reduce all the refinery outputs with 50% and give 50% of total map ref income free

reduce all the refinery outputs with 50% and give 50% of total map ref income free to each team.

this is to counter the massive slippery slope, teams who are behind only 1 refinery will be a bit less crippled

warning, math incoming:

lets assume 7 refs, each give 100 res per minute (for easy calculation, also before the implementation the refineries would give 200 resources so 1400 theoretic resources in total per minute respectfully, now only 700 in total but each side gets a 350 res gift coming out to 1050 any team theoretically could get as max income, with a max of 1400 effective income combined)

lets assume nf has 2 refs, be has 3, 2 are uncaptured

each team would get the resources for the refineries they own + 140 resources per minute just for playing, its 20% of the total income of all 7 refs in the map.

total income for nf would now be 550 (2*100 = 200 for refineries,+ 350)
(originally this would be 400)

total income for be would now be 650 (3*100 = 300 + 350)
(originally this would be 600)


that is a difference of 15% in resource income for having 33% more refineries... effectively reduced the slippery slope on the economy field with 50%

Lets assume be has captured the last 2 refineries as well

total income for nf would now be 550 (2*100 = 200 for refineries,+ 350)
(originally this would be 400)

total income for be would now be 850 (5*100 = 500 + 350)
(originally this would be 1000)

Still a nice income disparity, but just look at that income disparity as it would be originally... the nf team could still make a comeback from this if it didn't last too long or they saved some resources up somehow... but in the original game this would be pretty much game over, the be front would gather up massive amounts of resources and would be able to counter anything besides an undercover commander rush.

IF people agree slippery slope is an issue with empires-mod, then i feel there is no reason not to implement something like this, if not these values then some values a bit more conservative at first.

 

i typo'd on the title, fuck

its supposed to be 50%, not 10%, 10% would be negligible.

 

I renamed the thread for you.

I like the idea but Lazybum's point about making the early game that much faster is a bit disconcerting. But that seems to be a common thing Empires runs into; less slippery slope generally gives faster games because there's less area to fuck up.

 

Whats lazybum said, early game with shit ton of res would make it so early infatry only phase would last maybe a minute.

I dont really see a easy way out, outside of having some arbitrary restriction on early income.
Another thing to consider is that it can easily screw with some maps. Fuck money, but say isle with its 20thousand refs, you're going to get a milion res of income ,whereas most of the times, alot of refs are left unclaimed through most of the game.

 

This would completely ruin money. I'd instantly drop a vf and start invading enemy main. Every. Single. Match.

Don't get me wrong, it would speed up matches considerably and that'd be fun to try, but even I'm not that crazy.

 

You say that as if quicker rounds of money are necessarily a bad thing.

 

Bro, if I'm comming a remotely competent team, we're already doing that shit on the classic version. It's fun as hell and no one seems to understand how to defend against it.

 

Lets not fucking discuss impact of any suggestion on money ever please

 

Map control = win. Why should we reduce the effect of map control?

Your team got less refs? Fight for it. You shouldn't be given the chance to sit around for longer.

Not to mention the effect of map control is already weak as it is.
The effect of "only" 1 less refinery usually kicks in like 20~25 minutes after for most maps.

Sometimes the effect never kicks in. I've won a lot of games by defending really well with just 1 or 2 refs until enemy run out of ticket.

 

The idea is that getting early map control makes the other team unable to win. Which as i said, i think is wrong, since making a comeback in empires is really easy. That is, unless your team starts acting like a headless chicken, which seems to more of an issue than just resources.

 

^This.

 

If people agree that the slippery slope is an issue in Empires mod, they should remove refineries, change them into flags, and give 50% of the res to whoever captures them, and the rest to each team. You don't need refineries because they are clunky and a waste of space, and take time to change and you need to wait for someone to place them and you don't always have resources and then you need to build them but a scout can just sabotage them and they'll die without you knowing then you'll have to drive an apc up to them and rebuild them and..

I'll just say this. Look at the underlying system, the issue and all its constituent parts, before you decide whether an idea is good or not. Sure, debate about it, but think about it first.

