actually the term goes to 1 * 30 with minimum of 30. with two at the beginning of the match you'll be out of luck and hit the cap st whatever it is set though. You can mitigate that by substracting 3 from the average or something. I'll leave that up to someone who is more awake
i should not have just read the text and have a quick look. actually i should have read the text better to begin with ...
Because that is a dumb system first, you cannot scrap tickets and then use it to calculate spawn time second, your system is dumb (as in, not flexible) while mine takes into account how many tickets the map has provided, how much percentage there is remaining and how much people personally contributed to this loss in tickets by both rewarding and penalising them if they get over or under the team average. By comparison, yours is a ww1 hand grenade, the system you suggest has issues that would make it game breaking, while mine is a smart bomb and has most issues worked out through the calculation used.
The calculation in the OP uses a gradually increasing additive scale, multiplied by a linear coefficient based on how much percentage you are away from the average ticket use per fellow team member. this leading to a non-linear increase in time depending on how much percent is left of the tickets. Thanks for not reading the OP. Also the fact that you say you need to "cap" your calculation result proves to me your calculation is substandard.
Thanks for not reading all of my posts. I'm fully aware of the difference between yours and mine. Point is, why make respawn time larger when tickets get lower. That's just going to end the match quicker. Why not just abandon endgame all together then? BTW, I'm sorry I did not explain in detail why I put up that formula. It is flawed and was just there to support the point I was trying to make.
Because due to the nature of how most maps work, tickets are a requirement unless you want to redo most maps. Also this idea served to stretch out endgame from a 1/0 factor that suddenly happens to a gradual process of increased handicap for the people that keep losing tickets. its gradual and only really takes serious effect in the last 10% of tickets so teams have the time to adapt if what they do is not working but also have the buffer to try out things and get behind in tickets a bit. The match will not end quicker, people are massively incentivised to preserve tickets as games go on, actually making gameplay more fluent and less dependant on 'we hit 0 tickets 30 seconds earlier then you, guess we lose because you can stretch out those few tickets for a long time.' This idea polishes gameplay and takes out super retarded stuff like dying in no mans land when 0 tickets basically means either join spectator and wait till the game ends or be stuck for minutes yelling at people to revive you while they cant.
Except your teams base respawn time wil increase exponentially and you counter that with another exponential curve for each player. Meaning if a team has max 100 tickets and used 99 (1 left) you have a team base respawn time of 79 if you start with a 30s respawn time (effectively punishing everyone on the team). The player who has used 0 tickets at that point can spawn within 1 sec. and the one using half of the tickets (50) will have to wait 99sec. Like this: It's also not really gradual unless at every point in time you're close to the average tickets used on your team. Actually it will make the difference in tickets in endgame even more important. When you get closer to 0 you'll not only run out of tickets but need to wait ever longer to respawn unless you used way less than the average. This is exactly why I left out the teams average and only look at the contribution of a specific player to ticket use. If the contribution increases your respawn time will go up, meaning you need to watch your ticket usage if you dont want to wait. This effectively dampens the effect of ticket-waisting players instead of increases, which your formula does.[/quote][/quote]
And thus not be able to use up tickets as fast as the enemy, slowing down your ticket use compared to theirs, forcing people to rely more on revive and balancing out the tickets at the cost of terrain or other gains... so instead of boring gameplay people actually get to play while in a ticket war and tickets actually matter during the ticket war and not just after one team lost or won the ticket war. The only reason i am against your system is that you use caps in your formula, your differences between extremes are almost negligible and still depend on '0 tickets does not allow spawning ' to work. elaborate how my formula increases ticket waste potential? my forumula uses different values but essentially comes down to the same result but smarter. if you are below average tickets used you get a negative multiplier, if you are above average tickets used you get a positive multiplier to your base respawn.
