I had this maybe crazy idea a few days ago as i played empires on lan and both sides ran out of tickets but having enormous resources left (even with lower then default resources, we spent 2 hours bombing the last tickets away) What about allowing the commander to buy additional tickets? To keep it balanced i think of something like an ticketpool that regenerates slowly* and which price depends on the tickets in stock and the tickets ordered*² *Like 1 ticket every 15 to 30 seconds + 1 ticket for each 10 used tickets from both teams together (eg. nf uses 3 and be looses 7 tickets the ticketpool raises by 1) *² This one is a bit more complicated and i have no clue what numbers might be good, obvious need testing. But imho a ticket should be expensive and the ticketpool needs to grow over a match and doesnt have some in the beginning. This is meant to prevent one comm buying a couple and fucking his team up the arse with not spending it for ref's also it prevents someone only relying on infantry and probably is overall better also i think only comms should know the ticketpool to prevent crybabys saying "comm buy tickets nao!!" pro: when a team has way more money then tickets the comm can order more troops and adds a bit "stock market gambling" as that both comms buy from the same pool con: hmm dunno might overthrow the team with more tickets and less resources especially when the enemy comm buys alot tickets and raises the price
currently, tickets is one of the few ways for a team pinned into one corner of the map and fighting off all kinda of crazy tanks to win... this idea help situations where both teams are equal a small amount but it will totally destroy any chances of a losing team winning on tickets. I don't think it's a great idea.
This is a bad idea, you should let the team with lower resources be able to win, if your team is rich already, why do u want more tickets, use the resources on turrets and vehicles. Anyway, this would lend to neverending battles, as ppl would play defensive when tickes go low, buying more and more for hours lol
thats why there would be a cap to the amount of buyable tickets and why i think they should be expensive also i was in more then enough battles where my team was rich as fuck but we were just fending off the assaults and got slowly killed down on tickets even with excessive revive, we had no chance to spend money on turrets and buying vehicles wasnt really doing it as that comm gave paper heavys and things like that
We could do a refinery system where you place down a building that provides tickets as a resource like 1 point per 5 min. Each building would cost 900 with a max of 4 buildings per team, but these buildings would be tall and big. When saped the time would increase to 10 min. The building could also generate a tiny tricle of res but you cant live off of 4 of these and one refinery and on a map like crossroads with care full placment you can place all buildings and an air pad even tho the map is too small lol.(yes i know the map is too small for air units i just tried to make a joke)
what;s the point? 4 tickets in 5 minutes wont change anything, it just means the enemy has to kill you 4 more times.
I had this idea before, but I'm not sure if I like it or not. Here's how I'd do it, though: Make each ticket you buy cost progressively more. Say, the first one costs 100, the second one costs 200, the third costs 300... or it could increase more steeply if you want. This would make the ticket limit a 'soft limit' and make running out less dull for players who are dead, but would still mean that running out would eventually be fatal. Even with a huge advantage in resources, the costs would eventually swamp you... And, really, I don't like it when a team manages to win by 9 tickets or some absurdly low number. It's too easy for a single noob on a team of 20 people to cause a difference like that... the more flexable ticket limit would avoid that. On the other hand, as others have said... even a 'ballooning price' system is still going to slightly make things harder for underdogs and players on the defense. Being able to wear down an overly-aggressive team via tickets is a good thing... I also like the thematic sense that no amount of money and tanks can make up for the fact that, eventually, you're going to run out of able-bodied lives. I'm not sure... (As a practical matter, I would also have tickets purchased in batches, just to make it easier for the comm to manage. 10 for 1000, next 10 for 2000, next 10 for 4000, next 10 for 8000... well, there's lots of ways to set up the costs. I don't know if those are appropriate... it would also have to account for the initial tickets and number of resources on a map.)
How about the addition of the "French Man" class. Basically each "French Man" will be weaker and more cowardly than the others, but the advantage is for each "French Man" it only takes up 1/4 of the tickets, so when your team is in a bind, the commander can call up the "French Man" class for eveyone, and vola, you got an army of bon bon eating soldiers!
This idea will never work for the simple reason that, once you get to the place where you need more tickets, the enemy already has 90% of the nodes and is shelling your base with arty. By then, you don't have the resources to buy more tickets. OTOH, if your squad leaders all go engineer and camp in the radar, they can continually mass-revive their whole squad once they all die, and keep right on going. I've actually been on the winning team, where we won through 'rez-attrition' when they still had over 30 tickets when we had run out. Another good tactic is for all deaders to join the squad with the most points, then switch out once they rez. You don't need to buy tickets if you play it right.
answer this question: Why do we want to remove one of the one features, win by tickets, that help losing teams get back into the game, instead of having them pounded into the ground a bit more easily? someone answer that question well and I'll back you. I'll help as much as I can. Until someone answers that question, this topic is a waste of time.
