Radical metal spot suggestion.

Radical metal spot suggestion.

A dynamic game undergoing constant development and refinement, that attempts to balance playability with fresh and innovative features.

Moderator: Content Developer

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by smoth » 15 Jan 2012, 17:32

So this is in the ZK section because I am unsure about how you guys swing radii and mex overload...

google repeatedly complains about lots of spots to cap..

so here is my thought:

- Make the radius large.
- Space the small spots out in such a way that the large radius cannot cover multiple small spots.
- Make the start point 1 large spot(equivalent to 3 start spots) that does fill the radius.

the idea: start points are fast to cap but expansions are smaller spots and more tedius and expensive to cap due to multiple required mexes. Make the match start a bit faster but taper a bit due to the smaller expansion spots..

thoughts? will override muck up this? Does this help reduce the tedium in a reasonable way?
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by smoth » 15 Jan 2012, 17:53

so:
Image

would become:
Image
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Licho » 15 Jan 2012, 22:18

Tbh i think that radius larger than metal spot is OTA obsoletism..It was there just to allow moho+mex on same spot without rebuild..

Imo its better if mex radius matches spot radius - we should have something like easy metal to restrict mexes only on metal spots.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by smoth » 15 Jan 2012, 22:40

has to be done to not have adverse effects.. how you guys handle that, not really my business. I guess my main concern is the overdrive mechanic or any other mechanics that the large spots may have an effect on... like how the features on gunmetal allowed people to spam stuff through some conversion reclaim mechanic.
0 x

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Johannes » 15 Jan 2012, 23:05

It reduces the variety of builds available, the decision in which order to build mexes, e, and factory. With 1 mex you won't see any variation, just that 1 mex, just right amount of e, and then lab.
Though, in ZK that doesn't really matter though since with the boost you just lay everything really fast anyway. But in any other game with mexes it's a big deal.


But another thing is that it turns really futile to attack the enemy base early, since they only need to defend 1 mex. A spread out base is more interesting.

Radius doesn't really matter, as long as it's bigger than the biggest single mex.
0 x

Godde
Posts: 268
Joined: 29 Mar 2010, 17:54

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Godde » 16 Jan 2012, 10:52

Overdrive definetly makes high income mexes be much better than other mexes. Overdrive is done in percentage distributed to where it provides the most metal per energy usage.

If you have powerful mexes in your base there are little reason to overdrive low income mexes.

If high income mexes are in the mittle of the map or at hard to defend positions then it can be an interesting map feature where the advantage of overdriving them is offset by having to make energy at the front or paying extra metal for pylons.

If you look at Grts_messa, a mex in the middle is more than 5 times as good as other mexes. This means that the overdrive on this mex is also five times as good.
If you connect the middle mex to the rest of the powergrid, most of the energy will be used to overdrive the mittle mex rather than the other mexes.

This means that on this map it will be a fight over who can take the mittle mex and overdrive it. Although denying them from getting income from this mex can also work.
1 EMP missile against it shuts it down for 45 seconds and can only be stopped by destroying the missile silo.
That far outweighs the cost of the missile even without overdrive.(600 metal for missile equals 20 seconds output from the middle mex(20*30=600)).

On GRTS_Messa it works to have such a highpowered mex.
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2434
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Google_Frog » 16 Jan 2012, 11:02

I've barely complained about mex count tedium since I wrote area mex. So I think the original metalmap with 3 mexes per start spot is fine. While on that topic ZK has much less start spot dependence than you think. To use your map as an example there is little reason not to start at the 2 spot if the player thought it was a better position strategically.
Though, in ZK that doesn't really matter though since with the boost you just lay everything really fast anyway.
Ok don't listen to anything Johannes says about ZK mechanics. He's clearly a forum complainer that never plays ZK.
0 x

User avatar
KingRaptor
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 838
Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 03:44

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by KingRaptor » 16 Jan 2012, 14:05

Licho likes a reduction in slippery slope; making the start mex more overdrivable would be helpful there. On the other hand, it kind of diminishes base raids as Johannes said, so my vote on balance is probably no.
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by luckywaldo7 » 16 Jan 2012, 20:08

Personally I think it would work fine.
Google_Frog wrote:
Though, in ZK that doesn't really matter though since with the boost you just lay everything really fast anyway.
Ok don't listen to anything Johannes says about ZK mechanics. He's clearly a forum complainer that never plays ZK.
To clarify, boost start option was replaced with facplop sometime mid-2010.

---

Since the thread is about metal spot suggestions, I'll go ahead and throw my idea out.

The thing I don't really like about 3-mex spots is that they pretty much hard-code the number of starting positions. If you happen to play with 5 or 6 people on a map with 4 spots, the extra players fit in kind of awkwardly.
Image

If you change it to 4 mexes, it allows a more flexible option
Image

Technically this is unnecessary, with communism and all. Players don't need to fight over starting mex spots. But I think it is more fun for each person to have a proper base to play on, and get to build and defend a few mexes around their factory. It is more efficient anyway, for the sake of the team, to get those starting mexes as fast as possible.

