Requirements for unlocks; game-time-limited, number-limited, etc.

sort
corgator 12 years ago How about unlocks (fusion, singularity) which are locked untill you get some requirements. fusion, singularity, adv.radar, striders, ... (for each 1 unlock) * you need a specific game time * * you can unlock this point fusion/singularity (together) * you need more metal income than energy income or both at least at +20 / +80 * * you can unlock this point storage * you neeed your metal storage 70% filled or more than +20 metal income. * * you can unlock this point I don't want to make examples about every one of our 50 unlocks. +0 / -0
Emblis 12 years ago Why? Unit unlock was a stupid idea in the first place, thank Satan that it does not require any major invest to get what you need. If anything should be done with the unlock system it should be faster. ZK is a RTS game, not some RPG hybrid. The moment you start to use the model that "More playtime == Stronger/more/better units" it moves away from being an RTS. I believe that all players should have an equal chance of winning, regardless of how long they have played and how many unlocks they got. The only advantage older players should have against newer players is game experience and knowledge. As it is now you will probably unlock all you need before you have acquired the skills needed to play the game at a competitive level. Why add additional rules that serve no apparent purpose except for making it harder for new players to understand it? I think it is overkill just having to unlock them, I have had many new player who I have played with ask "Why is this building gray? How do I unlock it?" I would die a little inside every time I had to explain that "First you need to reach level 10 (you level by playing), but you also need to fulfil these requirements, after that (if you got the points needed) you can unlock them here: [LINK]." Do not need, do not want. -Emblis +0 / -0
[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng 12 years ago lol, nah we need Elo-based unlocks, that re-lock again if your elo falls below the threshhold. Throw every unit that makes noobs fail into an elo bracket of 1500+ athena, shield, sneaky pete, striders, HLTs, nukes etc and then new players will learn to play well BEFORE learning to fail +0 / -0
Anthem 12 years ago (edited 12 years ago) How are people supposed to get above 1500 elo if they don't have the same options as any other player? It's already bad enough. +0 / -0
Zag 12 years ago (edited 12 years ago) I realized while I was playing a game against a person who was playing for the one of their first times that if somehow I built a strider, they couldn't counter it because they can't build ultimatum or Krow or anything along that line. Also they asked me how they tech up in game, I told them that there is no tech tree, and then they asked why a few build options were grayed out (I explained that they had to level up by playing multiple games). The game itself is somewhat balanced, why disrupt it by making a noob have to play a bunch of games to make sure "they know how to play" before they get access to "more advanced" stuff. A better option IMO is to have a tutorial mission over a particular game mechanic and if they complete the mission above a certain score (not to hard, just show that they can use it) they would unlock that item. It would work much better for the original purpose, and not require them to play games before they can unlock the stuff. Just a thought, forcing people to play a short tutor mission at least once before they can play with other people might reduce pro frustrations a little. +0 / -0
Saktoth 12 years ago If someone builds a mech, the best counter is to kill them with glaives before they finish it. Seriously, they need to learn this first! I know a lot of them wont, but they need to have at least a few games to get used to using masses of light, mobile units and how to win with them. Either way, the best counter to any mechs is not ultimatum but spy, which is default unlocked. +0 / -0
Anthem 12 years ago If a locked unit is the best option in some situation, that puts new players at a further disadvantage. If it's never the best option, it's pointless complexity which confuses new players. I don't know whether the design goal of unlocks is to make the game less fair or to make the game less accessible, but both possibilities would be best fulfilled by locking more units. So I'll go back on my last post and lend my support to the OP here. +0 / -0
GoogleFrog 12 years ago Do you assume there is a design goal behind everything? All I know is my goal which is to lock as little as possible without others noticing and arguing about it. +0 / -0
[pikts]wolas 12 years ago I think only com modules + striders should be locked. Since com moprhing is waste and lets just protect ourselves from seeing detriminent built from start. And actually I prefer some newb to build golly than glaives because at least it does some damage and they can micro it :) If they build glaives mostly that becomes 1 by 1 glaive spam at enemy base and single llt counters 100 glaives. +0 / -0
Emblis 12 years ago There should be a design goal for everything. The game tend to be quite messed up if you throw in random features with no apparent purpose or reason. +0 / -0
Saktoth 12 years ago Google essentially opposes Unlocks Emblis, he is stating his -own- design goals. These goals conflict with Licho's idea for unlocks, which is to offer persistence over time and individual longterm goals to a game that otherwise gets reset to 0 every match (as well as reducing the bafflingly vast unit choices you get when you first play this game, restricting hard to use units to more experienced players and directing new players to the good, versatile ones). This is why we have the current system where lots of things are locked but they unlock so easily and quickly. We'd like to adjust the unlock system somewhat but the design discussion tends to break down because Google doesn't want anything locked and Licho wants to increase the prices of and lock more things, and any change we make is going to screw with everyones points and we don't want to have to keep adjusting it. +0 / -0
NeonSturm 12 years ago I would support less unlocks (especially factory units besides BD (as long Brawler is redundand enough)). But unlocks which unlock the unit after a given game time or income level would support the accessibility and avoid things like fusion-rushes both. It would fit into both oppinions. adv. radar / pylons could have a shared limit which is 0, limit could increase by 1 for each 10 minutes ingame time. That would avoid 6 pylons at a single spot, but let it be accessible when it is commonly needed / could be needed. +0 / -0
jseah 12 years ago I may like to add that I oppose unlocks myself as well. Basically, people want what they can't get. If you lock fusion, newbies will think fusion is more superawesome once they have unlocked it than if they could build it right from the start anyway. It only helps people who actually want to learn the game and have realized why units are locked. So they go learn the easy units first. It guides them as intended. But then, for these people, you can trust them with unlocks anyway. +0 / -0
Pxtl 12 years ago Well, unlocks keep players coming back for the metagame aspect of it, so Licho is right there, and it also keeps the newbtraps out of newbish hands... but those newbtraps are necessary for a good FFA game. So yeah, it's a wash, imho. +0 / -0

Forum index > General discussion >