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

unexperienced player's storage fields: a solution approach

32 posts, 700 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (32 records)
sort


DErankAdminmojjj
17 days ago
(edited 17 days ago)

problem description: extensive use of storage in teamgames by single players create metal sinks. this metal is inaccessible to the team. often (always?) the player of concern does know nothing of its action and its counter-contribution to win the game.

solution approach:
alter metal distribution among players, dependent on all player's current metal availability. as long the team has players, which do not have full base metal capacity (500), do not distribute metal equally. e.g. reduce (er even cut?) the metal output to these overstoragerd players till everyone has ~500 metal.


of course this should be an optional game setting else someone else starts crying.

###

please discuss this, also with regards to
-base storage capacity tied to commander/is lost due to com dead.
-all player's storage capacity is shared among all players
+2 / -0

AUrankSmokeDragon
17 days ago
i think its a good idea in some ways but i would like to add that

a noob overflowing metal is good for the team..

but a noob given metal to help construct his twenty-fifth radar in his base is bad
+1 / -0

LUrankAnir
17 days ago
hm maybe make storage only accessable for poeple lvl 100 because it is so OP!
+4 / -0

DEranksh4dowhun7er
17 days ago
Another possible solution would be to scale down metal income based on currently stored metal. This would reduce the total amount of metal wasted in storage, as well as preventing stockpiling of mex income (reclaim income would still go to storage).
The downside of this approach would be prohibiting 'blitzbuilding' of defenses in the middle of a fight (something that I've seen win games a couple of times).
+0 / -0



PLrankAdminSprung
17 days ago
I don't think newbs making storage is any worse than newbs drip-feeding the enemy units 1 by 1, newbs spending the metal on 9001 shields in the corner, newbs morphing their comm to get skuttled etc. Why would people be entitled to get a storer's stored metal any more than to receive the fac of a drip-feeder, the shields of a porcer or the commander of a morpher?

The problem is a symptom of skill disparity in games. If you play with newbs in the room you just have to accept they will play like crap, especially so if you're not playing competitive.
+7 / -0


GBrankfiendicus_prime
17 days ago
Does storage add anything to the game? Crazy powerbuild strategies perhaps.

Put storage on builders and remove storage structures?
+2 / -2

USrankRandomX
17 days ago
Education also helps. Not every noob knows what makes storage bad. Not everyone even played the single-player campaign. Storage is just storage for someone who doesn't know or forgets in the heat of battle. A loading screen that points out the negative side of storage forests may be all the gentle reminder that some may need to avoid making unnecessary storages.
+2 / -0


USrankOflameo
17 days ago
I don't want a handicap, I just want to get good.
+0 / -0


GBrankthe_green_squig
17 days ago
I also think a load screen is the least labour intensive and least game distorting option to reduce storage spam. People doing stupid things shouldn't be programmed out of the game. Most will learn with prompting and a warning from team-mates. It's just a question of suitably idiot proof wording.

"One storage is enough"

Anything simpler?

A bit of blurb as to why can be added, but the headline should be as simple as possible.

"You do not need to have all the resources at the beginning of the build. Units and buildings are built by steadily draining their cost in metal and energy at a constant rate."

Sometimes I think newbies don't realise that they don't need all the materials up front to build a bertha or strider. In most RTS games I've played, you pay up front.

"An empty metal bar means you are putting all your resources into winning the battle. A full metal bar means you are wasting metal. Defeat will follow."

Of course, there are plenty of sub-optimal ways of spending metal, but learning what is optimal and what is not is what getting experience is all about.
+1 / -0



RUrankFirepluk
16 days ago
(edited 16 days ago)

Hrm... when I do some storages it's mostly to compensate wildly fluctuating income due to reclaim spikes... Like now it's +20 m/s and next 10 sec it's +100 m/s because I'm eating that Paladin enemy lobster just suicided :D
But overall solution seems kind of unfair...

If anything I'd vote for bringing unlocks back for clusterfuck mixed skill room.
Not for everything, but for things that cause most mistakes - storage/shield/iris. Probably even leave striders/super weapons intact, this is not something that create that much disturbance as those 3 listed...
+4 / -0

ZArankAstran
16 days ago
Question: Would you ever need more than 6 storage?

Answer: Almost never.*

Solution: Cap max storage to 6.

...

Although in FFA I can see the argument for lots of storage.
+0 / -0



RUrankFirepluk
16 days ago
(edited 16 days ago)

Should be skill-locked imo... Those buildings are very niche and play strictly supportive roles, they can't do damage and win you games on their own. Lobster can perfectly fine play and help his team win the games without those unless he reaches a certain skill level meaning he has a decent grasp of basic game values...

