thats life, equal rounds that stalemate usually are better games then those where you steamroll anyway ...
(didn't read rest of thread) Or have tickets taken away on death and given back on revive, like in battlefield.
Read the first two pages... the rest is too much crap and crying to read. I am also of the idea that when you run out of tickets spawn times should increase. Perhaps double spawn time. This should still give you the tension that your looking for due to it being particularly hard to fight back against people who can spawn twice as fast as you. This system should not kill overtime. If both teams reach 0 it should kick in. Even though I hate overtime since it seems like an incredible let down to loose a TANK to a pistol.
Allowing respawning at the end of the game just prevents it from ending. Honestly, you're all talking about MAJOR changes for the sake of 1 in 20 rounds in which go to tickets. And even then, 1/5 of those ticket rounds are where the problems arise. So major, major changes in the way tickets are handled, that will have their own problems and need balancing, for the sake of what, 1 out of every 100 rounds?
It doesn't prevent it from ending. It prevents a horrible ending. This way your spawn rate is reduced instead of out right cut off. It makes for more interesting play. Perhaps a bit more turtling as well(that is always possible). District for example would no longer come down to the crappy ending it currently has nearly every time. Nearly every time I play it, it comes down to a stalemate in the middle till tickets run out. Then it is who ever has the most squad points or the best use of squad points who wins. I am not suggesting this merely for fixing district.
basically this, for a game that is in its last breath any major change is basically a waste of time ...
my hopes are up that some follow up project will succeed. i still think the idea of mixing rts and fps is pure gold. if a future developer is smart enough to learn from empires conceptual mistakes - which mainly revolve around that there is a conflict between the two genres, comm vs player interests, but also around that tanks still are severely overpowered vs infantry - the game could be a huge success. also if you play empires today it kinda feels old - its like playing q3 after youve played a source game.
You know, it's funny, I get so much bitching about my scripts making tanks underpowered against infantry. I honestly can't win.
thats why it needs a new game where you can say, "no its not empires gtfo". people are conservative. (and also itd need some major adaptions of general game mechanics) look at bf3, you can one hit disable a tank with an rpg if you hit from behind, two hit kill it. does that mean you cant pwn with it? no, you just need backup, teamplay so to say. if you rush into a position headlessly (which a lot of ppl do) youll get 2 maybe 3 kills on chance but often blow up before you even fired a single shot. if you play a bit more carefull (but not the camping careful) with some inf guys you might end up with a 10:1 kdr - if your air is good too even higher ... also in bf theres only few tanks (2x 2tanks + AA at max?!) and they (by design) do not respawn for quite a while (which doesnt mean that dumb server owners let the vehicles spawn so often that they value a lot less). if youd think this through out of the "conservative empries perspective" itd mean the tanks would have to be close to invulnerable. but then there is this "its so stale" and "its not fun" and "its boring" and "but it costs resources" arguments and you want to stop argueing and go back playing something else. which is sad since as said before i think the idea behind empires is the best since sliced bread (though i think sliced bread is quite dumb bc it dries out faster and is usually cut too small). edit: but also the other argument is more important imo. theres too little synergy between rts and fps. the interaction between is comm and players only is building (players for comm) and research (comm for players). youd either need comm powers or distribute the rts part more equally between players. also some basic rts ai stuff could profit the game a lot.
I judge balance by the amount of bitching I get from both sides. I get equal bitching from Riflemen as I do from Gren, and equal bitching from Infantry as I do from Tanks. Ergo, I have achieved balance. My logic is flawless.
please post a list of tank drivers who say that they have problems taking on infantrists so i can laugh at them and wont take any of their arguments serious anymore ... but i give you that infantry balance is quite ok now. only pistols are redicolous, you shouldnt be able to reliably hit anything above a range of 10-15m max, especially not when on the move. maybe crouched and completely still for 5s ...
http://empires-server.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7&start=10 5th post on that page. Read from then onwards. Then feel my pain at trying to debate with these people in a civil manner.
you do realize that you're discussing it with vizio and metalsand right? Metalsand= complete fucking retard. vizio= complete fucking retard. both cant play empires for shit.
So that's why viper reverted to stock scripts. Last time I played majority of the people complained about the stock scripts even those who dislike the new ones, Vicky really needs to stop listening to the vocal minority.
excuse me trickster but you listen to this kind of guys as critics? people who say slaughtered would be an open map bc it has "open fields between narrow hallways". as you replied yourself slaughtered is the epitome of a clusterfuck.
I think that Dz just made the best suggestion in the entire thread. Punishes camping, nerfs scout rifles, promotes pushing and we have the technical part already covered.
