Can you manage to make the death-weapon do unit specific damage? hehCaydr wrote:Would be simple to have a mutator where comm explosions are tiny and inconsequential. But then it turns from, "rushing your comm close enough to the enemy's so as to catch it in the explosion" to, "who can hit the other guy's comm first with the d-gun". Whoever hits first suddenly has decisive control over the area, because a commander is of course a walking army in the early part of the game where this is a concern.
Yet another discussion about commanders
Moderator: Moderators
As Steve points out, this thread was NOT started to discuss whether comm rushing/bombing is, or isn't acceptable. Rather, it is meant to discuss how to cater for players who desire a slightly different playing experience with regards to the mechanics of commander death and D-guns respectively (see the first post of the thread for details).
So, the commander would remain the terror of his hometurf (at least until the opponent brings in the heavy equipment), while loosing his capability for offensive D-gun rushing/selfdestructing.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, that I do NOT wish to impose one particular way of playing upon anyone, but rather to make an option available to the subset of players who would prefer the game mechanics to behave in that particular manner.
Caydr, I believe, that your conclusion regarding the "who can hit the other guy's comm first with the d-gun" scenario is wrong. This (hypothetical) situation would only occur, when there is no limit to the use of the D-gun, and as you may remember from my initial post, I suggest allowing the host to indicate the radius from each individual commanders starting position, within which his D-gun can be used.Caydr wrote:Would be simple to have a mutator where comm explosions are tiny and inconsequential. But then it turns from, "rushing your comm close enough to the enemy's so as to catch it in the explosion" to, "who can hit the other guy's comm first with the d-gun".
So, the commander would remain the terror of his hometurf (at least until the opponent brings in the heavy equipment), while loosing his capability for offensive D-gun rushing/selfdestructing.
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, that I do NOT wish to impose one particular way of playing upon anyone, but rather to make an option available to the subset of players who would prefer the game mechanics to behave in that particular manner.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Re: Yet another discussion about commanders
Always the same stupid replies of «omfgszfd noobz, good playerz won't let that happen, good playerz kill the comm with just a peeper, it's you nubz fault to leet that hapen».jensgb wrote:...
Constructive, non-inflammatory comments and/or improvement suggestions are wellcome.
Anyway, i think the options are just fine.
I think that it is the mods that should take care of solving those problems by changing the comander or other things. For example, it's the mods responsibility to have the commander have a big, small or non-existant explosion. A change like that is not suitable to be the engine's responsibility.
Would be nice if a dinamic system of mutators was implemented. So a mod could have a large comm explosion and a mutator to change it.
Could be nice if mods made commanders start less dangerous and grow with time/resources.
Ex:
- Starting with a short ranged Hlt, after some time D-Gun get's enabled.
- Starting with medium health, after some time health increases.
- Starting with medium health, on/off button enables shielding that absorbs x% of all damage, consuming resources making it only viable once the economy is stronger.
Also, remember that, in "dead comm, game ends", you can cloack your comm after economy can sustain it. It will make it so that, to end the game, you will have to crush your oponent's economy so the comm doesn't have enough energy to cloack, not just go after the comm, but, still, not have to go wipe every single unit to win the game.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
On a small map, try defending against...
Windmill, Windmill, Mex, Factory (whatever kind), Comm Rush
Since it is a small map, the commander will reach your base fairly quickly and since it is so early, will wipe it out (What're you going to use to stop a comm? You normally send your comm out after every radar dot approaching your base? I let my LLT deal with those dots...and they're pretty close to my base anyhow). Hell, the comm might not even die - just dgun all the defenses then wipe out all your labs, run away if your comm gives chase. He's already kicked you out of the game.
On a larger map, try defending against...
