In response to the topic : http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?p=235241#post235241 and not to derail it, I started this one. I think the community needs to decide how they want to have the end game, ie once one team starts losing, do you: Drag it out and try to make a comeback Slow grind the other team to pulp, leaving them stuck with paper tanks while you get comp/nukes. Read: overkill End it This is not for the case where both sides have been matched for the entire game, have max comp nuke heavies and enough resources to make 15 more and both comms have researched plasma "just for the hell of it" In order to do this, there needs to be a consensus on just when the round is unwinable. If the commander is the only one left alive, being chased and there is no barracks, it is over. If the only people left alive are afk, the commander is being chased and there is no barracks, it is over.
A really bullshit way to fix this would be to fix resources to the same for both teams for the first phases of the game regardless of amount of refineries. Or maps need to be fixed. Slaughtered is an excellent example because there are an even 3v3 refineries on each side of the map, out of reach of the enemy but if a big push happens they can destroy it.
In the current aspect of the game, its over when the initial rush fails, or when they sneak troops past your base to put up a ninja barracks. What I would personally like to see: Loss happens when defending commander has exhausted all his revenge powers and resources, and the enemy team still is at the front door.
It's not as simple as the poll. I think that after a certain threshold, it becomes extremely unlikely the other side can make a comeback. However, that threshold is fairly far from the middle deadlock position. I would say that if a team is pushed back to main, they've pretty much lost. There's a 0.0001% chance they can win it, but it should be highly unlikely and require exceptional brilliance on their part. Or stupidity on their enemy's. So, no I don't want alamos to still have a 30% of victory by bleeding enemy tickets. But, there should still be a chance, no matter how seemingly negligible. That being said, alamos shouldn't be able to drag the game out over 5-10 minutes. If they're gonna make a comeback, they gotta do it quick. On the topic of when it is "over", it is over when the comm is destroyed. Let the enemy team have their crushing victory. This ties into alamos not being able to drag out the game. After a certain point, momentum should carry the team to victory. Both sides know one side will most probably win (excepting awesome), and dragging it out makes the round annoying and stupid.
I usually make it as annoying and slow as possible for the enemy to win, even if it's inevitable. But I would prefer it if that were not possible, and also not neccesary because the majority of the game has been fairly balanced and we all want a new map now.
i think that maps already have a good spread of play types. Slaughtered is really a hold until you can push through map. Canyon is holding one of the key choke points. Dust storm is holding a central area, and defending a vast territory through mobility. Isles is never played right, and puts too much emphasis on that top left corner, and not enough on the bottom right part that is on low ground. If a team held the bottom corner and the two top refineries well, they could theorectically hold that part of the map, but no one ever does.
"a central area" not "the central area" he means holding on to one main base (not always starting) while holding a few refs.
hm... good idea blizzerd. It fits well into my personal philosophy of small local minima scattered in an otherwise slippery slope system. After a certain point, you're just gonna have to lose. But until that's decided, stabilizing forces are in effect.
dont like the idea of handicap at all so even if your team has worked hard enough to get every single ref on the map and many times thats not even possible because one of the refs are in the enemy main. i don't think that the winning team should be handicapped by the losing one i think that the losing team should get the 25% but that shouldn't apply to winning team. And i hate the idea of research just based on time. That would just make researching even more boring, whats to prevent people from rushing nukes every single game? I like the basic idea of what your saying but it needs more tweaking.
handicap stands for "you dont have as many refineries as the enemy" atm its like you ether have enough to keep up or you dont and you lose
The basic idea is for slight deviations from the equilibrium (50/50 refs) there is a natural push in favor of the losing side. This can be things like forcing the winning team to be more spread out (both frontline length and amount of "behind lines" where a ninja could pop up and do damage). Or that they had to spend extra manpower to gain ground. Or there's a natural restoring force like the towers in DotA and it's easier to ambush and defend in your territory than it is theirs. But, after a certain point, it's obvious one side will win, and the game helps encourage that outcome. So, if they're down to 1 or 2 refs and the enemy has 8, it should progress to an endgame state quickly.
I like quick games, and quick comebacks. Last week, clan EPIC stacked team NF, and faced a team full of pubers on duststorm. Clan EPIC boldly attacked with a full-out scout rush, or at least, that is what it felt like. Team BE tried to hold it's own for maybe 20 minutes, while being pushed out of their main, into ruins. There, the BE tried to hold out, to gain some ground, sending out small squads to try and capture enemy refs. But the NF onslaught was too much, and BE had to lose, which they did eventually. Beautiful death.
I think a great idea to avoid hopeless alamos is limiting the number of repairers on a barracks to say 5 (or some other number). This has little bearing on normal gameplay, and only serves to reduce the time taken to destroy the very last barracks!
