A feature I'd like to see for FFA: The most important factor in an FFA is knowing who is likely to win and who is no longer a threat. Also, when strategizing with other players, a better indicator of who is who than the simple colours is handy too. So here's my thought: A widget/gadget that, displays a box in the middle of each startzone listing a) The player(s) that are starting there b) The total cost of their active units c) The total cost of the units they've destroyed This would let you know who's a threat, who's no longer a threat, who's been quietly hiding in the back. Yes, you should scout for this information, but the problem with an FFA is that the game is more fun when everybody is on page about who's doing how well in the game. If you've got to players slugging it out and ignoring the victorious third, player A telling player B "hey, we shouldn't ignore player C" is a lot easier when the numbers are staring him in the face. And this wouldn't provide any real useful locational information nor any details of what he's spending things on so you'd still need real scouting.
+0 / -0
|
It would need to be a gadget. Widgets would mean everyone needs to run it (and they could run a version that spoofs false information)
+0 / -0
|
I also think such a thing would increase stability of FFA games.. all too often people attack the wrong person and not the threat.
+0 / -0
|
It might be possible to make a widget that extrapolated information from radar dots / seen units and explosions. etc. Perhaps even a little helpful reminder about how much they spent in economy/defence/units. Basically, a data miner. (oho, if he kept spending as per past proportion on eco/def/units, he could afford a Dante!) Might be useful as a side project to eventually letting CAI make better strategic decisions.
+0 / -0
|
A data miner like that would be extremely usefull for any kind of game. That would be a pretty hard project to undertake tough.
+0 / -0
|
Ouch, this proposal not only messes with a crucial part of gameplay - intel - but it would ruin the fun of hiding secret strategies, ambush armies and other stuff that makes ffa fun. A widget would be fine though. It might work as follows: Periodically Log a timestamp with the total cost of visible enemy units. If a log has a new max cost (higher than any previous), discard previous logs. Could use some more brainstorming. But it would give you some ideas of the power of anyone you scout.
+0 / -0
|
All it would indicate is that a player has power, Car... not where it is or what the nature of it might be. If you're secretly building a Detriment in an ocean, we're not going to know where it is or what you're building, just that you exist and have power. FFA needs information to work well... but obviously giving too much information would ruin the intel game that is an important part of ZK gameplay as you said. So you just give something simple - a number. How strong are they? Just to let players make an informed decision about who to worry about, not what to worry about.
+0 / -0
|
You can *already tell where enemy will be at start* based on which Team # everyone is assigned to. The better FFA players already know this and use it to their advantage, adding another unfair advantage for noobs. Gadgetizing it levels the playing field.
+0 / -0
|
  Antelope - that part could be widgetized, really. The gadget part is the "current power", and that's the controversial bit.
+0 / -0
|
Make it a modoption then. I remember TA keeping track of the player's current "Score" (basically, Kills, deaths, etc). Don't remember it being much of a problem. The economy part? Yes, that's a problem.
+0 / -0
|
Wut? You just have to build 2k metal in scouts and know who's powerful. I think it's too easy to find out, often even a single radar is enough.
+0 / -0
|
Many games have sort of "power" score . .for example AOE or Rise Of Nations
+0 / -0
|
And it's silly in all of them. We're so lucky ZK doesn't have this. It's like playing without FOW.
+0 / -0
|
I also disagree with a "power" score becuase that eliminates most scouting. If you want to know who's dangerous, scout their bases. If you don't scout, your punishment will be not knowing who's strongest.
+0 / -0
|
Knowing which player starts where can be really useful. If all players see the same thing telling people that player X is doing a nuke in his base has much more credibility. It can also be a point of reference to say that player X has takens Y start while player Z is attacking X from his base, for example. Personally I don't find much time for diplomacy in FFA. There are so many micromanaging tasks that I'm not used to doing in other games. Like making walls, digging holes, scouting without losing units, repairing units and assuring that I get stronger from fighter rather than weaker. I think that certain maps and special game modes would be better than just showing score. Although seeing score can free up some time for diplomacy instead of scouting.
+0 / -0
|
The reason I want FFA to have a special bit of free scouting in the form of the simple brute force "power" attribute is because FFA games work better when everybody knows who is powerful, not just when you know who is powerful. FFA is based on the concept that each player is trying to make sure that no other player wins, and that they will unite to stop a single player from achieving victory... otherwise FFA quickly becomes the game where the weak are eliminated early and it breaks down into a 1v1 slugfest. KOTH, for example, includes a pulic-information factor - your KOTH times are not private information. Would KOTH be better if you could only see the status of the Hill box by scouting it? But either way, even without the "power" attribute a box indicating the relationship between the players and the start-zones would be really nice.
+0 / -0
|
Play FFAs with higher average elo, Pxtl. Players who ain't nubs know they have to find out who's strongest and who isn't.
+0 / -0
|
> a) The player(s) that are starting there > b) The total cost of their active units > c) The total cost of the units they've destroyed 'a' is fine except with shuffle enabled. Actually, if people are alt-tabbing back to the lobby just to see who is where (I've done this in many FFA before), this would be a really excelent feature. With shuffle though the start positions being secret is a feature. No and no to the other suggestings. In my mind, saying "diplomacy or intel is too hard" in FFA is like saying "getting resources or building units is too hard" in regular games. Basically, FFA is much less about unit balance and micro (and even econ management to an extent) and more about diplomacy, intuition, luck, and meta-game knowledge. Meta-game knowledge as in, you have to really know who you are playing with and how much you can trust what they say, and what their usual patterns of playstyles are. It is a deeply psychological game, and I have mentally collected profiles for the people I used to play lots of FFA with (chance of det making nuke: 90%; Yogzototh's favorite units: stumpy+janus and area bombers). You need to make huge decisions based on little intel, and often your intel comes from people you don't trust. That is the fun of it. TL;DR Giving free intel to everyone undermines the sneaky-underhanded-lying-back-stabbing part of the game that gives FFA its unique flavor, and waters it down into just a variation of standard play.
+0 / -0
|
Imagine a FFA where everybody can see everybody. It would basically come down to this. Am I good enough that I can beat them outright even though they are outnumbering me? Play like its me vs all. Could I beat all players alone in succesion? Attack one player at a time and trying to prevent others from hurting you. I can't beat player X outright but how can convince other people to attack him so I can beat the rest? Wait and try to make people attack X. I have very little chance at winning but I can make the one I attack lose aswell so who shall go down with me? Attack players that I feel like giving a hard time. I'm crippled but I still have some buildpower left so how can I stay alive? Defend yourself with ferocity or give up. I remember playing Forged alliance with like Phantom FFA. Basically the players would win if all the Phantoms got killed while a Phantom had to kill everyone else. Everybody started out allied and could see eachothers units. Then there were a delay until the Phantoms were chosen so people could expand and claim some of the map without having bias of their winning goal. Then phantoms got elected and the diplomacy began. Phantoms also got some percantage of the other players income. More if they declared war at someone. Thereby phantoms had alittle advantage. In Forged Alliance you could see the score which was based on economy and killing. So people tried to watch if someones score went up. FFA can be so different depending on the rules and gamemodes.
+0 / -0
|
I think something to make FFA less about second-guessing and more aggressive and actiony would be good. I am not sure this is the answer but it may be interesting. Probably a bit too much to program though for something where the effects on gameplay cannot really be known. It's just as likely to make people camp in their bases MORE, not less, because as soon as they move out everyone will know. Also, gaming the system so your stats show up poorer than they should (Making heaps of BP then deliberately not reclaiming until you need the metal, etc).
+0 / -0
|