Windmill, Windmill, Mex, Windmill, Windmill, Transport, Lift Comm, Comm Bomb
At this early, you'll be lucky if your scout/raider unit is almost at their base though. You might even have a missile tower up in your base which can take out the transport after a couple hits...you know, after it is sitting on top of your factory, but unless you were told the transported comm was coming, you won't have any antiair out in the proper direction to deal with it early enough. In the end, your base will be destroyed...and your comm might die as well.
And, for those that want at least a chance to keep their comm alive afterwards, a variant.
Same as above, except drop the comm just a small distance from the enemy base - now start dgunning enemy defenses and factories.
Most TASpring players don't rampantly comm bomb, but that isn't because they can't - rather the community has discouraged it, in my experience. Above are three simple strats (2 are hurt by limit dgun, though the comm can still out-laser a LLLT...) that are almost guaranteed to take one enemy out of the running. I'd say we definately need a way to limit the comm explosion - perhaps until later in the game, I wouldn't mind, but at minimum early on the comm explosion, used offensively, allows the very aggressive player to simply annihilate the enemy without them having a chance to stop them in the least.
In my opinion, a mutator (as has been suggested) for mods would be best. This leaves it in the mod-makers hands - if Caydr decides AA needs huge comm explosions all the time, then so be it I suppose...but put the option out there and see where it goes.
Windmill, Windmill, Mex, Factory (whatever kind), Comm Rush
Since it is a small map, the commander will reach your base fairly quickly and since it is so early, will wipe it out (What're you going to use to stop a comm? You normally send your comm out after every radar dot approaching your base? I let my LLT deal with those dots...and they're pretty close to my base anyhow). Hell, the comm might not even die - just dgun all the defenses then wipe out all your labs, run away if your comm gives chase. He's already kicked you out of the game.
On a larger map, try defending against...
Windmill, Windmill, Mex, Windmill, Windmill, Transport, Lift Comm, Comm Bomb
At this early, you'll be lucky if your scout/raider unit is almost at their base though. You might even have a missile tower up in your base which can take out the transport after a couple hits...you know, after it is sitting on top of your factory, but unless you were told the transported comm was coming, you won't have any antiair out in the proper direction to deal with it early enough. In the end, your base will be destroyed...and your comm might die as well.
And, for those that want at least a chance to keep their comm alive afterwards, a variant.
Same as above, except drop the comm just a small distance from the enemy base - now start dgunning enemy defenses and factories.
Most TASpring players don't rampantly comm bomb, but that isn't because they can't - rather the community has discouraged it, in my experience. Above are three simple strats (2 are hurt by limit dgun, though the comm can still out-laser a LLLT...) that are almost guaranteed to take one enemy out of the running. I'd say we definately need a way to limit the comm explosion - perhaps until later in the game, I wouldn't mind, but at minimum early on the comm explosion, used offensively, allows the very aggressive player to simply annihilate the enemy without them having a chance to stop them in the least.
In my opinion, a mutator (as has been suggested) for mods would be best. This leaves it in the mod-makers hands - if Caydr decides AA needs huge comm explosions all the time, then so be it I suppose...but put the option out there and see where it goes.
in your scenaria, getting out a single unit in the sime the enemy commander needs to walk to your base would enable you to destroy its undefended base.
(a flash or a zipper is faster than the commander, and you can use your commander to speed up building while he has only the normal build speed as your commander is underway.
So while he runs to you, you send a flash... If he suicides, then he wont have any storage left, so after killing the mex and the windgens even units in building will never finish...
(a flash or a zipper is faster than the commander, and you can use your commander to speed up building while he has only the normal build speed as your commander is underway.
So while he runs to you, you send a flash... If he suicides, then he wont have any storage left, so after killing the mex and the windgens even units in building will never finish...
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
Just to point out - I never said I supported it, I said the idea came up. I think the rationale is that you should be able to use the DGun to defend against early rushes or attacks, but later on you should be forced to rely on your non-commander units for attack and defense.Dragon45 wrote:Making a mutator to disable DGun after X minutes would be bad because
1) Noone would use it, becuase
a) DGun is very effective, very highly used, anti-superunit weapon. I' ve dgunned so many banthas, kargies, orcones, etc, with my commander it's not even funny.
