Restrict spawnpoints

I agree. It's much easier for a com to manage a priority list of spawns and, if necessary, hit a check box that forces players to use the highest priority spawn. It's a fluid system that does need constant intervention to function.

Although, other current mechanics make it seem like fluid, easy-to-control systems are bad. An example is the opposition to queuing research, apparently to preserve the (unintuitive, elitist) tactic of distracting the com. Personally, I don't think the short term failure of one player should cause two dozen people to not have fun, but I'm in the minority.

That said, if spawn control were implemented, it would probably be quite rough around the edges. A nice priority system is unlikely to be implemented, for it wouldn't require the constant attention of the com.

 

Lets find a midway between this, I don't know if this actually helps or not but yeah.

Let's say for every 2 raxes you have you can restrict 1 of them,,, if you have 3-5 etc you can only restrict 1 and 2 respectivly.

Restricting certain raxes could be helpfull so retards dont spawn in wrong location e.g. if you know you can't win on your east fronts and you're just wasting your units over there, make it restricted. = take 1 step backwards, take 2 steps forward.

Prioritizing will be implemented 2 though. Although spawning at another rax will cost you something, I was thinking about or actual rank points although this might be to harsh, or an ammount of wages, if you dont have wages you can't do it though. ( You can prioritize multiple raxes.)

Also, I think it would help if squad leader could prioritize 2 somehow, this could speed up and help the squadplay.

 

It's more intuitive if the com has a list of spawns. He could throw them all in a list from most prioritized to least prioritized.

You could communicate priority to the player by changing the size of the orange/blue spawn dots. Maybe the top priority spawn could blink (like a slow throb, not seizure-inducing blinking) as well as be larger.

I don't like the idea of restricting a rax. If the com crashes, that could lose you the game. There's nothing wrong with forcing everyone to use the highest priority spawn at times, but just restricting a random rax is kinda iffy.

I really don't see a lot of problems with players spawning incorrectly. They usually get it right.

But just in case, you could let the players always use the highest priority spawn (even as the com changes it). That would be very good for noobs. I've mentioned before that it would make a good default spawn when you join a server. It would completely eliminate the "how-do-I-spawn?" problem.

 

If you wanna create an entire new list, thats more (g)ui to be added etc, so Idk. I think if we add a list people are going to fuck arround with the lsit to much instead of building and guiding their team.

Don't like the idea of setting multiple levels of prioritization by making 1 point bigger then another to much work etc, just 2 levels, normal spawnpoint and prioritized spawnpoint should be nuff.

I see loads of people spawning wrong, especially on maps where you see their going into a stale mate, but they are only using 1 squad to hold by example east, where you are using 2 squads to hold it.

"Just restricting a RANDOM rax" I dont think any comm with the right and sane mind would go randomly clicky clicky on their spawnmap

 

I still think you're complicating things too much. I made a simple mockup about my particular brand of spawning reform to properly communicate the ideas.

Every spawn is listed from most prioritized to least prioritized. If the com wants to restrict spawns, he has a slider that goes up and down the list. If it's all the way down, all spawns are open. If it's all the way up, only the highest priority spawn is available. In the mockup, two of the five spawns are restricted.

It's visually intuitive and uncluttered, but functional.

 

I like the mockup and all, but isnt this against the freewill shit that flasche stated? I mean, I'm not against banning free will in any way but yeah some people are .

 

I congratulate you on not taking things personal paradox, very few people manage to keep their cool like that.

What your suggestion currently lacks is a reason to disable, other than prioritizing. I have established that disabling can already be achieved by recycling. The real argument you should be making to strengthen your suggestion is to point out what benefit you would gain from temporary disabling, and why it would justify this feature.

Note that prioritizing can be done without requiring the need for temporary disabling of individual barrackses. So why?

 

I don't understand. Your idea also features locking spawns. There's nothing different in that respect. And besides, Flasche is a little silly in his anti-authority standpoint. Coms can already do things like control building placement, limit research and lock the VF. Playing Empires is about working together, not being some free spirit.

I also found a way to embed that little mockup I made. How do the rest of you guys feel about this sort of an interface? There's really only two parts of it. Moving the spawns around in the list and the locking slider. I think it's about as simple as you can get.

 

In logic, there are premises and conclusions. The logic operates on the premises and yields a conclusion.

We all have to agree on the premises before we can get a conclusion, the logic is just an operator. When a layman declares that he disagrees with someone's logic, he usually is disagreeing with their premises, not the logic.

Analogously, there are things in Empires that are as central as a logical premise.

One bedrock "premise" is that commander exist and they have abilities normal players do not have.

If you don't accept this, Empires basically can't exist.

So that's where I believe I run into some friction with you on select topics. You don't seem to operate using that "premise", so I have trouble accepting your arguments.

