Fixing the "Slippery slope"

Discussion in 'Game Play' started by Omneh, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. Omneh

    Omneh Member

    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Currently, Empires is heavily prone to games being decided in the first few minutes, with little or no chance for the losing team to regain ground. This has to change, since nobody likes playing a losing game due to having lost their forward barrack in the first few minutes, and having to endure the next 20 minutes as a long, slow, painful push back to their start base, before the enemy team get heavies and ends the game.

    So, how do we think we can negate this problem?

    Personally, I think the loss of a barracks in the early game could be made less damaging if barracks cost was reduced to 200 again, since the increase to 400 has done little to prevent barracks spam and done a lot to fuck over the team that loses their barrack at the start of the game and has no resources for another barrack. Radar cost could be decreased as well, to ensure both teams can start researching, even if one may have a resource and territory advantage over the other.

    As well as this, early game vehicles should be a lot cheaper than what they are now, meaning that the team with the refinery disadvantage can at least field a nearly equal number of vehicles to push against the enemy team. Conversely, higher tech vehicles such as heavies and artilliery (mediums should the same price, since they are used little enough as is) should be considerably more expensive and take more time to research, meaning the team with the research and resource advantage is not as able to completely fuck over the enemy team as they are now, instead giving the losing team more time to push back, and even out the game.

    How else could we avoid the current slippery slope problem in Empires?
     
  2. SnowDrakE

    SnowDrakE Member

    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So games are decided by vehicles. Like you said, once the heavies are out, it's steamrolling time, if you don't have more vehicles to counter them.

    And the problem is the cost of the rax because you want more vehicles.

    After summing it up, I doubt the problem is the price of the rax to be honest.
     
  3. -=SIP=-

    -=SIP=- Member

    Messages:
    2,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't overrate the importance of barracks. Refineries win the game (except of full 64 players server) and barracks should only help to defend refineries. On most maps refineries can be accessed on many ways.
    And for the few maps with only one or two very close chokepoints I would just suggest to increase the starting resources to 600-800.

    By the way I saw no barracks spam in 2.24.
     
  4. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i always said that making rax more expensive is a bad move
    i think rax cost should go up every time you level up vehs so a team that gets behind because of noob com (or anything else) can still put up a fight
    other solution can be scaling the price with the number of rax built.
    you have 2 raxes? pay 300
    you have no rax? 100
    you have 6 raxes all over the map? well either that or a good medium
    (numbers are not final or anything)

    as for the heavyrape , i think the problem is that its too easy to just skip mediums and get heavies. That is especially true for be since they dont have to get any cannon and can field good armed heavies way sooner than nf can counter with anything
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2009
  5. TheAmethystDuke

    TheAmethystDuke Member

    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    agree,

    The first Barracks should be important, but not an instant win button. Canyon is a great example of this.

    1 team places a barracks, it popular to save up resources so you can build a barracks at both choke points.

    Let's say that NF lose their Rax in the west. They will now get beaten the crap out of them because they can't revive. By the time NF can build a new Barracks BE has already build a VF or a Radar.

    So even if NF was able to regain the refinery and build a new barracks, they will now be overrun by tanks or they will have less superior tech for the rest of the game.

    The question is, is this due to poor mapping, or is this a flaw in the gameplay?

    Ofcourse this could be fixed by giving both teams more resources but then we will get the same problem over and over again.

    NF loses a rax, rebuilds it. BE instead, build a radar or a VF.

    So, the destruction of the NF barracks still made BE win the game.

    However, if we decrease the cost of the barracks, or make it so that first barracks costs 100 or 200 resources, and increases when you build more barracks then that will still make the barracks in the early game important, but it won't win you the game.

    If we decrease the cost of the barracks then one side may build their VF or Radar earlier in the game, or research tech earlier. But you won't lose anymore just because you lost your forward barracks.

    EDIT: In 2.24 it's still possible to win, but you'd have to destroy the enemy barracks or important structures(radar/vf).

    However, if your team does not manage to destroy the enemy barracks, VF or Radar, then it's probrally GG...
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2009
  6. -Mayama-

    -Mayama- MANLY MAN BITCH

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uhm everytime I command and not lose i end up with 6-10 barrackses if Its not money or crossroad. :3 (and i love to fill the gaps between barrackses with armourys :D )
     
  7. Jephir

    Jephir ALL GLORY TO THE JEPHIR

    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Upkeep costs for vehicles and buildings.
     
  8. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    also RPGs, mines and stickies need to be stronger vs vehicles. or vehicles need to be considerably weaker (id prefer that).

    it cant be, that a grenadier isnt able to kill ANY vehicle with upgraded armor, unless the driver is a nub or doesnt care.
    currently you are able drive around IN their base, even if there are tons of ml turrets and run over grens for lulz.

    THIS JUST SHOULDNT BE POSSIBLE :headshot:
     
  9. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Make maps linear and don't put anything important in the middle.

    Put all the resources in uncontested areas and add a terrain advantage to both sides which allows them to hold either side of the central combat area.

