commanders

[MasterBel2]

Split from viewtopic.php?f=93&t=35907#p580813 (Silentwings).

Can I submit as my first request discussion be something about Commanders being the center of t1 play? For example, a DSD frontline where one commander blows, and then 2 more commanders blow fighting over the wreck and…

This needs to change.

[very_bad_soldier]

Care to elaborate on the actual problem you are seeing?

[MasterBel2]

T1 gameplay, especially in larger games, tends to revolve around commander wreckages. The specific problem as it appears to me, is that games can be won in the first 5 minutes by a single combomb - someone gets the metal, and game over, because they have 5000 more metal than their opponent. Commanders can also singlehandedly take out an entire frontline -for example when someone decides to cloak their commander and walk it into the enemy's defences, typically also aimed at blowing up the other commander so the entire front line blows up, and another free 5000 metal.

The fact that for a lot of people the sole purpose of a commander is to blow it up for the metal stored in the wreckage is just wrong, but that's almost all that it's valuable for. At least from what I can see.

[dansan]

That's a problem specific to DSD (or generally maps with to few metal to support a dynamic game play).

On maps where conquering map area actually matters (because there is metal), the com has a very important role and is usually not blown up on purpose.

[very_bad_soldier]

I pretty much agree on the part that blowing coms (your supposedly most important unit) for metal is a very poor gameplay concept.

[MasterBel2]

I wouldn't say it's specific to DSD, Combombing is fairly common on Comet Catcher, (although rarely purely for teching purposes), tabula, etc. (or do I just see the bad games?).

[dansan]

You are right, in that it is used to break porc. IMHO that is a valid tactic. It requires the attacker to have units in store, to attack as well as to secure his coms metal. The consequence for the defender is, that he has to bear in mind not to spend to much resources on static porc but has to build units in case of porc-breach too. He also has to keep an eye on his com (or in a safe place), so it won't blow too. If the defender has units and his com didn't blow he will be able to secure the attackers wreck, which will actually be an advantage.

That means combomb is somewhat balanced: it costs the attacker lots of metal (the com + units) and one of the strongest and most versatile units (com). And on the other side, the defender has to build mobile units and not just static units (porc) for the case of a combomb (costs metal), and cannot leave his com unattended at the front (costs build power and player-attention - very costly thing).

I hate it, when I get combombed, but I deem it mostly my fault, if I cannot deal with it.

[MasterBel2]

@dansan Thanks for the comment, haven't really thought of a couple of those things before. The other situation I was thinking of that I'm not sure has been adressed in this conversation so far is the case when two commanders meet on the front line. It is the strategy of some to walk their commander straight at the enemy's base until they reach the enemy com and then self-d, with the intention of blowing up both commanders. This is more often seen on DSD, but happened a number of times also on tabula (north and south mountains) and CCR (maybe it's just the maps we're playing?). Typically in this case no one has time to prepare much, but the person who combombed usually will have a couple rezzors on the ready just behind his commander to suck up most of the metal.

This particular strategy I've seen as typically executed by more experienced players against less experienced players, and it often has the effect of taking the lesser player out of the game completely. My problem with this is that it's so effective - nearly nothing can be done to prevent it, apart from giving yourself serious disadvantages.

[Ares]

Com sacrificing is a very all-in move, especially in a team game. High risk, high reward.

Its easy to see it coming (a commander walking towards you), easy to avoid(just walk away and if he follows his commander becomes exposed/make 2 llt). The reason it works so well when a good player does it against a bad player is because of skill in execution and a difference in ability, not because the tactic is inherently overpowered.

It is better to considering gameplay under the spotlight of two equally skilled players.

[MasterBel2]

It is better to considering gameplay under the spotlight of two equally skilled players.

Forgive me for taking into consideration the fact that noobs are very much put off by strategies that seem almost unstoppable - up to even the skill of around 20 ts (or higher - I'm approaching 23). But we won't talk about that.

I think it's a problem when even a 20 ts like me can walk a commander at a 30ts (PtaQ, doomed for eg.) and pull this off. The fact that the only way of avoiding it is running away is my problem. It's near impossible to stand your ground and fight off the other player for the sole reason that it's what they want you to try to do. It plays into their hands.

Technically it's not unstoppable, but that's not the only problem - I personally think that strategies like this make the game very un-fun, and am sure that there are others that agree.

