Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

New changes and "communist" eco

13 posts, 753 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
8 years ago
Now that all income (except reclaim) is shared, the game is more fucked than it was before.

A commander provides 4m income (thats 2-3 mexes [map dependant]) so if an ally looses a commander, or suicides it, or com morphs it and dies. Than rather than the player suffering the loss, the team does, the player that lost it can still enjoy the M from his allies. This will make players value their own commander less.

The massive splitting of M income from pretty much all sources is a really bad change. This will make skilled players suffer even more from the actions of bad players, and will brood bad blood between the players. In many cases it is an advantage to allow a bad player to be killed so they are no longer an M drain on the team.

This problem of "caretaker spam" is something that i have rarely if not ever seen in the games that i play. Perhaps it is an issue in the 14v14's that happen (that i dont play) but that should not break the ideal balance of 2v2-6v6's

Any other thoughts?
+3 / -0

8 years ago
In a team game it makes sense that the whole team suffers when someone screws up. If you don't want the comm to die and reduce your income then send stuff to support it. Someone who suicides comm in a way that doesn't give you the ability to save him is most likely a complete nub so losing the +1 income is the least of your worries.
+3 / -0

8 years ago
its a lot harder for 1 player to dominate the game after this change, which pretty much removes all the fun and ultimately makes it pointless for high elo people to even bother playing which is why I havent logged in since
+2 / -0

8 years ago
+5 / -0
8 years ago
Sprung... +1 income? you do know it is +4 income for the team right?

So if a player plays badly, and sends their commander to one of the many front lines, and promptly dies (even though his/her allies are telling them not to), then it is the allies fault and their eco should be penalized...

A team having lower eco should be able to be fixed by an allys ability to compensate. Such as uncapped mexes and such.

When it comes to things like placing the first factory, or if they suicide com morph. That is totally out of the control of the allys and up to the player in charge of those units. Players should be rewarded for playing well, not punished for an ally doing poorly.

Many games do end with the strong players over performing to compensate for the weaker/less skilled players. This reduces that ability and skews balance.

It is just straight up bad. It was implemented to fix a problem that was never a problem to begin with.
+0 / -0
quote:
Sprung... +1 income? you do know it is +4 income for the team right?

The team as a whole always loses +4 regardless of the split.
You only lose +1 personally in, say, 4v4 - even less in large teams where noobs suiciding comms usually happens.

quote:
if a player plays badly, and sends their commander to one of the many front lines, and promptly dies (even though his/her allies are telling them not to), then it is the allies fault and their eco should be penalized

The team sucks at communication so they get the punishment. Perhaps the fault is wholly on the comm owner's side (and it indeed usually is) but it can also be the other way around* and the game cannot tell the difference.

* example: [Spoiler]
+0 / -0
8 years ago
Yes the income per person is a variable based on the number of team players.

You do know this whole "Communist" eco system just makes the game even more complicated for new players right?

And yes, you can always find some kind of counter example for almost any argument about a possible strat since this is a RTS.
+0 / -0
8 years ago
When you fuck up your team loses out - that's how team games work. Play smaller games with competent players to avoid all these problems.
+2 / -0
Eco is not fully communist. Reactionary elements lobbying for the recycling industry have managed to keep the reclaim as a black market of unchecked capitalism.

People who claim that the income is an incentive to do anything in the game confuse endgoals and instrumental subgoals. The goal of the game is to kill the other guys, not to be richer than the other guys. Being richer is only a way to enable their death.

Consider this gedankenexperiment: you have an unit-set containing a total of 10 mexes and 100 full storages, giving you 50500 metal in storage and +20 income. Your enemy has an unit-set containing no builders, mexes, or storages (+0 income). Instead, they have a Banshee.
+3 / -0
Skasi
quote:
You do know this whole "Communist" eco system just makes the game even more complicated for new players right?


Actually, it's very easy to explain now:
1) Resources spent on some specific eco buildings are partially paid back, the ratio is different between them.
1) Reclaim is not shared.
2) All other income sources are shared with allies.

Before the recent change it was a bit more complicated:
1) Resources spent on some specific eco buildings are partially paid back, the ratio is different between them.
1) Reclaim is not shared.
2) All other income sources that do not have buildpower are shared with allies, unless you count morphing as buildpower.


By the way, I am still against 1). It's complicated and fucks up economy by changing per-player income numbers over time without the team-total income changing. This makes balancing buildpower impossible.
+0 / -0


8 years ago
P.S. the people whose playstyle constututes largely of shieldcon spam and mass reclaim being #1 complainers about non-reclaim income being communist
+0 / -0
Considering the current eco mechanics, this is what i would see optimal.

Basic Mex income:
Manually adjusted, you can pick what % to share and who to share to.
Default: 25% sharing.

Excess metal:
Its obviously 100% sharing, would be nice to choose who you excess to though.

Excess energy AKA OD income:
Total communism, income is evenly shared for entire team. Due to diminishing returns, this is the only option that allows for optimal OD and doesnt encourage bad behaviour (building Singus way past economic viability just to increase your share in total OD income).

Reclaim:
Adjustable, separately from mex income.
Default: 0%

Commander income:
Individual, but decreased to something like +2/+2.

Con income:
Removed completely.


In addition, i'd suggest adding +1/+1 basic global income for every player (or for every com you started with).
The +1/+1 is enough for a slow comeback after fleeing with a con, and the con/nano-based eco is just silly and goes against the design of OD.
+0 / -0


8 years ago
I don't think full communism was the way to go, personally. I favoured finding a balance between personal return and team share that felt right (much lower than the days of singu farm, but still viable).
+0 / -0