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

Petition to change metal share in uneven teams

37 posts, 467 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (37 records)
sort


28 days ago
When you have 2 coms it means you need to carry/fill role of 2 players. Please give that player 2x the metal share as well. Thanks.
+8 / -0
28 days ago
Wait, what? I thought 2 comms = 2x the metal? Have I been playing a different game in my imagination?

Of course 2 comms should get more metal. It's hard enough microing for 2 players as it is.
+0 / -0

28 days ago
afaik if you get 2 coms or another player lags/afks and you get their units, you still only get one player's share of metal. That might have been changed, but somehow I doubt it.
+0 / -0
28 days ago
If I get this right Zenfur is saying that you get 2x economy packs (so you double your commander based income) but the overall metal income is still 1/#players.

The suggestion would be to change that to #commanders/#players so that in a 4v3, the 3 player team's eco is divided in a 2/1/1 split instead of 1/1/1 with slight commander eco advantage.
+0 / -0
28 days ago
Communism metal sharing should initially be weighted according to the number of commanders per player, but should gradually even out. In the early game, a double player needs a bigger share to keep 2 facs producing simultaneously, but later on everyone should have the same production capacity.

If the metal distribution weighting declined from 2 to 1 over 10min, it would improve early game resource distribution as well as preventing 1 of 3 players spending half the teams eco on detriment spam in the later game.
+0 / -0
28 days ago
Arguably, form a coop (use squads).

Death to landlords.
+0 / -0

28 days ago
Using coms as a metric is degenerate in the case of afk players whose coms are dead.
+0 / -0
I mean, you can just check how many commanders a player has at the start of the game and assign the eco split accordingly, then transfer that fraction when a player leaves/resings/afks.

It doesn't have to stay based on the commander count the whole game, just the start.
+0 / -0
28 days ago
Another idea would be assigning metal according to the number of factories, counting each commander as one fac and maybe adding ln(builders)*c.
This would even out buildpower per fac globally, but is very exploitable (spend all your metal on builders and factories to get a bigger share).
+0 / -0

28 days ago
I hate magic metal from nowhere. This uneven metal problem can be fixed by tying all sources of metal and energy to something on the field, specially, Vanguard economy modules, metal extractors, and energy-producing structures.
+0 / -1
28 days ago
This is not about magic metal - it is about how metal from mexes is distributed across team members.
+0 / -0

28 days ago
quote:
I mean, you can just check how many commanders a player has at the start of the game and assign the eco split accordingly, then transfer that fraction when a player leaves/resings/afks.

It doesn't have to stay based on the commander count the whole game, just the start.

Yeah that works. Probably.

quote:
Another idea would be assigning metal according to the number of factories, counting each commander as one fac and maybe adding ln(builders)*c.
This would even out buildpower per fac globally, but is very exploitable (spend all your metal on builders and factories to get a bigger share).

Systems which reward pathological behavior are Bad. Anything that can be exploited, will be.
+2 / -0

28 days ago
DEranksh4dowhun7er in that case a team can toggle off communism. I don't know if it can be done dynamically though.
+0 / -0
28 days ago
Metal from nowhere does not affect the communism applied in teams. Just to make everyone sure, what PLrankZenfur is saying is true, double com in team games does not mean double income (for you). This may lead to people overestimating the person with the double fac, because you would assume double units, but it's only a little extra unit variety at the cost of having to micro production between two facs(with no extra production)
+1 / -0


28 days ago
Commanders feel more beefy with recent updates - maybe also bring back the base production to commander units?
+0 / -0
28 days ago
Too much income tied to the comander makes it too strongly a win/loss condition.
+0 / -0
28 days ago
I'm curious. I didn't play TA much... Why is the default ruleset complete annihilation and not commander defeat?
+0 / -0
because the majority of the playerbase (me included) seems to think that would be boring and would put too much focus on one single unit. one of the major strenth of zk are it´s distinguishable units with clear-cut personalities/attributes. the most similar units might be glaive and bandit, and even those are very different in terms of actual gameplay. okay, not counting imp/snitch, where the former is just a worse version of the latter...
+1 / -0
CArankGalamesh Having to protect the commander at all cost detracts from its gameplay value. Commanders are meant to be valuable multipurpose field units, and them being a victory condition incentivizes players to hide their coms in their bases, maybe even to terra them into the ground directly after popping their fac. Actually using them becomes far too risky, especially in teams games where scythe swarms can easily kill an exposed commander.

Games with assassination victory usually have very durable commander units, which naturally can be used for early game commander rushes - which in turn can only be countered by heavy porc, a gameplay style that is discouraged in zero-k as well as problematic due to heavily limiting the porcing players economy.
Many RTS have the majority of mass/metal deposits inside the players starting zones, with little to none inbetween. That makes forward bases strategically vital and porc cost effective. Additionally, games like supreme commander allow for porc victory by outbuilding your enemy with mass conversion and artillery batteries - something zero-k extractor overdrive and bertha lines simply can't match (besides the low relative effectiveness of defensive play in zk - mobile artillery is much cheaper than equivalent shields, stationary artillery is expensive and vulnerable to scythe strikes and overdrive efficiency falls off (SC mass conversion followed an exponential curve due to constant e->m conversion factor)).
+2 / -0

28 days ago
quote:
I'm curious. I didn't play TA much... Why is the default ruleset complete annihilation and not commander defeat?

<rant>
TA and BA and some other 'annihilation' style games do still use com death as the loss condition, but coms have been getting nerfed and reduced in importance practically since ZK was created. Well, sort of. Com upgrades are unique to zk afaik, which served to make them OP for a while, but that got nerfed over time and especially hard with the recent transition to dynacoms.

It used to be if your com died you could resurrect it with athena and get all your modules (and 4m/6e income) back, but now all you get is a worthless level 1 chassis (and athena can't be built by regular constructors anymore, and resurrect also got nerfed via increased energy costs). Moving initial storage from hammerspace to the com was another nerf intended to make com death more costly, which then led to coms getting an hp buff to prevent easy early cheese kills with scorchers or scythes, and they also got a free beam laser instead of a pea shooter.

Since I came to ZK from an SC/BW background commanders are mostly an annoyance to me. Balancing them has been an ongoing joke and they also ruin early raiding in team games since you have tons of coms protecting everything and few vulnerable workers or expansions to raid. They don't really fit in ZK but the historical connection to TA and all the trollcom/comsnipe/comnap fans keep them from being removed.
</rant>
+2 / -0
Page of 2 (37 records)