Yes, but you're also making a comeback even harder. Time waiting to respawn is time you can't use to counter the opposing team. So the game will end even quicker than before. Also if the enemy team still has 20% of the tickets and you don't you're in even deeper shit. They will be able to respawn faster and you won't. Sure you can force them to use tickets, but it might also mean that instead of a 10 vs 10 it becomes more like a 25 vs 10 as they at that point can afford to 'waste' tickets. The caps are just there to get a minimum wait time and a maximum. Any numbers were just randomly put together. Also you absolutely don't want a player to have to wait 99sec to respawn. I don't care what he did to get that high of a contribution to ticket usage. That's the sole reason that cap was in there. I don't care if you put the base time at 6s and a cap of 30. Yes, however your formula has another thing built in, in which the base respawn time increases the closer the teams ticket count gets to 0. You're basically punishing the entire team, but making an increasing exemption for any player that used below average tickets. In the extreme case I gave the difference can get gigantic with one player able to spawn almost instantly and the other having to wait. There's just no way you can justify that. As for the "increase in ticket waste potential", that is not what I said. It does make grieving a lot more effective. Just kill yourself a couple of times and the teams base respawn time will go up. Those who are far below the average won't care, but those closer will have to wait longer and longer to respawn, even though they did absolutely nothing to deserve that.
If one person kills himself over and over to abuse the system the effect will be negligible on the other people, as their average ticket use goes down. while their respawner goes up Also the time only gets up to like 4 minutes at 0 tickets, although yes this is a very long time, due to the nature of the slowing down of spawning slowly and steadily i expect few games that would normally get there to now get there AND the current implemented method has an infinity in that place... think about that... Your formula will change the game too fast too abruptly, mine could be easily tweaked with the params every release to perfect the curve and aggressiveness.
There are a couple of parameters in my formula to make it less steep like the exponent 2 (which controls steepness) and the incorrectly named 'smoothing factor' which controls how far the difference needs to be before it starts having any effect. Also it only changes the game for the person with above average ticket use and the difference needs to be at least a certain percentage. I'd say those could be easily tweaked as well. I guess both are fine, but I think mine is easier to tweak as you don't have two exponential functions balancing each other out. Besides in the 'less likely' events yours will be quite extreme, so you really do need to put a safeguard in for that (a min and max cap).
No, i dont, its as intended. But w/e lets get the devs to code something in like this i stopped caring what calculation they use as long as they make yours a bit more agressive.
Why not just every ticket you use increases spawn time by 1s, capped at 30s max spawn time? That way it's not too annoying early game, nobody is punished for anyone else's mistakes, late game doesn't become such a tank grind because people won't insta res pawn and get a heavy, seems relatively similar to your linear graphs, and is way easier to code? EDIT: Immediately after posting this I regret my decision. Surely the best part about Empires is that it isn't the average lone wolf FPS "try to top the scoreboard" garbage and is actually a team game, where people work together and try to cooperate as a team? Surely teams win and lose together, why do we want to support more solo pubbers instead of actually balancing the game as though each team was highly skilled and cooperated well?
Spoiler: Coresponding Devourawr agree your edit - boosting teamplay while NOT punishing soloplay! (average games doesn't exceed 8vs8 atm, if we have such playercounts regulary we can talk about punishments!) disagree, 30s are way to much! - 20s respawn time is the highest sense making at empires (it's related to gameplay speed, problem on empires - fast paced infantry combat & slow paced vehicluar combat! - tough the issue with vehicle combat is the horrible driving at source engine that needs to be balanced out!) atm i'm fine with the 5-10s delay, could be increased to 5-15 tough! - another way to punish death is to decrease score (but idc so idk!)
This would be best suited for a sourcemod plugin, if it works well we can implement it in the base game.
On a side note, I'd like to point out that tickets should NEVER exceed 350, with the exception of "timer ticket". I feel that this should be a map design principle that all mappers must follow. We also have to find every single active and existing comm map that has > 350 tickets and drop them to 350. I am fairly sure this will eliminate at least 80% 2+ hours games. This is probably the simplest effective job we can do, regarding tickets. But then who should implement it? I know you guys might be busy as hell IRL, as I am recently. So I am not gonna be an asshole and say : Y U NO DO DIS? But this feature is probably one of the simplest things to do, if you want to change the gameplay significantly. We went through the valley(5 players average), there's really nothing to lose at this point.
