A reason for rage quit - Page 3

A reason for rage quit

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Complicated
Posts: 369
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 18:51

Post by Complicated »

A little bit of information you should all know. Defensive structures are to buy time and are never permanent. All they do is buy you time.

You can have 4 doomsdays, 10 vipers, 6 pop-ups, 10 mercuries, 20 flak, shields, berthas, dragonteeth, hlt's and so on as a defence, but they will always fall quicker than an army.

that above can be taken out of by one merl or more to make it faster. Tremor would clean that very fast..

A little tip about teching up...

The ammount of metal you put into making 10 bulldogs.
Use that same ammount into making flash.

Who wins? Testings show Flash wins with considerable profit.

Now take the bulldog costs + Factory... Hmmm, not worth it?

I rarely tech up, even if it's for Mohos and Fusions. Talented players would rely on minimal huge targets to power and strength their base.
User avatar
Lolsquad_Steven
Posts: 488
Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 17:55

Re: A reason for rage quit

Post by Lolsquad_Steven »

Orakio wrote:Recently I rage quit from a game very early on. Most of the time I'm a good player and well behaved, but if my allies ruin the game for me, the host messes up or the game just turns out to be horribly misconfigured, ie unbalanced I'll rage quit (or to have mercy on the team defeating me if it will take too long for them to finish me off). Why be nice to my allies and quit give when they are lousy or have no respect? I'm a firm believer in tit for tat.

The host PMs me and has a little tantrum which is fair enough, and whines about be being permbanned from his games. No issue, I can host big 8v8 battles myself anyway and its his prerogative.

It's easy for everyone to spot that I rage quit an left a huge hole in the line and that gets them mad. It would be easy for them to assume that I quit because I'm a sore loser which is certainly not true. What isn't so easy to spot is the disrespectful activity from the parasites on either side of me.

This has happened time after time and it is VERY frustrating:

I build my starting base, some basic resources, an LTT to stop weasal spam and a vehicle plant. I then move my commander forward, ignoring immediate metal spots and going to around almost halfway up the map. I start building a defensive line to defend my resources so that when I take them I can actually hold them.

Then what happens? While I'm spending resources building defenses, my allies on either side steal all the metal spots that I have secured (between my start base and front line). So I invest in allot of resources defending the metal spots which are between my base and the enemy, and my allies don't spend anything on securing resources and just leech crawling behind me like some kind of pathetic scavenger.

As well as taking away the reward from my investment, because they are wasting cons building on my metal spots they are not building at the front or holding the line. I get overwhelmed by the enemy forces (as I'm alone at front and being distracted by having to suddenly rush back to grab what few spots are left) that are actually doing the right thing while my allies are busy stealing my metal spots.

If I left the spots free for ages then it might be acceptable for them to grab them. However I'm not talking a huge amount of time here, the first thing the parasites build is metal extractors even though they shouldn't have the production capability to stall. To a small extent I don't mind if they steal a metal extractor here or there and especially do mind if it takes a very long time for me to be able to claim the spot with a mex. I wont tolerate the extreme though.

There will always be quarells over metal spots from time to time for obvious reasons, but sometimes it is totally overt who has the right to a metal spot. The repetitive nature of this kind of poor team play is why I point it out here.

Hopefully now that players read this they'll actually start to have some respect, realise the horror they have been inflicting on other players and think before building on any metal spot they can find. I'm sure some people don't actually mean to do this and never thought about it that way before, if you're one of those well consider yourself now enlightened.

Just to clarify what I'm talking about here is not "porcing" but is similar, a failure to expand appropriately and under your own steam.

Rage quitting to some may not be the best way to respond, but from my perspective it provides a lesson in empathy, certain people make me angry and I'll make them angry, then they have some idea what they are doing to me. It's harder to ignore a quarter of your team blowing up simultaneously than a message saying please stop stealing me mexes!
Fuck them, you don't have to explain youself to anyone.
dizekat
Posts: 437
Joined: 07 Dec 2007, 12:10

Post by dizekat »

Saktoth wrote:
dizekat wrote:Also good start (the one i'm using) is 1 mex, 2 solars, vehicle plant, more mexes and build cons in the plant (2 flashes then cons or cons then 2 flashes), cons make 1 solar and then make adv solars, and so on and so forth.