[CommanderSpice]

The first lessons include:
- You build a LLT against scoutrape.
- You build two LLTs against a walking commander.
The unexperienced player can lose some games before learning them.

The stakes in the commander team deathmatch in DSD's south are high. That is why I consider it so much fun.

I do not think that there is a problem with either of this.

As you seem to think there is, what are your recommendations?
What would you change?

[MasterBel2]

Probably the first thing I'd look at is changing the metal given when a commander blows up. This will both discourage techers and lower the value of combombing, however then the commander may be used more as a bomb. I've thought about the possibility of decreasing explosion range, but if it's reduced too far then commanders will be used against eachother. Just probably the 2 most solid ideas I've had.

And when I say inexperienced, I'm not specifically thinking about newbies, but more specifically the range of players of a lower number of hours played, say only in the low hundreds. Because of amount of ingame experience these players also tend to have a true skill of around 20 and below.

But in thinking about newbies, why should we let there be strategies that are almost designed to target noobness? I mean, if any community doesn't have an constant influx of new players, it's hard to keep the community going. We're seeing this now with the BA community; there are a lack of newer players coming in relative to the number of players leaving, and therefore the community starts to struggle. In more ways than one - lack of devs, lack of players, and lack of variety for example.

[CommanderSpice]

Isn't (or wasn't?) there a "no commander - no control" modoption for games with
absolutely no one combombing or cannibalizing the commander for metal?

It prevents players who do not have at least one commander from issuing commands.
But I can't find it now. Was it dropped? Or did I see it in another mod?

[Silentwings]

Yes - com control was removed long ago. (It wasn't much liked and had a short life. My memory is that it was at a time when loads of different end game methods were tried, shortly before team com ends was invented, and team com ends quickly took over as the preferred end game method.)

Without wanting to take part in the discussion of how to avoid getting combombed, my feeling is that the commander explosions + 2500m provide a huge amount of entertainment, for both players and spectators, with only a moderate amount of randomness. Overall I think they're a huge asset, and something unique that you don't find elsewhere.

[MasterBel2]

Ah I remember com control - I remember thinking what a horrid idea it was, but now I finally understand where it was coming from yay! I do wonder though - is there something like that we could try? Unfortunately I personally don't have any ideas.

[qray]

Com sacrificing is a very all-in move, especially in a team game. High risk, high reward.

Its easy to see it coming (a commander walking towards you), easy to avoid(just walk away and if he follows his commander becomes exposed/make 2 llt). The reason it works so well when a good player does it against a bad player is because of skill in execution and a difference in ability, not because the tactic is inherently overpowered.

It is better to considering gameplay under the spotlight of two equally skilled players.

Full ACK

Probably the first thing I'd look at is changing the metal given when a commander blows up.

Less metal -> less to loose. Makes it even more likely to use com in suicide attacks since the opponent would not even get the advantage of the -in early game- huge metal metal amount if the com blows up.

[CARTOUCHE]

T1 gameplay, especially in larger games, tends to revolve around commander wreckages. The specific problem as it appears to me, is that games can be won in the first 5 minutes by a single combomb - someone gets the metal, and game over, because they have 5000 more metal than their opponent. Commanders can also singlehandedly take out an entire frontline -for example when someone decides to cloak their commander and walk it into the enemy's defences, typically also aimed at blowing up the other commander so the entire front line blows up, and another free 5000 metal.

The fact that for a lot of people the sole purpose of a commander is to blow it up for the metal stored in the wreckage is just wrong, but that's almost all that it's valuable for. At least from what I can see.

they have +2500 more metal than their opponent after a combomb (1ennemy com)

[MasterBel2]

If you take 2500 m of one team and give it to the other, that means that one loses 2500 while the other gains 2500

b = a - 2500 || c = a + 2500 || c = b + 5000

[CommanderSpice]

Ah I remember com control - I remember thinking what a horrid idea it was, but now I finally understand where it was coming from yay! I do wonder though - is there something like that we could try?

Just a few ideas:
- slow control: one second pause between commands
- laggy control: each command is delayed by one second
- reduced control: unable to control/build some units
- unable to give or receive units/metal
- unable to chat
- no spam: can only build x units per minute
- units have reduced los/radar/firerate/dmg/speed/hp
- leak a percentage of metal/energy
- your annoying nerf here

Most of them would still allow blowing the commander for T2, but you will surely want to resurrect it once you have decent economy.
And you will think twice if you can afford to blow it at the front.