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

Restrictions for new players on PW hosts

22 posts, 1449 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (22 records)
sort
13 years ago
We suggest some restrictions to new players on PW hosts, because they really can fuck up game between experienced players and clans. 10lvl restriction is enough, we think. They have Newbies welcome hosts.
+0 / -0
13 years ago
Agreed. I dont have anything against new players, but there REALLY should be some restriction when it comes to competition servers. It discourages experienced players from playing, clans get frustrated because they lost only because 3 newbies in team did nothing.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
There is more complex with preference based game creation in todo. Wait couple of months please
+0 / -0
13 years ago
The simple answer is to remove communism to enable the skilled players to pick up the slack.

I just played a 3v1 due to noobs that did not fight and did not cap mex. I spend that game trying to fight 3 players with less then 1/3 income. Not only did I try to fight 3 players with 1/3 income, I had to build 3x the mex just to get 1/3 income because my noobs did not mex. If I was not loosening my metal to noobs I would have 3 times more metal because it was I who tried to cap all the mex. they did not even cap some mex in there very base. I would have been 9 times stronger if not for communism.

Fighting over mex is a good thing any how it makes sure your team tries to get as many mex as possible incited of oh some one else can do it... even if I have to wait 5 min for them to do it.. or indefinently. FAIL. Atleast give the player who already has noobs at least a 1/3 equal footing.

If it does not get through 1v3 is bad
1v3 coupled with 1/3 the thier individual eco = 1/9 : 1/1 communism makes noobs an even bigger problem! BIGGER!

With out communism players just fill up the space the noobs did not and get played to do it.

+0 / -0
13 years ago
Why is that my avatar
<--

I never asked for it.
That unit is irritating to say the least.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
We're not removing communism.

The entire grid system is purely based on allyteam, how would you say who receives what? Completely individual grids are inefficient.

With communism you can grab all the land you can get with no risk of angering your teammates. With individual mexes such a grab is not nice and even if you eventually take where they're not expanding too it's polite to hold off for a while.
+0 / -0

13 years ago
The problem is a playerbase too small to allow you to play with only people of a similiar skill level. If they dont screw you over through communism, its through something else. Sometimes i am even grateful for a genuine supernoob who excesses all his metal to me. :)

Its better than getting a terrible position on maps like Tabula or larger DSD games and not being able to expand.

Its not ideal in teaching players how to play, IE, their income grows and they arent doing anything to make it do so, but it leads to the best efficiency as a team if you're all playing effectively. If you want to carry a game all on your own, play 1v1. Seriously. You're doing it anyway.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
In short its mostly technical problem. Nobody is able to create overdrive without communism atm.

If you do, good luck, its in mex_overdrive gadget.
+0 / -0
13 years ago
Licho, thank your for the clarification.

Saktoth, It is really fun when you can carry a game vs multiple players.
Playing with allies is fun no matter how weak they are unless they sabotage you.
Even when you are by far the most significant player in a game, the small players still have a massive impact on game play.

Yes those terrible spots on maps make communism look good. The flip side would be ofc, that now the team pays the price for a bad start spot rather then the player who chose it. 20% redistribution would probably be good instead of 100% comunism [not giving metal back to high ecos]. Any % would be better then 100%.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
Again its technical issue - how big %? Dont forget income depends on energy input too and energy can come from various sources
+0 / -0
13 years ago
A Temporary SOLUTION atm would be to play back the player that build a mex before teh team. Perhaps just subtract the base metal output from the mex for 1 min and 15 seconds, and give the player that income. Tho I think it should be for 2 min and 30 seconds. That way it is an investment to build a mex... build one and then get to build 2 because you built 1. You would deffinently notice a lack of metal early game if you did not build mex... but is that a bad thing? People in Zk have not noticed how much metal is lost early game. No BA player would start like ZK players start because a BA player is responsible. Responsible for his own income.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
That is technically possible i guess.. however people might abuse it.
At some point it could be better to rebuild mex to reset timer
+0 / -0


13 years ago
Also it would reduce options at start - no more commpushing because of no team resources
+0 / -0

13 years ago
Better would be to just give a portion of the base income to the mex owner (overdrive is always shared).

Ideal would be a pop-up slider when you click on the metal resource bar. You can drag for % of base income you share, which also determines the % you get. If you slide it down to 50%, you contribute 50% less to the teams metal income pool but you get 50% less metal from the pooled income, too. You could set it to 0% to get all the income, which means opting out of communism entirely.

The problem with this is you will get passive aggressive greediness (especially with mex-fighting), but if 100% share is the default option and you only change it if your allies really arent pulling their weight (there is no incentive to do so, otherwise) it shouldnt be too bad.

Of course, overdrive is always shared.

But while we can discuss this and come up with some sort of ideal solution that fits all scenarios, it requires implementation, which is not trivial.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
Saktoth 100% and 0% of what?
How do you decide how much is "yours" if you own a fusion in a huge grid connected to random mix of mexes?

If you make yours = your mex, then you make building excess power a bad idea and connecting grids hostile action (leads to siphoning ally energy to your mexes)
+0 / -0
13 years ago
Communism if fine. If your team is full of noobs you lose.
+0 / -0


13 years ago
I think communism is fine too.
+0 / -0
13 years ago
"Communism if fine. If your team is full of noobs you lose." -Jasper
I saw this a lot in planet wars... players would try not to play often voteexiting until they got a balance they liked... so clearly some thing was not fine for them.
I will play with noobs If I think I can make a difference, a difference which communism prevents.
I would be better to encourage people to play.
There was a planet wars post that requested that people below lvl 10 xp be excluded from planet wars. Tho it may still matter it would matter less if the noobs hindered their allies' ability less.
+0 / -0
13 years ago
I think if someone is a noob - who want to play with them in ANY game?

We need more NoobFFA - where noobs play against noobs.

It would also be very good if some spectrators can decide to get a USELESS unit from that team - so they count as players.

They can help them without cheating.

Noobs should envite this "good players" and they can choose where to join.

But maybe it's better to implement team specs with team-spec-chat for this cases.
+0 / -0
13 years ago
http://code.google.com/p/zero-k/source/detail?r=3833

LVL 5 required
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (22 records)