Making LLTs first or building such blocks of DT is plain stupid, the dumbest start ever.
Its usually best to start 2-3 mexes, depending on the map, as the earlier a mex is capped the more metal it provides, and you will usually stall if you try to run anything off 1 mex before you are even able to get up more mexes.

Its almost always best to start military units rather than cons, especially if you have no LLT's.

You should not try and make adv solars with just 3 regular solars, as the likelyhood of stalling e is quite high and stalling e when you need more e is a bad idea.

Starting with LLT's first is a perfectly valid strategy, and starting cons with no defense is virtually suicide against competent enemies- but rarely should you walk your boy before your fac or mexes.
well it depends to map and place... in some maps and places you can make cons first then tanks in some you need tanks first.

also, building LLT first (before mexes &plant) makes no sense as at that time enemy can't have any war units (besides their comm);

also regarding metal stall, it doesn't stall on metal if you make mex, 2 solars, factory(which is making flashes & cons), more mexes, because more mexes are made quickly enough. Still, it is valid point that metal is lost while other mexes aren't made. Regarding E stall with 3 solars this depends to map... when playing team game you usually have too few mexes avaliable so you don't have enough metal to stall on energy, but yes if you have lot of mexes you'll need more solar. Lukly, solar doesn't cost any energy (at least in BA) so when you're nearing stall you can always quickly make solar or two with comm.
manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Post by manored »

Complicated wrote:A little bit of information you should all know. Defensive structures are to buy time and are never permanent. All they do is buy you time.

You can have 4 doomsdays, 10 vipers, 6 pop-ups, 10 mercuries, 20 flak, shields, berthas, dragonteeth, hlt's and so on as a defence, but they will always fall quicker than an army.

that above can be taken out of by one merl or more to make it faster. Tremor would clean that very fast..

A little tip about teching up...

The ammount of metal you put into making 10 bulldogs.
Use that same ammount into making flash.

Who wins? Testings show Flash wins with considerable profit.

Now take the bulldog costs + Factory... Hmmm, not worth it?

I rarely tech up, even if it's for Mohos and Fusions. Talented players would rely on minimal huge targets to power and strength their base.
That defensile needs some toasters! :) People comit the mistake of thinking that they are only usefull to push lines back, while they work wonders on saving you from enemy arti... also, if you had a few targentting facilities for the Bertha he would kick the butt of any arti the enemy sent...

Agree tough that defenses serve only to delay the enemy... since you waste less resources defending than attacking, defending gives you the oportunity of raising your economy above the enemy...

And in fact smaller units tend to win over bigger ones, however the reason is because the big ones are prepared to fight against enemy heavy fortified positions, while the small ones are prepared to fight enemy units... if big ones were always better there would be no point for small ones :)
User avatar
Complicated
Posts: 369
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 18:51

Post by Complicated »

Huge facts about me

I downrate anyone that relies of LRPC, Silo, Tier 3, sometimes tier 2

:]
manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Post by manored »

However tech 2 is inevitable, because even tough you can win over tech 2 units with tech 1 ones, tech 2 ubber econ will crush you... :) There is the "I will kill then before they reach tech 2 using the fact that they will be wasting 3000m" element but in large team games the price is not so massive (Considering you need just one factory ready to give everone builders).

Big Berthas are the ultimate artillery :) True that they have ridiculous dps for their cost, but with their range and allied with targentting facilities they can pound most ubberporc defensive lines into oblivon and sometimes even shot straigh over everthing and hit enemy economy.
User avatar
Complicated
Posts: 369
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 18:51

Post by Complicated »

Tech 2 encourages porcing O_o;

Being consolidating all your efforts into Fusions, mohos, nukes, antis, berthas etc. :]

Testings show:

Every player spends more resources on structures than units in tier 2.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

Complicated wrote: Every player spends more resources on structures than units in tier 2.
Not always.
Hellspawn
Posts: 392
Joined: 24 Feb 2006, 11:54

Post by Hellspawn »

neddiedrow wrote:
Complicated wrote: Every player spends more resources on structures than units in tier 2.
Not always.
Yeah you often rush building lvl 2 units before making lvl 2 economy, if you think those units can win game.
User avatar
Dragon45
Posts: 2883
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 04:36

Post by Dragon45 »

i agree with steven
User avatar
LordMatt
Posts: 3393
Joined: 15 May 2005, 04:26

Post by LordMatt »

I think dragon is a noob.

