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

Forum index  > News   >

Zero-K v1.5.4.11 - Empire Wins Planetwars

20 posts, 1090 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago

A few days ago, Empire won the latest round of Planetwars with a deep strike to capture Sparta, the Federation homeworld. Throne was lost in the process (due to a malfunctioning warp jammer) but after a developer discussion we decided to continue the round with the surprising (to some) rule that homeworlds can be exploded. We aim to fix the bugs and balance issues found in this round and run further planetwars until we can support lengthy galaxy-wide wars. We should mostly be simplifying and polishing current mechanics instead of adding any new big things to planetwars.

Feedback is welcome.

Balance


  • Disarm now interrupts bursts (in the same way that EMP does). For example a Catapult can start firing, get disarmed and finish firing when the disarm wears off.
  • Djinn obeys disarm.
  • Commander area jammer and area cloaker modules now drain energy. Not draining energy was a bug.

Interface



Added selection filtering, as requested here: http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/23954.
  • All units have a Selection Rank state toggle that ranges from 0 to 3.
  • Structures have rank 1, constructors have rank 2, and combat units (commanders included) have rank 3.
  • When selecting multiple units the units without the greatest rank in the selection are filtered out.
  • Hold Shift to ignore rank and create selections of mixed rank.
  • Hold Ctrl to ignore rank above a certain (configurable) threshold. The default ignores rank differences above 1, this means that Ctrl+A will select all units with rank at least 1.
  • Selection Rank is a state toggle so you can configure your unit defaults in 'Game/New Unit States', just like any other state toggle.
  • If you don't want selection filtering then disable it in 'Settings/Interface/Selection'.

Hotkeys for setting a particular unit state are now configurable in the 'Game/Command Hotkeys' menu. Previously the only state hotkeys available through this menu would toggle the state. With these new commands you could, for example, bind a key to set your units to hold fire by binding "Fire State: 0".

Improved the state toggle icon for overkill prevention.

Chickens


  • Fixed to White Dragon behavior.
  • Removed Spidermonkey weapon lighting and reduced impulse.
  • Tweaked some timing values. Lategame chickens occur slightly earlier and small chickens become obsolete sooner.
  • Added savegame support for chickens.

Fixes


  • Fixed command hotkey visualization for de-disabled commands during tutorials.
  • Fixed night view in missions.
  • Fixed Hacksaw description.
  • Fixed unit AI command for non-transports.
  • Fixed some shader errors on strict drivers.
  • Fixed slow mex glow update when overdrive changes.
  • Fixed Convict animation.

+4 / -0



CHrankAdminDeinFreund
4 months ago
A simpler explanation for the new selection would be nice. As I understand it, normal selection prioritizes fighters (and commander?!), shift selects everything and control inverts the selection(?). Is there a button to select 2nd highest rank, i.e. prioritize builders? What is the intended use of control?
+1 / -0


PLrankVistritium
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

You did not even mention the gamebreaking bug that prevented players from defending planets which resulted in empire taking federation planets without expected resistance. I think game would still be ongoing and taken unexpected turn if this bug was addressed.
On the contrary the bug that allowed the capture of Throne using string connector was addressed on the spot.
+0 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
You fix what you can. We discussed whether to pause planetwars for bug fixing and decided against it. Being game masters and players at the same time makes things a little tricky but we've got to make calls when things come up. Decisions often favour one side or another but that is unavoidable. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that you should be able to capture planets which have been targeted by a planet buster, everyone expected it to explode the planet with nothing left before it fired. The planet was also left with weird untested properties such as "Chickens: Hard" and "+126 Dropship Defense" that were best left alone. The dropship defense property even implies it is supposed to be uninvadable from some old planetwars version where dropships were more numerous and the only way to invade. It is, of course, bad that Defensive Pact did not work. Some players switching into Federation to mitigate it a bit but not as effectively as if the treaty functioned.
+0 / -0


PLrankVistritium
4 months ago
I fully understand. It only saddens me that you seem to not even see the issue or consider it important enough to mention in this summary. I think that it was one of biggest bugs in this PW. On the other hand, the PB issue was minor - it did not prevent players from playing the game and it would require a lot of dropships to even consider capturing it.
+0 / -0

ITrankOldGhostStalker
4 months ago
Weird stuff was that conquering just 1 HQ made game over, while planetbuster made targeted faction invulnerable
+4 / -0


AUrankAquanim
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

As far as I know, Dynasty got around the defensive pact problem by temporarily joining Federation in the end to defend the homeworld. There were not enough PW-players online at the right time from Dynasty and Federation combined to defend most of the planets I took from Federation in that push, as far as I know. (I checked the player list on occasion believing that the defensive pact was operational, and as far as I recall no Dynasty player attempted an attack in that period.)

I do not think it affected the game as much as you think, although obviously it wasn't good.

