Fixing the "Slippery slope"

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

  1. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We need to organize some of these ideas and group them together.

    First, We need to have some sort of limiter based upon chassis type, or so many points you can put towards tanks, with each different chassis being worth a different amount of points. Possibly remove tickets all together and make them tech points, where it cost TP and res to build a tank, and once you are out of TP, you can't build any more tanks.

    Or just put in a hard limiter of so many per chassis type.


    The main issue with the slippery slope in empires is the lack of limitations on new tech. If you get heavy tanks, you can have just as many heavy tanks as the enemy can have light tanks. In most games with different classes of units, there is a hard limit on each different class to prevent one class from being over populated and ruining the game. For example, starcraft has a system of making each unit cost a certain amount of control points. each team has 200 control points, and 1 unit cost different amounts of control points. So you can have 50 Archons at 3 points each, or 100 dragoons at 2 points each, or 150 zealots at 1 point each. The Archon is much stronger than the dragoon or the zealot alone, but sometimes numbers mean more than individual strength.

    if starcraft worked the same as it does with empires, it would be the same as having 200 Archons vs. 200 zealot. The archons 1v1 would win. therefor the archons 200 v 200 will win.

    There needs to be a method to not only have a heavy tank cost more resources, but also make it not physically possible to have 1 heavy to 1 light tank on the field, as the heavy tank will 1 100% of the time.
     
  2. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I assume, however, that in starcraft, a player who cannot field something comparable to your archons due to either tech or resources, would lose anyway?

    In empires, if you aren't fielding your own heavies because you haven't researched them or don't have the resources to, you also lose, regardless of the maximum pop cap. So that is not likely to help.
     
  3. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plus hard limits makes that noob in a heavy even worse.
     
  4. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In either case, in order to get the advantage where you can field heavies and the enemy can't, you need to be better than them. In that instance, even the slightest advantage in tech would only make you better still.

    What you need to do is make the game harder for the advantaged side, not less easier.
     
  5. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps every (TIME DURATION) both teams get "tank supplies" that they can then put together into either a few expensive, powerful heavy tanks or more numerous, less expensive/powerful light tanks. :confused:

    That way failing your heavy tank rush means you have to pull back for a while. Both to save however many tanks you have left and to rebuild more.

    Um....this post should be more in-depth, right? Eh.....
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  6. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then you just end up with your team having res + tank stuff and the enemy team having no res + tank stuff, you're still in the lead.

    Seriously guys trying to lessen the effect of the winning team gaining an advantage is not going to help, it's going to lead to exactly the same 30 minute losing games we have now, only this time it'll take hours because the advantage takes longer to build up. You need to at least completely remove the effect, and then probably add in a counterforce, to stabilise the game in the early sections, so you can have say half an hour of stable gameplay with shooting and fun, and then steadily remove that counterforce to allow the game to end. You initially fight to prevent loss, then after a while you fight to win.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  7. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a matter of tweaking how often tank "stuff" is supplied and how cheap light tanks are.

    .....Something like that. :confused:

    Edit: You know what? Your right. I have absolutely no idea right now what should be done. True rebalancing of this means changing gameplay and a lot of other stuff.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  8. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you give both teams more stuff it doesn't remove the fact that the one team has an advantage, nor does it change that the way to have the advantage is to already be winning.

    Unless you're going to give more stuff to the losing team than to the winning team, but in that case why not just remove the resources and give both teams a fixed income, instead of keeping the resource system and then equalising it by just throwing money at the team with fewer refineries.
     
  9. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you make lategame incredibly unstable however, you'll get annoying scenarios where something happens and then everything comes crashing down on one team, and only one or two people will know why.
     
  10. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um.... I think we're tripping over each other's post here. It's kinda fun, like slow chat....... :unsure:

    Yeah, I concede. :(

    Edit: I say try thinking this one out:
    Maybe make a territory (node?) system instead of a resource node system.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  11. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My genius knows no bounds.

    (personally, I prefer the draw option)
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  12. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great, another page, now I'm really behind here. :p
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  13. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Personally I reckon when on team can't spawn it should start a 60 second countdown until they lose.

    You can stop it by grabbing back a spawn point or building a new rax, but once you hit 0 tickets it's 60 seconds.

    If you bring the enemy down to 0 tickets in that time the timer resets and it's 60 seconds until a draw, in that time sudden death is enabled.

    Pros: Defeats waiting for revive.
    Fixes endgame dragging on
    Blahblah

    Cons: You lose faster?
     
  14. aaaaaa50

    aaaaaa50 Member

    Messages:
    1,401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If one team has less than 10 tickets and the other has over 50, then there should be a failnuke spawned to instantly kill the damn comm.

    There, now I have fixed empires with my awesomeness! :rolleyes:

    P.S. Really Good Suggestion Empty. Sounds better than the current system.

    P.P.S.

    Really,
    A
    Good
    Empty
    Suggestion.

    /failacronym :headshot:
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2009
  15. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]
    R.A.G.E.S?
     
  16. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Sheepe

    Sheepe Member

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem of fielding better tanks is that the current system massively encourages paper tanks, because any tank is better than no tank and half the cost of tanks is the armor and guns. And when you include research it goes far beyond that.

    Really, the best way to rebalance for that "idea" is to make the base cost of tanks more and the cost of guns, armor and engines less.

    You could make heavies DRASTICALLY more expensive without making them crap. Cheaper parts, more expensive chassis.


    And IMHO this whole balance issue needs several threads spawned out of it to clear it up. Say one devoted to each idea brought up, then clustered under a "super-thread". It would keep it organized and FARRRR more sane. Let each thread discuss and dissect each possibility, formalize it and then poll. True democracy in action!
     
  18. spellman23

    spellman23 Member

    Messages:
    861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That actually makes some sense! However, this is unfortunately the thread about adding in counter forces to prevent slight advantages in the first battle from becoming the advantage that steamrolls the enemy.
     
  19. Empty

    Empty Member

    Messages:
    14,912
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Disagree sheep. Fielding grens is better than fielding paper.
     
  20. FN198

    FN198 Member

    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    agree with empty on that last thought.

    as i am late to this thread, i'll reply to the original topic by saying that its not that once one team gets out vehicles it will beat the other and it is not that when one team owns a large percentage of the map that they automatically win. now i'm not referring to ninjas or any kind of quick win tactic, but rather i think that it is possible for one team to turn things around strategically when they are on their last leg. it is all up to the ability of the team and their commander to make the right decisions and come up with effective real time tactics and strategies.

    I think that the players on a team are responsible for giving up too fast, and ignoring the commanders requests (putting the commanders requests on the back burner while they go off and play their army game oblivious to the strategic situation).

    the team's job is fight, the commander's job is to tell the team where they need to fight in order to win. unless you play the game as much as I have, it isn't so easy to find weaknesses in your opponents formation. this is the horizontal asymptote of the learning curve of commanding.

    most teams and most commanders are unable to get themselves out of sticky situations and when faced with a well coordinated team with an experienced commander, they will surely perish.

    it is never true that one team is perfectly defended in all their positions, and it is always true that a team has weak points. understanding this and exploiting it is the role of the commander.
     

Share This Page