P.S. This thread was full of luls, too bad everyone made all the good points already. :P
User avatar
Complicated
Posts: 369
Joined: 06 Jun 2007, 18:51

Post by Complicated »

Awwh Lordy feels lost for words..

Also, the rate that Units like Bulldog, Reapers and Goliaths come out of the labs is rather slow, you need about 8 nanos to produce them per minute even with 120 metal income.

I don't usually create Lighter t2 tanks like the Croc often, but ever since I do tier up, I have been just to produce something to fight with..
Hellspawn
Posts: 392
Joined: 24 Feb 2006, 11:54

Post by Hellspawn »

Complicated wrote:Awwh Lordy feels lost for words..

Also, the rate that Units like Bulldog, Reapers and Goliaths come out of the labs is rather slow, you need about 8 nanos to produce them per minute even with 120 metal income.

I don't usually create Lighter t2 tanks like the Croc often, but ever since I do tier up, I have been just to produce something to fight with..
Sometimes you only need 2-3 goallies to win game with decent micro, or at least to gain huge advantage. Also t2 has other units then bulldogs and goliaths.
manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Post by manored »

Complicated wrote:Tech 2 encourages porcing O_o;

Being consolidating all your efforts into Fusions, mohos, nukes, antis, berthas etc. :]

Testings show:

Every player spends more resources on structures than units in tier 2.
Maybe but they spend way more resources that they would if they were limited to tech 1... :)
User avatar
kiki
Posts: 859
Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 03:06

Post by kiki »

Um, I find that in some games I can support tech 2 units with my spammed t1 econ, especially, but not always, in metal maps. It wins faster.
manored
Posts: 3179
Joined: 15 Nov 2006, 00:37

Post by manored »

lbctech wrote:Um, I find that in some games I can support tech 2 units with my spammed t1 econ, especially, but not always, in metal maps. It wins faster.
In metal maps you can make mexes at will, and then it becomes stupid to make tech 2 mexes (they are way less cost-efficient and only usefull then you can only make a limited amount, that is how it is in most maps) or metal maker based econ... In other maps its only worth not using tech 2 econ after getting it if you are sure you are about to win...
User avatar
hrmph
Posts: 1054
Joined: 12 May 2005, 20:08

Post by hrmph »

the-middleman wrote: Orakios masterplan to hold the frontline with no mexes, 2 LLTs and 80 DTs
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben ... 393535.jpg
.
rofl.... just.... rofl...
User avatar
det
Moderator
Posts: 737
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 11:22

Post by det »

Hellspawn wrote:
neddiedrow wrote:
Complicated wrote: Every player spends more resources on structures than units in tier 2.
Not always.
Yeah you often rush building lvl 2 units before making lvl 2 economy, if you think those units can win game.
Often, when playing 1v1, I will rush a nuke bomber and 1 shot the other guy's com.
User avatar
Neddie
Community Lead
Posts: 9406
Joined: 10 Apr 2006, 05:05

Post by Neddie »

det wrote:
Hellspawn wrote:
neddiedrow wrote: Not always.
Yeah you often rush building lvl 2 units before making lvl 2 economy, if you think those units can win game.
Often, when playing 1v1, I will rush a nuke bomber and 1 shot the other guy's com.
That would be because you're a sick, sick puppy.
User avatar
KDR_11k
Game Developer
Posts: 8293
Joined: 25 Jun 2006, 08:44

Post by KDR_11k »

OTA nuke bombers took three shots for a com (or a krog or a fusion... special damages are fun).
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”