i said my suggested timespans all are very random and for sure need to get tuned. i made the step increase every 5 kills (this might need finetuning too) for a good reason. it doesnt instantly cripple you, so you can use some respawns, in case you need to try something risky, die in a tank, and so on ... after a while an imbalance between the two factions will occur and the game will end, actually there are many more factors that create the imbalance needed to win, such as research and refinary controll, amount of tanks and so on. it might shift tactics a tiny bit, but in the end i doubt the change will be big. dont forget, you only have to kill one single unit in the game to win. its pretty different to most other games. it might even change the game to the better, who knows ... as far as i found out, it never has been tried ... ... and i guess only an actual playtest could show if its win or fail. there are many things to consider, i doubt you really are able to discuss it to the point where you can say its good or bad, without trying. so mainly the only question is, are tickets something empires cant exist without. is it so crucial for gameplay, and can you create tactics with it, that it would make empires a completely different game, or is it mere a remainder of battlefield and could maybe be replaced by a better system. that actually promotes carefull playing, waiting for revives. a system that would allow longer games and get rid of the ridicolous "i can kill the comm with me pistol, oh look how uber i am" situation known as sudden death mode. it would remove all the situations where you yell over your mic, "shit guys we only have 3 ... 2 ... tickets left, plz dont spaw ... arr, you idiot, fuck we only have one ... shit you jerk, who just spawned, fuck you, now we are in sudden death mode ... you are such a noob ... go and die!" i think tickets cause more grief than they actually add to the game. so just get rid of them.
no. and extra spawn time is lame, if i wanted to get punished i would have asked my sweet GF to spank me -_-
I like this suggestion. The ticket system allows one or two people to cause you to lose. At least in this method, bad/noob players punish only themselves.
it should ahve a way to stop insane respawn times at the end games; after all we dont want to punish ppl who have happened to have been on the server since the start and reward server-hopping. have either a skill which reduces respawn time, make it a squad based thing, and/or work some way for rank to make a difference (something like every 5 points effectively lowers your death count by 5). as for deathporting: institute the ability to suicide in a rax/armory to respawn in a new rax/armory (i know this has already been sugested but i liked the idea then and i like it now).
Max cap respawn times - 30s is probably the max anyone should ever be out of commission for...although a lower value like 22s feels better. So in fact, you've never seen a ticket win - by a reasonably large margin? Doesn't that make his point more valid then? - If you aren't winning by a crushing victory, doesn't it make sense for the losing team not to be penalized by an abitrary limit that loses the game for them - for not much reason?
