| 1 |
[q]My ideal metal extractor gameplay:
|
1 |
[q]My ideal metal extractor gameplay:
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
1. Building a metal extractor uses resources of every ally member equally, with unchangeable highest priority.
|
3 |
1. Building a metal extractor uses resources of every ally member equally, with unchangeable highest priority.
|
| 4 |
2. Nobody gets any refunds since everyone contributed equally.
|
4 |
2. Nobody gets any refunds since everyone contributed equally.
|
| 5 |
3. Finished metal extractors cannot be reclaimed, only destroyed by taking damage. There's no legitimate reason to reclaim a metal extractor, feel free to write a few pages about semantics and hypothetical scenarios that never happen in a real game if you disagree.
|
5 |
3. Finished metal extractors cannot be reclaimed, only destroyed by taking damage. There's no legitimate reason to reclaim a metal extractor, feel free to write a few pages about semantics and hypothetical scenarios that never happen in a real game if you disagree.
|
| 6 |
4. Finished metal extractors cannot be controlled in any manner and accept no commands from any player, such as for self destruct. [/q]
|
6 |
4. Finished metal extractors cannot be controlled in any manner and accept no commands from any player, such as for self destruct. [/q]
|
| 7 |
Interesting. I'm not so sure about this proposal in particular, but if these are your ideal mechanics then you should be fairly happy with slightly weaker proposals. My issues with this proposal are:
|
7 |
Interesting. I'm not so sure about this proposal in particular, but if these are your ideal mechanics then you should be fairly happy with slightly weaker proposals. My issues with this proposal are:
|
| 8 |
* Draining resources from all players exacerbates the confusion of a somewhat shared team economy. At least at the moment the sharing is only on the income side, not the expenditure side.
|
8 |
* Draining resources from all players exacerbates the confusion of a somewhat shared team economy. At least at the moment the sharing is only on the income side, not the expenditure side.
|
| 9 |
* Doing so at high priority is even worse. For example, sometimes it is really important to make a Lotus, and having a teammate building a mex suddenly take your metal would be very annoying.
|
9 |
* Doing so at high priority is even worse. For example, sometimes it is really important to make a Lotus, and having a teammate building a mex suddenly take your metal would be very annoying.
|
| 10 |
* It isn't always optimal to build a metal extractor - such as when a position is about to be overrun.
|
10 |
* It isn't always optimal to build a metal extractor - such as when a position is about to be overrun.
|
| 11 |
* Similarly, reclaiming a metal extractor in a position that is about to be overrun could be a good idea.
|
11 |
* Similarly, reclaiming a metal extractor in a position that is about to be overrun could be a good idea.
|
| 12 |
* That said, my main take on the self-d and reclaim thing is that I don't like breaking universal rules. The reclaim and self-d things are edge cases. @Anarchid raised a good example. Patching on special restrictions leads to messiness.
|
12 |
* That said, my main take on the self-d and reclaim thing is that I don't like breaking universal rules. The reclaim and self-d things are edge cases. @Anarchid raised a good example. Patching on special restrictions leads to messiness.
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
The drain issue of your proposal can be fixed by changing how resources are distributed rather than by draining all players. I can even tack on a way to discourage reclaiming. How about:
|
14 |
The drain issue of your proposal can be fixed by changing how resources are distributed rather than by draining all players. I can even tack on a way to discourage reclaiming. How about:
|
| 15 |
* Track the net metal each player spent on constructing mexes over the last second (with metal gained from reclaiming a mex counting negatively).
|
15 |
* Track the net metal each player spent on constructing mexes over the last second (with metal gained from reclaiming a mex counting negatively).
|
| 16 |
* Allocate this much extra income to players for the next income step.
|
16 |
* Allocate this much extra income to players for the next income step.
|
| 17 |
* If there isn't enough income available (or reclaim would cause an income to go negative), defer the difference to the next income step.
|
17 |
* If there isn't enough income available (or reclaim would cause an income to go negative), defer the difference to the next income step.
|
| 18 |
This would probably result in some wacky fluctuations. It also differs from the original proposal in that the player would need metal to spend on a mex to get the rebate. To deal with the fluctuations we could return the spent metal over a period of time, rather than all in the next step. Now it looks like I am just about back at the existing system, but I think the remaining differences would make the new approach much better.