Also, depending on the map, a 6-mex starting spot could be good, for 1, 2, or 3 players. I suppose that, if this was combined with the larger start mex proposal, that would be 2 or 3 mex starting spots rather than 4 and 6.
Attachments
start2.jpeg
(20.83 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
start1.jpeg
(19.66 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by luckywaldo7 » 16 Jan 2012, 20:52

Heh, as long as I am throwing out metal spot ideas here is another one:

It could also be interesting to have spots where mexes are clustered around geo spots, like BlackStar:

Image

The super-efficient combination of multiple mex spots fueled by geo or supergeo would make the game more centered around taking those spots and building satellite bases, rather than sprawling out and pushing a front.

Although I wouldn't push for it because I think geo spots are hard-coded (and they look kind of ugly), and I wouldn't want you to mess up your beautiful maps for gundam.
Attachments
screen00004.jpeg
(30.38 KiB) Downloaded 3 times
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Pxtl » 16 Jan 2012, 22:31

I'm kind of fond of EvolutionRTS's simplification of the metal system - all spots have same metal output, snap mexes to spots, etc. It really feels like spots with different values don't add much to gameplay compared to the hard-to-visualize complexity cost they add.
0 x

User avatar
Licho
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3803
Joined: 19 May 2006, 19:13

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Licho » 17 Jan 2012, 00:40

I would like less but my powerfull spots..
different metal - i dont care but snapping is a must..
always wanted snapping..
In fact evorts snapping was originally developed for CA but i think it had some issues.
0 x

luckywaldo7
Posts: 1397
Joined: 17 Sep 2008, 04:36

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by luckywaldo7 » 17 Jan 2012, 01:01

It would break brazilian battlefield and geyser plains! Unless it was like the mex-snapping widget in BA; that widget is pretty slick.
0 x

User avatar
knorke
Posts: 7971
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 01:02

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by knorke » 17 Jan 2012, 01:46

luckywaldo7 wrote:I think geo spots are hard-coded (and they look kind of ugly), and I wouldn't want you to mess up your beautiful maps for gundam.
since 0.83 you make your own geo-features with the geoThermal= true tag
luckywaldo7 wrote:make the game more centered around taking those spots and building satellite bases, rather than sprawling out and pushing a front.
that would be cool, but probally for a different map. This one seems too much "pushing front along lanes" for such idea.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by smoth » 17 Jan 2012, 02:13

wasn't saying necessarily for this map. Was thinking for other possible future maps.
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Pxtl » 17 Jan 2012, 17:04

Looking at Desert Valley, I think you've hit the nail on the head for the best way to have "super" metal patches (even though it was accidental) - clustering distinct metal patches within the extraction radius makes it very clear "this patch is worth two because it's two distinct patches you happen to be able to fit a single metal extractor upon". Players can instantly visibly *see* how this metal extractor will be worth double (or triple).
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22295
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by smoth » 17 Jan 2012, 20:00

That is pretty good even if accidental. That the current release or the test version?
0 x

User avatar
Pxtl
Posts: 6112
Joined: 23 Oct 2004, 01:43

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Pxtl » 17 Jan 2012, 23:38

smoth wrote:That is pretty good even if accidental. That the current release or the test version?
No idea. I only mentioned it because Saktoth commented on the bug in the thread on Desert Valley... I hadn't noticed that behavior when I tried the map, but I haven't played a full game ZK game there, just tinkered to try the geography. But either way, when I noticed Saktoth's comment it occurred to me that this is the *perfect* way to have mexes that are worth double or triple and make it obvious to the user.
0 x

Saktoth
Zero-K Developer
Posts: 2665
Joined: 28 Nov 2006, 13:22

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Saktoth » 25 Jan 2012, 15:05

The problem with 2 mexes being covered by the radius is that not all people realise this. People often do not do this on maps like Geyser Plains (The classic example, where the bottom '5' mexes can be extracted with only 3). This also breaks auto-mex thingies, as said. Big metal spots are not always obvious either on f4, but if you make them visibly different in the texture (like on MoonQ) it's very obvious and fine.

It wont be bad for Zero-K, just different. The base-raiding or fast-start thing wont be that significant, the main difference is the overdrive. It is going to mean that you can much more effectively build energy in your base to overdrive your starting mex. Mostly these 'big mexes' (which most of hunters maps and many popular ZK maps have) are in the middle and fought over intensely (and since you have to make e around it to overdrive, this isnt easy). Often they win games. But if EVERYONE has one (or 4)? I really have no idea. I suspect it would be interesting and fun and different, rather than broken- a bit more like BA with metalmakers and base-centric eco, but not in a bad way.

Keep in mind that all this stuff applies for mohomines in BA too, if you care about that. Getting a moho on these spots will give you way more income for way less investment.
0 x

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 1265
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 15:49

Re: Radical metal spot suggestion.

Post by Johannes » 25 Jan 2012, 15:56

Single mex, while usually easier to defend than several of course, is very suspectible to bombers though. Takes just one pass to take out all metal production in that spot, even if it is cheap to rebuild you still lose a significant amount of mining time any time it's down.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Zero-K”