A fighting game is about mashing basic attacks or getting the first hit and juggling your enemy so they can't hit back, or using the giant invisible 20 foot sword in soul blade, or simply picking the best character. This is true of any fighting game because no fighting game has ever been balanced properly and probably never will unless you have only one character in it. There is no strategy. They're fun because you can spend all year mastering the 25 hit combo in singleplayer and you can play with your friends and lose/win randomly but multiplayer fighting games do not have strategy involved, they are a singleplayer twitch/memorisation challenge like DDR and a multiplayer social event.
That's basically what my earlier post in this thread said. I'm glad someone else is saying it now. Apparently the reasoning against it is that "base fixing sucks", and base changing is one of the "most epic things that can happen"...I know where that argument comes from, and I partially agree, but it would solve more issues than it causes. Alternatively, we could come up with a suggestion that works both ways, e.g. the refinery that has the most buildings near to it becomes the high-yield ref - if one base is destroyed then it moves to the next base, and so on. Although I think this suggestion is full of holes
The emphasis on refineries in the center of most maps does seem to contribute to game inertia. Not to mention that there's usually only one or at most two true base refs, and the rest that your team has to rely on are 'local' refs that you lose if you don't control at least your half of the battlefield. I.e. Canyon: [NF base] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] Crossroads: [NF base] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] Cyclopean: [NF base:] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] Duststorm: [NF base] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |Middle: 2x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] (I assume NW is a single and middle is a double.) Money: [NF base] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] Mvalley: [NF base] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |Dam: 2x| -- |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] (This makes sense in the unlikely and temporary event that each team has one refinery in north.) Slaughtered: [NF base] |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| |1x| -- |1x| |1x| -- |1x| -- |1x| [BE base] If the CV was a 1x or 2x refinery by itself, base refs could be 1x and you wouldn't have to worry about base changing. (It'd be the equivalent of having your base ref be a 2x or 3x, but it can roam with your base change.) You'd also get a trickle of resources no matter how poorly you're doing.
I remember that...trying to think of the downsides, but all i'm really getting is the "more reliance on cv" thing, which won't matter as the cv is a win condition. How about cv's escaping at last moments?...Hmm...I guess it'd only be really bad if someone managed to glitch-hide the cv somewhere.
The only possible cons are that you can't ref-starve an enemy team and you can't make a Commander map where a team starts out with no income. The former almost doesn't apply since losing teams are almost never in a position to ref starve their betters. As for the latter, the motivation to do such a thing befuddles me as a mapper, so I merely acknowledge the possibility and want nothing further of it.
Bah. It's bad enough that you have to guess that you're getting resources from the commander because there's no convenient way to display it on the gui. Having to guess what resources you're getting from the commander is just going to take the piss...
Well I just spent about 40 minutes trying to find a goddamn thread I made once, and I failed. I expect I posted it in a secret forum during the holiday, and now i'm on my other account i can't see that. Basically it's what you were saying about the CV being a res machine, but made a bit more general for any size map. For any map, imagine that there are X resouces on the map when the teams are even, each team gets X/2 resources. the proposal is that each refinary on every map now gives out half the amount of resources they currently do, but the team automatically (from the CV or whatever you want to call it) gets X/4 resources. This means that when the teams are even, each team gets X/2 resources again. wizard. The difference is that when teams start to lose, the ratio of resources that each team gets is a lot kinder to the losing team. This means that the losing team has a good chance of fighting back example: a 4 refinary map Current 2 refs each: ratio 1 : 1 1 ref vs 3 refs: ratio 3 : 1 0 refs vs 4 refs: ratio 4 : 0 so if a team loses even one refinary (half their income in a normal map) then the enemy is getting THREE TIMES as much resources (aka tanks) as your team is. How are you meant to make a comeback in that situation? Proposed 2 refs each: ratio 1 : 1 1 ref vs 3 refs: ratio 5 : 3 0 refs vs 4 refs: ratio 3 : 1 This is alot gentler, where a team that is on the back foot can still make a valiant fight back, and even has a fighting chance if they're almost dead I can say that my mod team for the mod VGO for CnC generals examined the same option for our mod where money is gathered by controlling hotspots (like refs) around the map, and it worked out very nicely. Even our most sceptical beta testers were impressed.
you could just make it "always have +1/s as long as the commander is alive" + all the refinery stuff people dont even need to understand it comes from the com
I'm just saying that if it's +1/s then it's a huge amount on a map with only +1/s per team total from refs, and not a lot if it's a big map with usually +5/s from refs. Also it overall increases the amount of res in the game if you do something blunt like that. On the other hand it's easy to implement.
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. also i get what you mean sandbag, and i like it somewhat
Ahh i remember that game. That was awesome. On topic: this sounds like a plausible idea to me. Though disengaging research from resources sounds good too. Maybe make it like you get research points as the game goes on, and those points can be boosted (the rate you get them i mean) by "investing" a certain amount of your average income to get them.
