Discussion in 'Game Play' started by Lazybum, Feb 27, 2015.
Remember what I did to your heavy?
That's the least of what I want. And I still think 2 minutes is too little time.
Mostly, I want some other ways to win that you can pair together. So the CV will still stay as a superior win condition, but there'll be other options too. The examples I made before were just rough, some are okay, some bad. But no one's really proposed more, which would be the most helpful thing.
according to you:
Capturing all the refs except the last (though possibly with last destroyed) 
Killing all enemy infantry 
so if you're fighting at your start base and all your infantry dies yet still have a spawn. you then lose.
thats an incredibly cheap win
Aye, but have you tried driving it around moors? If have some speed sure it works, but if you hit a stop it's hard goings which doesn't work at all for the commander.
Complete, even if it sounds absurd when have you ever seen an entire team dead but still have a spawn?
well its still a good base platform to work from.
im sure it happens alot in high pop games but we just dont notice.
but to give you a better example: low population games
EVERYONE KILLSPAWN KILLSPAWN BUT DONT KILLSPAWN TOO FAST BECAUSE THEN WE LOSE!
Having Reinforcement Tickets when enemy has Zero (at least 10) 
This will just make sudden death even worse, with people recycling barrackses before they hit 0 tickets and nobody will want to attack.
Ikalx, some ideas are good, but some are.. worse than what we have now.
The commander isn't usually dead though. If the suggestion is to not include the commander then yeah it's a pretty big problem for the smaller pop games. The only thing I could think of is to have a hard number of people dead, like 10 or 15, this way it couldn't happen in a low pop game but would prevent long drawn out comm chases that some people seem to hate. Still that might have some problem people don't like due to messing with some obscure strategy that gets used maybe 4 times a year.
Honestly at this point what empty keeps saying about game ending in 2 minutes probably makes the most sense, though it feels kinda sad the enemy team can't take down the cv.
Correction, one team won't want to attack.
If you go off of what Ikalx is saying about fulfilling at least 2 of the auxiliary conditions then people won't want to get rid of their spawn points either, it would tie into one about not having any spawn points.
But still, our current surrender system requires 80% vote, which is unrealistically high.
Players can't precisely tell when they really should surrender.
3: Team composition.
50 ticket lead on SOF? Who cares? 50 ticket lead on Crossroads? GG.
We can give it a shot and drop the required percentage for surrender down to 60%.
That's entirely true :D Although sudden death could always be removed because it's shite anyway :p In fact, part of the point of these is so we don't need the sudden death mechanism.
I said there were some bad ideas there. What we really need is for people to propose some more ideas that are better.
I don't know why you're tearing it down when I already said it needed work. That seems pointless.
But, if we must have a discussion about why these things work or don't, I have to say I haven't seen a whole team dead at once. Pretty much ever. It might happen on low population games, but bear in mind the ref has to be destroyed too, so if an enemy can kill everyone at once and destroy the ref and the team still be in their start base, I think that team has already lost.
In a large population game, there's always someone out field doing who the hell knows what, which is why most games don't just end when you kill the person in the CV, but the CV itself.
I think one problem is that quite a few people are looking at this on the idea that adding any extra win conditions is going to get rid of a few edge cases that people deem rather fun to play or part of the empires experience. Which is correct, some stuff like pulling a win out of thin air or making a ridiculous come back will kinda go away if you add other ways to win.
My problem with that line of thinking is that it rarely happens outside of pugs or scrim settings. I really can't remember in pub games that stuff like people making a come back when they lose absolutely everything happen more than twice a year. What I do know is that a lot of times people end up in one base and fight there for 10 minutes without ever really getting out of there. Or times like in slaughtered where it's this endless give and take til one team makes a small mistake. Extra ways to win wouldn't just help the winning team actually just finish, if done right it can help the losing team get a win due to being able to coordinate off of something else besides killing the commander, which can be really hard to do most of the time.
I'm still kinda of partial to the idea of something like a ctf dealie like how I wrote in the opening post.
I'm trying to think of something else but I kinda can't, I feel like we thought of everything that has a base already in empires or uses a mechanic that we already think of as something to end games. At this point it feels like you have to add on an extra mechanic that's somewhat independent of anything we have in.
Perhaps it isn't a win condition problem but a map or weapon balance one.
Weapon balance can't fix a player's lack of skill to effectively use a weapon.
Map balance is a problem in a few cases, streets is really hard to make a comeback from starting mains, slaughtered is nearly similar except it tends to feel like a horrible grind for most of it.
Still even on maps that don't have terrible problems like mvalley I don't think the addition of a few extra rules would seriously hurt it if you stick to needing to fulfill 2 of the auxiliary win conditions.
Besides adding additional win conditions, empires would benefit from additional side objectives that would assist in bringing a losing team back up. like
-- siphoning enemy resources (much easier and discreet than destroying a ref and replacing it),
-- stealing enemy research (which closes the gap in research in teams),
-- more complex or more team-oriented means of sabotage
like other things that are not win conditions in themselves but would be accessible means of slowing a formidable enemy team or even turning the game around
I like those ideas to a point. We do kinda have the siphon thing with tank recycling, I actually ended up losing a couple of games due to the other team playing defensively in a way that enabled them to easily recycle our tanks, which lead to a counter heavy rush.
I would like the research stealing idea, but only if times were increased or it cost res again, right now it doesn't take long to get anything so there wouldn't be much of a benefit to stealing research.
I think the sabotage thing would really only work if either the way sabotage currently works was rehauled to be specific points on buildings that any player can destroy, with the benefit that scouts would either do more damage or increase how much time it takes to repair the weak spot or simply have the bonus of causing damage overtime like it used to. The other idea is implement some sort of power system like a lot of games have or some kinda of supply line that could be broken up or whatever. I don't like that last idea, I like how in empires you can plop buildings where ever.
I agree some side objectives that wouldn't exactly win the game would be nice to have.
Thing is most of this stuff in games are either handled by singular cloaked units ( think RA spies) or some off screen actions (orion and such). Having the latter probably would be kind of wierd with commander having no other such abilities at all, and the first one implies either mindless jeep rushing or half an hour sneak to get there. Neither of those sound very riveting really.
while i like the basic idea, neither of those specifically target the losing team and some might even lead to horrible gameplay, quite the opposite to what you intend.
why build refs? you could aswell troll the enemy by stealing all their monehs.
why research on your own? for 600res you can build quite a lot of jeeps ...
idk with all those self-proclaimed pros around youd see this way to often. a lot of players are just after short fame and fuck over games more then they help.
but im a cynic, sry
Why not just get rid of the CV and have just a command center
Which can be built anywhere a rax can.
If all of the Command centers are destroyed that team loses.
It's like you never played empires before.
Wait what.........This is not the Savage 2 forum?
Separate names with a comma.