Play with com end. If he takes out both, you'll both die, you will know what kind of person your playing, and you can kick/leave.Kelson wrote:On a small map, try defending against...
Windmill, Windmill, Mex, Factory (whatever kind), Comm Rush
Since it is a small map, the commander will reach your base fairly quickly and since it is so early, will wipe it out (What're you going to use to stop a comm? You normally send your comm out after every radar dot approaching your base? I let my LLT deal with those dots...and they're pretty close to my base anyhow). Hell, the comm might not even die - just dgun all the defenses then wipe out all your labs, run away if your comm gives chase. He's already kicked you out of the game.
On a larger map, try defending against...
Windmill, Windmill, Mex, Windmill, Windmill, Transport, Lift Comm, Comm Bomb
At this early, you'll be lucky if your scout/raider unit is almost at their base though. You might even have a missile tower up in your base which can take out the transport after a couple hits...you know, after it is sitting on top of your factory, but unless you were told the transported comm was coming, you won't have any antiair out in the proper direction to deal with it early enough. In the end, your base will be destroyed...and your comm might die as well.
And, for those that want at least a chance to keep their comm alive afterwards, a variant.
Same as above, except drop the comm just a small distance from the enemy base - now start dgunning enemy defenses and factories.
There are alternetives. But as long as it's in clear sight so i don't mistake myself, put it in.
I will try to briefly sum up the contents of the thread until now.
My proposal as it stands, is to allow the host of a game the OPTION of using ONE OR BOTH of the following two features:
1)
Limiting or possibly eliminating the commander explosion (it is not yet clear whether this feature would come about due to a mutator, or via some other means).
Since a lot of players like the fact, that the commander explosion can save their OWN base in a tight spot against an enemy swarm, it would perhaps be desirable to introduce an option, to make the it possible for the suggested host-specified radius from starting point to be a COMMON radius, so that both the D-Gun AND the commander explosion were limited to within a distance from the starting point.
In that case, the host-selectable options for commander explosion would be:
I) Normal explosion (default)
II) No explosion
III) Commander explosion only occurs within a host-specified radius from the starting point (if host has specified a radius-limit to D-gun, the two radii would be the same)
2)
Indicating a radius from the commander starting points, within which their D-guns can be used (This solution is very easy to implement, as it is basically the existing "limit D-gun to start pos" scenario, with the limit radius specified by the host). As mentioned, a single circle defined by the host-specified radius, could be shown on the battleroom minimap for easy reference, when the "limit D-gun radius" option was active.
Host-selectable options for D-gun:
I) No restrictions (default)
II) D-gun limited to within a host-specified radius from the starting point (if host has specified a radius-limit to commander explosion, the two radii would be the same)
Regarding feature 1), there seems to be broad agreement that it would NOT detract anything from anyone to include that option for the host to specify in the battleroom, and that for quite a few players it would improve their gaming experience. (Some, in the thread have claimed that they would never play with this option ON, since they feel confident that they can always overcome opponent attempts to comm bomb/rush. Those voices have however not presented any argument, as to why another group of players should NOT be allowed to play games, where commander explosions are negligible).
It therefore seems reasonable to state, that the discussion regarding feature 1) can move on the issue of how to implement it, and who should be in charge of that implementation.
Regarding feature 2). This feature suggestion is rather uncontroversial, since there is already the option in the battleroom to limit D-gun radius to starting points, albeit with a FIXED radius. The slight modification of allowing the host to specify the limit radius (which would be common for all commanders), has not met with any opposition, save from AndreasK who claims that "varying d-gun radii will tillt the games balance easily", but presents no argument to back that claim up. Before moving towards implementation of this second host OPTION, I would like to hear, if there is any opposition, backed up by coherent arguments, to introducing that host-selectable option?