|
18 |
This would probably result in some wacky fluctuations. It also differs from the original proposal in that the player would need metal to spend on a mex to get the rebate. To deal with the fluctuations we could return the spent metal over a period of time, rather than all in the next step. Now it looks like I am just about back at the existing system, but I think the remaining differences would make the new approach much better.
|
| 19 |
\n
|
19 |
\n
|
| 20 |
Here is how the refined new system would work.
|
20 |
Here is how the refined new system would work.
|
| 21 |
* Maintain a number for each player (positive or negative, for reclaim) of net metal contributed to mex construction.
|
21 |
* Maintain a number for each player (positive or negative, for reclaim) of net metal contributed to mex construction.
|
| 22 |
* Track how much mex construction refund has been paid to each player.
|
22 |
* Track how much mex construction refund has been paid to each player.
|
| 23 |
* On each economy step (once a second), allocate a bit of extra income to players who need a refund to make their refund number match their contribution number. If someone reclaims is a net-negative mex constructor (a reclaimer), take a bit from their income to make up the difference.
|
23 |
* On each economy step (once a second), allocate a bit of extra income to players who need a refund to make their refund number match their contribution number. If someone reclaims is a net-negative mex constructor (a reclaimer), take a bit from their income to make up the difference.
|
| 24 |
The
big
difference
between
this
and
what
I've
written
in
previous
posts
is
that
it
does
away
with
the
concept
of
refund
being
tied
to
particular
mexes.
It
just
cares
about
how
much
each
player
has
spent.
Since
the
refund
starts
as
soon
as
work
starts,
rather
than
after
the
mex
is
complete,
a
refund
as
low
as
1
or
2
metal/second
seems
fine.
It
also
deals
with
weird
reclaim
incentives.
The
main
social
side
effect
is
that
a
selfishly
income
maximimiding
player
would
be
incentivised
to
build
a
mex
in
a
dangerous
location
because
any
production
from
it
is
pure
profit
from
their
perspective
(
the
profit
is
their
usual
team
split
of
its
income)
.
|
24 |
The
big
difference
between
this
and
what
I've
written
in
previous
posts
is
that
it
does
away
with
the
concept
of
refund
being
tied
to
particular
mexes.
It
just
cares
about
how
much
each
player
has
spent.
Since
the
refund
starts
as
soon
as
work
starts,
rather
than
after
the
mex
is
complete,
a
refund
as
low
as
1
or
2
metal/second
seems
fine.
It
also
deals
with
weird
reclaim
incentives.
The
main
social
side
effect
is
that
a
selfishly
income
maximimising
player
would
be
incentivised
to
build
a
mex
in
a
dangerous
location
because
any
production
from
it
is
pure
profit
from
their
perspective
(
the
profit
is
their
usual
team
split
of
its
income)
.
|
| 25 |
\n
|
25 |
\n
|
| 26 |
This proposal also incentivises purely selfish players to build mexes then self destruct them for the reclaim. It is worth it if they can rebuild the mex fast enough to make up their lost share of the income. But this at least seems better than the current situation because self destructing a mex is almost always clear griefing, in a way that putting down a mex nanoframe isn't. Still, to deal with this the refund could be a tad lower. The current refund is only 50% of the price of the mex and it seemed to solve the old issue of people letting others make the mexes for the team. So a refund around 80% should be fine, by which I mean every 10 metal spent on mexes would allocate players 8 extra metal from income. The reclaim side of things may as well impose penalties at a rate of 100% though.
|
26 |
This proposal also incentivises purely selfish players to build mexes then self destruct them for the reclaim. It is worth it if they can rebuild the mex fast enough to make up their lost share of the income. But this at least seems better than the current situation because self destructing a mex is almost always clear griefing, in a way that putting down a mex nanoframe isn't. Still, to deal with this the refund could be a tad lower. The current refund is only 50% of the price of the mex and it seemed to solve the old issue of people letting others make the mexes for the team. So a refund around 80% should be fine, by which I mean every 10 metal spent on mexes would allocate players 8 extra metal from income. The reclaim side of things may as well impose penalties at a rate of 100% though.
|
the friendly war of ninja mex