    Basically make it so that losing ground doesn't cause you to lose any resources or make your bases vulnerable in any way until you've lost a lot of it, you can add some benefits to the combat area like protected locations for infantry to shoot at tanks from, and places for people to spawn, so you have a reason to fight over the map and the game will change as the battle moves around, but nothing really important can happen until a huge amount of ground has been gained or lost. If you put resources where they can be destroyed this fucks it up, because one refinery is important in empires. Thus refineries must be secure, and by neccesity the map must be linear so that people fight across it for the simple reason that they need to do so in order to get to the enemy base.

    That's the only way I can think of fixing it without changing the whole game anyway.
     
  10. Silk

    Silk Mapper

    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree on this one, although apparantly the rpg change that will be in 2.25 might fix most of this problem already.
    It's where my hope lies currently. Otherwise i'm gonna have to wait in line at the vf from now as well, hoping i can click faster than the other guys and grab a tank when the money goes over the limit.

    Yesterday i needed 9 rpgs to kill an apc. The bastard kept turning and i wasn't able to manouver myself into a position to attack a specific side. After all my 8 rpgs were shot i had to switch to my mortar, and from that distance it took me 3 shots before i could hit him and finally destroy him. And this is almost the best case scenario, as they usually retreat for repairs just before they get destroyed or that you get killed first. It took 11 of my ammo but at least he was destroyed and i was alive. But this is the weakest thing in the game, yet even they get sometimes used as an ml turret distraction while jeeps rush in. With good armor even they can easily take it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2009
  11. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    that would basically mean scrap (at least) half of current maps?
     
  12. MiamiHeat87

    MiamiHeat87 Member

    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Doesn't sound like a bad idea actually. I just made a suggestion that heavies should cost more so smaller vehicles are used more. Your suggestion still follows this principal. Also the idea of cheaper buildings to help even the grounds may or may not work. I can't be sure unless it is actually tested in game numerous times!
     
  13. Silk

    Silk Mapper

    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That idea is exactly the same like giving each team a coded in equal certain amount of resources and have no refinery system.
     
  14. Lazydog

    Lazydog Member

    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    We call that map emp_money. And it sucks.
     
  15. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    err rax cost 400 since a few patchlevels - i cant remember before that, losing your first one was such a huge issue.

    if you lost the north one, you still had the west one (given that this would be the 2 forward rax locations for the map)
    so if your north team failed, the west one still could push up towards their base.

    currently it would be best for the comm to decide which team team has the better chances of success and give them the rax.
    and this is just a matter of luck. if you guessed right, you have a chance (you are not even guaranteed to win), but if you guessed wrong, the chance you are losing is getting close to 1.
     
  16. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The question was not 'how do we make empires fun', the question was 'how do we fix the instability in the game', although thankfully I have answered both.

    And no you don't, you call half that map emp_money.

    Emp_money has nothing of value in the middle, no terrain, no change in the battlefield as players advance and retreat, it's all just shooting people with heavies and arty spam.

    What I am talking about is keep a similar resource system to money, but less of it, because you don't need that many refineries, then put in a series of other valuable things between the two bases. Things like new base sites, small places to build repair pads and raxes, cappable flags which generate a tiny trickle of res, that sort of thing. Things which are more or less inconsequential but which in volume conribute to victory, rather than the one double ref you need to cap and hold for ten minutes to win.

    You could have areas which control access to the map, like if NF have control of a flag it blocks a route for the BE, or if BE hold a flag it activates turret defences for an area or gives them radar coverage.

    There are plenty of other objectives which can exist other than 'cap refs', and as I said, people will fight across the field to get to the enemy, and if you make the field interesting (which you can while still making it quite linear) the game will still be fun.
     
  17. blizzerd

    blizzerd Member

    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    id say let the commander vehicle of each team generate resources


    25% of the resources on the map for example

    this way each refinery increases your resources flow on a smaller margin so if you have 1 refinery less then the other team it will be far less of a deal then it is now
     
  18. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Make damage to the hull of all vehicles permanent, or at least only repairable by a repair-pad. Also, slow down normal vehicle armor repair. Currently damaging a tank through it's armor means some time-out for repairs and nothing more if the tank is not destroyed. If hull damage was permanent, then not only would you have to spend time away from battle repairing your tank, but that tank becomes easier to destroy over time. This would give even one shot through a vehicle's armor much more "power", and therefore give defending teams a greater chance of repelling tank attacks.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  19. Zealoth

    Zealoth Member

    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    couldnt we bring back APC spawns back?
    Only lock them for first few mins of a game to prevent instant wins. (And maybe make CV jamm this spawnpoint or something)
    (If you get rushed after that time and fail, you suck)
    APC spawns were great thing, enabling you to remain in battle even if you lost rax, retake some ground if you were quick and agile enough.
     
  20. SnowDrakE

    SnowDrakE Member

    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually... Upkeep costs. For vehicles and buildings.

    Seriously, I think that's a brilliant idea.
     

Share This Page