On the other hand the question of "should a small handful of players in an unusual timezone affect the game to this degree" is a valid one.
+0 / -0

PLrankOrfelius
4 months ago
quote:
Weird stuff was that conquering just 1 HQ made game over, while planetbuster made targeted faction invulnerable

Right? If I were thinking too hasty I would say there was a significan't bias from one particular dev.
But what do I know right? I didn't even have enough time to play during these PW and it ended so quickly too.
+0 / -4


AUrankAquanim
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

As far as I know the defensive pact issue is still not fixed... because it's quite non-obvious what was actually causing it.

The planet busters (and string connectors) weren't supposed to target homeworlds in the first place, and yet that didn't get fixed either.

Before you start accusing people of bias (even if you choose to be backhanded about it)... maybe have a think about the facts, and then don't?
+0 / -0


PLrankVistritium
4 months ago
quote:

As far as I know, Dynasty got around the defensive pact problem by temporarily joining Federation in the end to defend the homeworld

2 players from dynasty took part in the sum of 3 player-battles as federation:
https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/454174
https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/454171
https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/454141
One of them was homeworld defense.
Take a note that players that were available held the highest roles in dynasty and leaving the dynasty could make a problems. Maybe it was possible but it needed more thought and wasn't so straightforward.

On the other hand, if pact was working, I would be able to take part in tens of battles: multiple times defense of loki, all or most battles on the last day of PW when empire was taking planets on the way to PB and Sparta. Winning just 2 of battles in the assault of PB could make enough time for PB to activate and, for example, fire at Sparta making feds invulnerable. In last battles of defense of Sparta Anarchid, Hoko and me were available and tried to join defense. You think that it wouldn't significantly affect the game?

quote:
I recall no Dynasty player attempted an attack in that period

I was alone a lot of time. You probably know that you can't attack alone but you can defend alone.

Also, fify.
quote:
the defensive pact issue is still not fixed... because it's quite non-obvious what was actually causing it it didn't get any attention.



+0 / -1




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
PLrankVistritium what is your aim? What is your point?

Irrelevantly:
quote:
Winning just 2 of battles in the assault of PB could make enough time for PB to activate and, for example, fire at Sparta making feds invulnerable.
Re-targeting a planetbuster resets its cooldown. It could not be quickly switched to destroy Sparta.
+0 / -0


PLrankVistritium
4 months ago
I have already said first and second post. Today I responded because AUrankAquanim decided to continue and undermined by arguments.
+0 / -0


AUrankAquanim
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

I don't take kindly to the effort which I and others put into Planetwars to win this round being dismissed as illegitimate because some GBC players are salty. If Federation players were complaining (and make no mistake, they were the ones in a position to win if Empire did not) I'd be somewhat more tolerant of that.

quote:
all or most battles on the last day of PW when empire was taking planets on the way to PB and Sparta.

You weren't around for a fair few of them, and you'd almost certainly have lost them anyway 1v2.

quote:
Also, fify.
quote:
the defensive pact issue is still not fixed... because it didn't get any attention.

Now you're making shit up. Justify this or shut your lying mouth.

We should probably take this to the lobby now. This discussion is no longer fit for the forum.
+1 / -2

ITrankOldGhostStalker
4 months ago
Why not switching planetbuster missile with a bomb? You carry that in one attack along with dropships & co in one batttle, and if you manage to defend it for a set time, it triggets and destroys the planet where battle took place (obviously that battle ends in a draw).
+0 / -0




AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 months ago
I like ideas like that, more ingame interaction.
+0 / -0


CZrankAdminLicho
4 months ago
Yeah thats a good idea.. however.. who will get the bomb? Owner of the device? Anyone attacking? Will it appear repeated times? Not easy...
+0 / -0

ITrankOldGhostStalker
4 months ago
Anyone who built it or any faction leader can send it (like a dropship). Of course, it's a one time use so if enemy manages to destroy it before detonation you just wasted your metal. For ingame ownership, it's just a building with a timer with automatic detonation so it's not important. Obviously faction leader would choose an appropriate time to send it.
+0 / -0



CHrankAdminDeinFreund
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

Battles are way too random for such a thing. Any peopler can just click defend/attack on a battle you've been planning for 5 days.

We first need a system for faction officials to lock specific battles so that proper selections can be made. Besides that the ridiculous 5 minute counter for defense can be abused to just attack with that bomb when the best enemy players went for a coffee.

Battles are fun, but as random as they currently are they should rather have less than more impact.
+2 / -0


CHrankConnetable
4 months ago
(edited 4 months ago)

It would really help the understanding of PW if the icons next to planets were explained in the map.
+0 / -0

ITrankOldGhostStalker
4 months ago
it's better than current planetbuster where a random missile can destroy a planet from half galaxy away, at least you have to win a battle with this bomb
+1 / -0