So when we discuss Empires, most of the forum-goers take for granted that commanders exist and they have exclusive abilities. If you don't take that as granted, discussions might work out better if that is communicated. Otherwise, people might "disagree with your logic".

.)

 

@I'm spartacus and Flasche,,, First of all I have to agree with I'mspartacus on this one Flasche, you "bs" to much about free will and all, but forcing some rules to + the general gameplay and just fun for everyone should compensate with the "less freedom" part. Second if people wanna have their own little games not playing with a bit of teamwork they should really fuck off and not play empires. Empires is about teamwork and teamwork win games, if you don't wanna do that go play some other game you can solo it out.

@I'mspartacus, I think your slider is pretty decent although I still think commander might be to concentrated on fixing the list, pulling the slider up and down. When new raxes are going up you edit the list again, when raxes get destroyed you have to go edit and slide again, my point is, to much time might go into the slider especially for beginners that have trouble and a lack of time to even put down the basics, this slider thing and list edit thing is just go to take up to much time for new players and maybe even rookies.
That's why I would like it to be simple and not with all this complications.

Minimap pops op, you click, rax gets disabled.
I think I might have figured a very simple way to undo the bullshit about people crashing and thus having the raxes still locked, locked raxes stay locked for the max ammount of time of 1 minute, after that it gets unlocked, you can relock it at will without a cool down time. thus making people changing their spawnpoints in that 1 minute and having them spawn there.



@Dizzyone, thank you for the compliment. uhm so about the positive sides. I don't really know who you are ingame, for give me for that. But with the recent steamrelease I as commander and I as infantry have noticed a heavy decrease of people actually participating in rushes, half the team is yelling we are doing a apc rush and only 5-10 people are in the enemy main base when apc has landed, whilst the other 15 just hang arround in some random place, this isnt helpfull, restrict their freedom and force them to join the rush, it doesnt matter if they dont help the shooting or even destroying, having some meat shields in a rush actually does work.
+
Restricting instead of prioritizing gives the commander some more actual controle over the game, you are the commander you should be able to have more to do then just build buildings.

 

I don't like restricting so much...sure, i'd only use it when you see the facepalming of a whole team losing and no one really paying attention, but there are drawbacks too.

I like prioritising, I think also a message popping up with the respawn message would be good - e.g. Redirecting you to urgent battlefront, press <enter> to deny.

I also think the half-hundred commander directions and objectives and all that stuff would help make this idea less necessary. If we could highlight buildings on the minimap, it might be less needed (though not entirely).

 

I think most of the problems stem from restricting spawns. However, a priority spawn system isn't about restricting spawns. Even a spartan priority system (sans restricting) would help things. The crown jewel of the system is being able to say "this spawn is better than this one" without restricting anything. You're not forcing anything, but you're not just letting anything go. It's just a gentle nudge in the right direction. That is where a simple click-and-it's-disabled system just doesn't get the job done.

Most noobs come into Empires able to aim a gun at an enemy and fire, but they can't get in a squad and repair a building. The first step in bringing that teamwork out of new players is to put them in a physical location where they can participate with the team. That is why a priority system is important, not to make it simpler for the com, but for the players.

That's why I think it would be awesome for players that join the server to automatically use the spawn with the highest priority. The biggest problem of Empires is the menus; they suck. You join a server and you have to slog through sixteen dialog boxes before you can actually play.

And the game expects newbies to be able to make educated decisions in each of those dialog boxes. If you are new at a game like Empires, you need someone to make decisions for you until you can learn. Being able to consistently spawn in the right area is an enormously important step to being able to make those educated decisions yourself.

However, restricting spawns is still a problem no matter what interface you use.

I think we can agree that problems can arise under two conditions, when a spawn is destroyed and when a spawn is created.

I think a priority system deals with destroyed spawns very well. The "slider" isn't a dumb slider, it snaps to and follows the rax it was dragged over. Even if the rax directly beside the slider goes down, the slider could automatically move up to follow the next rax above it. Moral of the story, raxes going down aren't the problem.

Now, building a new spawn might be the Achilles' heel of this interface. I would go with the laissez-faire approach to new spawns. A new spawn isn't automatically placed on the priority list at all. It isn't judged as being good or bad and it's always available by default. Once the com notices a new spawn, he can drag it from the minimap into the list somewhere. Once it's in the priority list, it works by itself.

 

Can we please have a developper to react on this please.

 

Dizzy is dev much?

 

Ok then, no offence to dizzyone in any way, but can we get the ultimate suggestion grinch to respond?

 

I'm not a dev. Suggesting things in here is mostly a futile exercise anyway.

But what I've said is the best you're going to get, unless FalconX suddenly returns.

Prioritizing, which is based on your suggestion, is a consistent and good suggestion. And if someone felt like implementing it, it would improve the game. If you were waiting for someone to implement it, I wouldn't hold my breath.