Before each game you should change the overdrive sharing scheme by using: !votesetoptions overdrivesharingscheme=communism With this option set, all metal gained from overdrive is shared equally. With the default settings the persons who builds eco get most metal, which encourages players to focus on eco and porc. You should try overdrivesharingscheme=communism (what I call the proper zero-k). It will lead to less porcy and more interesting games.
+0 / -0
|
This is not true. Default economy is shared equally too. Difference is that with default economy the builder of say mex, gets 50% of its income for some time, then he gets equal share. Same with energy, where builder of energy gets a bit more from OD income until its cost is repaid, then he gets his equal share. This cost-investment exists to provide energy scaling similar to 1v1 - otherwise you wont be able to ramp up economy as fast in big team games, because you would need all team cooperating on economy. Flat equal share of communism therefore makes economic focus unviable and the game is then entirely based on mex economy and often decided by early land-grab with no back and forth action and no super units present.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Same with energy, where builder of energy gets a bit more from OD income until its cost is repaid, then he gets his equal share. |
In practice this "a bit more from OD" means player gets 3-4 times more metal income than his teammates once he builds singularity. And from my experience it never goes back to equal share, the player who has more energy production always gets more metal too, even if he built his eco 20 minutes ago.
+0 / -0
|
It does i have seen it many times. Of course if there is just one person who builds energy and he keeps building energy all the time with the new income and nobody else on the team does, then he gets 50% of all OD.
+0 / -0
|
which is bad, because such a player just uses that income to make more eco or porc or striders.
+0 / -0
|
Anyone can choose to use his fair share that way to first build more eco and then build more units or whatever.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Flat equal share of communism therefore makes economic focus unviable and the game is then entirely based on mex economy and often decided by early land-grab with no back and forth action and no super units present. |
So having specced some team games for the first time in months, is the gameplay I am seeing the intended desirable gameplay?
+0 / -0
|
that gameplay being 'make lots of defences for 30 minutes, then die to nuke or strider'
+0 / -0
|
That really depends on the type of game you play. Do you see that in 1v1? In 3v3? You see that in massive games of 10v10 where front is insta covered..
+0 / -0
|
Current scheme is bad, because once OD becomes not so effective ECO player basically robs team. Good old communism with proper song at start was best, if you want to make eco do it, but wont rob your teamates.
+0 / -0
|
There is no "robbing" you cannot take more than you produce by adding extra overdrive! Old system is robbing because you can just sit doing no economy at all. And if you build singularity with your +10m, you get +1m extra which will not repay entire game and wont allow you to build second.
+0 / -0
|
building eco should boost team, not the noob spamming eco.
+0 / -0
|
Yeah, I don't like the direction gameplay has taken with more metal going to the eco spammer. I don't know of many who do like this system of playing. A couple days ago I played and specced nearly all day and the majority of games were playing on "true communism" mode, and you know what? People liked it. They were actually commenting on how much better gameplay was. Each game we took a vote for true communism and it continued to pass because people liked it. We gave "socialism" a try over "communism" for what, 6 months now? Few liked it at start and it seems even fewer like it now. So I will take burps advice and continue to vote for communism.
+0 / -0
|
eco spam does NOT make for good gameplay and should not be rewarded - the game is at its most interesting in low density combat
+0 / -0
|
Maybe the problem is overdrive itself, not the sharing system? Could the overdrive function be changed in such a way that it would decrease the payoff for massive energy-farms? Of course, in a large team-game there will be a lot of metal-patches per-side so a single energy-farming player could still produce tremendous metal if the network was well-connected. But limiting networking would create its own mess of issues.
+0 / -0
|
>Could the overdrive function be changed in such a way that it would decrease the payoff for massive energy-farms? It kind of does already. You get diminishing returns on energy input.
+0 / -0
|
I know about the diminishing returns... my point is that even with the diminishing returns, you still see multi-sing energy farms.
+0 / -0
|
Current OD has some issues and we already have plans in the making to overhaul it .. change will make it impossible to OD by small ammounts everywhere and remove the long lines of winds/solars etc. You will also actually see cables going from mexes/defs to fusions etc.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
We gave "socialism" a try over "communism" for what, 6 months now? Few liked it at start and it seems even fewer like it now. So I will take burps advice and continue to vote for communism. |
I have better advice: abandon the flawed teams schematic. quote:
You will also actually see cables going from mexes/defs to fusions etc. |
just graphics, or can be cut? i mean, first case is irrelevant to balance, and latter sounds a nightmare to implement.
+0 / -0
|
It will be very relevent to gameplay but it will be impossible to cut, you will see... :)
+0 / -0
|