Clusterfuck only room limitation ofc
I don't see a single problem with sane unlocks for clusterfuck room. Is there any?!
+0 / -0


GBrankfiendicus_prime
16 days ago
quote:

People doing stupid things shouldn't be programmed out of the game.


Nope, programming out the ability to shoot yourself in the foot is exactly the right thing to do.

OK, so reclaim spikes are a valid use for storage, that's fair. I'm still unconvinced storage buildings are an interesting mechanic either i) move storage to builders (say 100 each), you'll then have the storage you need when reclaiming or ii) could metal storage just be uncapped? I appreciate this brings us back to the distribution arguments in team games, and energy needs something different because of overdrive - maybe don't have energy storage at all and make energy all about flow.
+0 / -0


CHrankConnetable
16 days ago
putting storage into builders removes one possible target for attack, detroying storage farms
+0 / -0


GBrankfiendicus_prime
16 days ago
quote:
putting storage into builders removes one possible target for attack, detroying storage farms


I see that hypothetically, but does this happen in skilled play, given that players will be aiming not to store much metal most of the time? And also have a significant effect on the outcome.

If it happens 1/1000 games is it worth the noobtrap?
+1 / -0


CHrankConnetable
16 days ago
actually you are right, it happens rarely and is not the reason i'd like to keep storages. The reason is that it punish com death more.
+0 / -0

ZArankAstran
16 days ago
Just a note:

I personally build up my storage capacity as the game goes on, usually topping out at about 4. That's because the Storage isn't an inherently evil unit, it can in fact be very useful.

My case for storage:

1) The obvious, not wasting reclaim. I use frontline caretaker a lot, so I don't always know when I'm reclaiming a bunch of stuff. I might be raiding.

2) Pop up defences. It's nice to have a bunch of metal on hand and to push forward with the commander and to establish a forward strongpoint quickly. This can only work if one has enough metal to lathe at maximum speed.

3) Keeping a strategic reserve of metal on hand for flexibility. Sometimes threats appear unexpectedly and you quickly have to produce the appropriate counter. Sometimes those counters are expensive. Having 500 metal "in the bank" helps a lot when you need Skuttle NOW.

4) An expansion of pop-up defences, the "pop up offence". Namely sneaking builders around the back of an enemy base and popping up turrets to engage enemy structures with. Again, this has to happen at maximum speed because an enemy will react quickly to such threats.
+3 / -0


USrankOflameo
16 days ago
I am completely against unlocks. It is a technical solution to a to a social problem, and the problem is out of date documentation.

Unlocks will cause more problems than they fix. Everyone is going to claim that they lost because they couldn't make X unit.
+0 / -0




EErankAdminAnarchid
16 days ago
(edited 16 days ago)

quote:
Nope, programming out the ability to shoot yourself in the foot is exactly the right thing to do.

1) Not playing the game optimally is shooting yourself in the foot.

2) If an optimal strategy is known, it is automatable and the player is unneeded. The game is solved. See tic tac toe or checkers for an example.

3) If the game is not solved, you can't ever really say that you can judge whether a move is good or bad automatically. Especially if you want super overarching heuristics like "more than x storage is always bad". This is why player skill in unsolved games has to be calculated based on wins and losses rather than mexes and storages.

---

If you remove storage they will just build 90 caretakers / identical factories / Desolators / Pylons / circular walls around their base. Clearly, this is not enough.

I have a modest proposal that is guaranteed to work instead. As you can see, we cant determine footgunning in unsolved games. So the obvious solution is to make ZK solvable by paring down its complexity until it can be solved. We can begin by reducing map size to 8x8 px, removing fog of war and
terrain as a mechanics, limiting game size to only 1v1, and leaving only two unit types, both with just 1 hitpoint.


Once we solve the resulting game, noone will ever be able to shoot themselves in the foot because we will replace all the fallible players with copies of the mathematically perfect, immortal algorithm for playing the game optimally.
+1 / -0


GBrankfiendicus_prime
15 days ago
Anarchid, it doesn't follow that you should never try to force players into doing things. For example, the game makes it quite hard to target allied units.

I did speculate there was nothing interesting tactically that came of storage buildings... I stand corrected somewhat, but I'm still unconvinced it is worth the aggravation that seems to come up with new players in team games.

Of the alternative approaches;

* I don't like the feel of unit unlocks, but it's a possibility.
* Distribution mechanics are interesting but you'd need a way to clearly communicate what was happening to the player. If it's an opt-in game option, I don't see the point, we need to aim for it to be default.
* Arbitrary unit limit can't cover all scenarios, maybe you need to eat a huge amount of metal very quickly, or whatever. Again there's a player communication issue too.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (32 records)