My proposal as it stands, is to allow the host of a game the OPTION of using ONE OR BOTH of the following two features:
1)
Limiting or possibly eliminating the commander explosion (it is not yet clear whether this feature would come about due to a mutator, or via some other means).
Since a lot of players like the fact, that the commander explosion can save their OWN base in a tight spot against an enemy swarm, it would perhaps be desirable to introduce an option, to make the it possible for the suggested host-specified radius from starting point to be a COMMON radius, so that both the D-Gun AND the commander explosion were limited to within a distance from the starting point.
In that case, the host-selectable options for commander explosion would be:
I) Normal explosion (default)
II) No explosion
III) Commander explosion only occurs within a host-specified radius from the starting point (if host has specified a radius-limit to D-gun, the two radii would be the same)
2)
Indicating a radius from the commander starting points, within which their D-guns can be used (This solution is very easy to implement, as it is basically the existing "limit D-gun to start pos" scenario, with the limit radius specified by the host). As mentioned, a single circle defined by the host-specified radius, could be shown on the battleroom minimap for easy reference, when the "limit D-gun radius" option was active.
Host-selectable options for D-gun:
I) No restrictions (default)
II) D-gun limited to within a host-specified radius from the starting point (if host has specified a radius-limit to commander explosion, the two radii would be the same)
Regarding feature 1), there seems to be broad agreement that it would NOT detract anything from anyone to include that option for the host to specify in the battleroom, and that for quite a few players it would improve their gaming experience. (Some, in the thread have claimed that they would never play with this option ON, since they feel confident that they can always overcome opponent attempts to comm bomb/rush. Those voices have however not presented any argument, as to why another group of players should NOT be allowed to play games, where commander explosions are negligible).
It therefore seems reasonable to state, that the discussion regarding feature 1) can move on the issue of how to implement it, and who should be in charge of that implementation.
Regarding feature 2). This feature suggestion is rather uncontroversial, since there is already the option in the battleroom to limit D-gun radius to starting points, albeit with a FIXED radius. The slight modification of allowing the host to specify the limit radius (which would be common for all commanders), has not met with any opposition, save from AndreasK who claims that "varying d-gun radii will tillt the games balance easily", but presents no argument to back that claim up. Before moving towards implementation of this second host OPTION, I would like to hear, if there is any opposition, backed up by coherent arguments, to introducing that host-selectable option?
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
There is a major issue to know. Who is to implement such stuff? From your speach, it kind of looks like your proposing to implement it yourself and that makes all the diference in this discussion.jensgb wrote:... Before moving towards implementation of ...
The thing is that we know the developers work force is considerably limited and, as such, we tend to disagree on options because we know that if the developers are working on them, they're not working on something else we would like better. If that's not the issue, if you're proposing yourself to implement more options, heck, i doubt anyone disagrees because options are just that, options, not something we're forced to use.
If not, the standard way is to «agree» on a feature and then annoy the developer, in this case Betalord, to implement it. In that case, i will continue to keep my reservations against implementing such things.
I am suddenly very confused. Who will implement an idea, when it will be implemented, how many people are working on the project...these have something to do with design decisions? Your comments make sense if we were prioritizing dev time (though that is done by them more than by anything else), but that isn't the case here.PauloMorfeo wrote:There is a major issue to know. Who is to implement such stuff? From your speach, it kind of looks like your proposing to implement it yourself and that makes all the diference in this discussion.
Paulo:
It certainly IS my intention to implement the above-mentioned suggestions myself (with the accept of those responsible for the relevant parts of the codebase), and I have primarily started this thread to obtain constructive critique and suggestions for improvement before commencing actual implementation.
It certainly IS my intention to implement the above-mentioned suggestions myself (with the accept of those responsible for the relevant parts of the codebase), and I have primarily started this thread to obtain constructive critique and suggestions for improvement before commencing actual implementation.