Removing refineries and replacing them with flags is actually a good thing. A great idea. Making the game simpler and requiring a lot less annoyances from waiting on commanders or res. But that's not the game you signed up to play. Bit by bit, when you tweak and take out just these tiny issues that you think will make things simpler and easier to deal with, you remove the soul of the game you liked. You don't even play it any more, because somehow, something indefinable is missing.

This is how that goes. It's not always about there not being enough players. There's a subtle magic to a game mechanic that brings another benefit that you have no idea where it came from, and that can only really be understood if you understand the chain.

The right way to fix Empires isn't about making things simpler. It's about going into the mechanic itself and remaking it better.

Why do I say this in this thread? Vehicle salvaging = good mechanic, and you added something in order to achieve that. You added. Diminishing returns, mildly decent mechanic. Good only because it helps the slippery slope and does nothing at all to harm gameplay.

This idea = tweaks existing gameplay. Changes things on a scale similar to removing resource cost. I.E. massive underhood changes. Changes primary mechanic of game to make it partially passive. Changes base of game.

Think about that for a minute. Think of the ripples. Think of everything that changes and then add everything you can't think of. Things it would take years to see.

This idea isn't necessary. If you're going to change resources, look at that mechanic instead. If you're trying to avoid the "slippery slope", remember that in order to start winning you shouldn't always be vulnerable. You shouldn't be invulnerable, but an army of soldiers with modern guns should win over an army of children holding toy swords.

An army of 10,000 should win over one of 100. That's not a slippery slope, that's the right way of things.

The best way to combat a slippery slope is to make it easier for a player to make a pertinent contribution to their team. In the old days, engies could take down enemy bases almost before they realised. Grens could 9-mine bases. People had power. Infantry had power. Now most of that power is with the tanks and lol-jeep squads where vets defeat the unwary.

Again, another cause and effect.

It's ass that I don't have the answers to this, but I don't. I can only say that I think this is the wrong approach.

TL;DR = Security & Z1oom's posts.

 

I know its late for me, but if someone could translate ikalxs post into simple english, id be grateful

 

You could try reading them.

 

If i would "rework" a map to be like this, would you guys play it a couple times in a pug to see how it plays out?

it wont give us all the answers, especially because it would be a pug game with good commanders on both sides etc, but it might give us some actual data...

 

Nah, even I wouldn't do that

Look, it's late and I've been working some super duff job recently and have hardly any time to think, let alone post.

So I'll be brief. The main elements of resources and refs as well as systems that interconnect with it - salvaging, wages, etc, can all be rehauled and tweaked to be better. Using a system such as what Blizzerd suggests may seem attractive in the short time, but in the long haul you're getting a half-fix idea for a problem that doesn't really exist, and using a method that will remove interesting facets of the game.

It's not too hard to see why a steady in-flow of resources basically removes part of the importance of resources. Basic gameplay involves "you need A (mostly) to do B". It would change to "you sort of need some A in order to do B".

Why would you do that? For a slippery slope that doesn't really exist any more? Teams don't even have long enough to be held down for ages in the current game before it ends. Maybe, MAYBE if we still had 3 hour games and 2 hours of that game were people being crushed. Maybe then you would have a reason. But we don't. We have 30-75 minute games, and enemy vehicles can be retrieved and APC rushes can break through and all kinds of things can change the slope.

Messing with Res in this particular fashion is not the way. Finding actual tools to cause comebacks, might be. Rehauling the way resources work as a whole - it's hardly "too important to change" now that research is free, is probably a better way.

Bear in mind that slippery slopes aren't all about res. They're about ground. They're about retrieving ground and holding it. Think about how it goes on Canyon - if BE lose the west and are pushed hard in the north, what tools could they use to claw things back? Is res actually useful in that situation? Mostly the answer is NO, unless you have a whole batch of tanks/apcs roll out.

Of more use, funnily enough, are walls, because they stop enemy encroachment, and form a line you can push forward from. Walls are, funnily enough, the most useful thing against a slippery slope. And yet we only have walls, and turrets on occasion, that can act as pushing structures. That's a much better place to look if you want to talk about regaining ground.