Summary of Coop rework suggestions

[crude elbow]

Afk gaming sucks. We all agree.

[fringe spear]

the battery player is just making 3 mexes, 13 solars, and giving com

[hot flint]

yeah there are no counters in the game simulation so i mean there is no way to punish

[fringe spear]

is them sharing the solars 1 by 1 until they can give com, really that interesting? Batteries pretty much already do that

[hot flint]

smaller maps actually make it more prevalent - the less you have to manage the easier it is to do

2v2 in smallteam with coop is literally 1 person make lab and the other guy naked expands and comwalks for pressure

[fringe spear]

com mex walk is so strong

[hot flint]

unless u playing huge map that is only way to make it necessary to make ur own stuff

but maps would need to be legit insane size to work that way in 8v8

probably not even possible memory wise

[crude elbow]

That sucks.

[crude elbow]

Because your factories are bricks that place blue prints.

If you decide to com walk you should be punished by losing map control. And your base with 1 LLT should get raided in min 2.

GG.

High RISK is what I am planning for all these "skip x" situations

[fringe spear]

it's not high risk because you have a super charged t1 lab that makes enough units to cover your bases

you have greater offensive tools, greater economy, and equal or greater defense

[crude elbow]

So you did make a factory at first, or not?

Only if you build a factory.

If you skip it you have more disadvantages.

Currently you are still paying around 350metal premium for a T1 factory.

This metal in units could really make a difference.

Of course it makes sense to skip it.

ZK just teleports the first factory in.

Have fun not using it.

[fringe spear]

if t1 lab is almost free then yeah every one can build a lab to start or just leave it making units

but you only want the minimum amount of units

[crude elbow]

More units on the map earlier? Sign me in.

[crude elbow]

And this is risky

That is ok. High risk high reward

[fringe spear]

not if you do it smartly

Thugs take a long time to walk, it's better to just put that resource into the main base

[crude elbow]

That's called skillfully. And that's the difference between a good player and a bad one.

[crude elbow]

So you must make a decision:
Where do I put the lab? Instead of: DO I build a lab. That's the difference.

It's risky to put your lab further to the front. Your enemy can build up a small army, and try to raid your base if you put it too far away. But it's rewarding to have the thugs closer to the front.

Currently there is next to no mechanic to punish the greed.

[fringe spear]

This choice applies to both solo and coop

It already exists in vanilla BAR, no?

[crude elbow]

Not really

You pay 350 metal that is unmovable. Does nothing.

You pay a high price to produce a unit.

[fringe spear]

There are reclaim into forward lab builds

Oh you mean the 2nd lab cost vs doing nothing

Fair bit of high os players reclaim and make forward lab

[crude elbow]

Understanding and mastering
Proxi labs is a skill.

[fringe spear]

I believe making t1 lab costs will buff multi lab for t1 phase, and make rebuilding forward labs stronger and quicker

[crude elbow]

Yeah.

[fringe spear]

It won't change how you coop everything else tho

[crude elbow]

It's not supposed to change everything.

[fringe spear]

Yeah yeah I'm not saying don't add it

[crude elbow]

But T1 battery and com walk play would become way riskier.

[fringe spear]

It's more like what's the next step

[crude elbow]

I am happy to have found this solution 🤣.

T2 labs, obviously.

And perhaps you can help me with finding the next pain point and ultimately in fixing it.

It won't be as easy as the tax hammer, but i deeply believe the game will benefit.

This unpunishable bomber rush sucks big time, too.

Can you make a list of OP starts and make a short comment or describe why it's too easy to pull of and what is needed to punish the play?

Necro time:
Remember how I said cheaper T2 and better fabs can build the first few units faster and after that they have less punishing effects?
That's one situation where it might be enough. But obviously this is a single case and the better Facs wouldn't work, but there are potentially 50 co-op starts that could be countered/weakend by the changes. (If scouted)

[fringe spear]

It's not that it's undefendable if you coop it's that 1) it's a lot stronger than the solo version so you should always coop it and b) large disadvantage for 2 solo players trying to deal with it.

Which is exactly the toxic problem we have with coop in base game

It's not close to competitive to solo or own a base

The game is not encouraging you to own a base if not owning a base is significantly and reliably stronger

[crude elbow]

I am struggling to understand why the efforts of practicing and executing a build isn't a skill in itself. So it shouldn't be rewarded.

I think one problem is:
We have 20 OS and 40 OS players in the same lobby.
Imagine there is a skill ceiling, you can only be so good if you ignore any part of the game. That's normal.

Now if this skill ceiling is 38 OS. Then you would just not be able to reach 39 if you ignore it. Why should co-op be treated differently?

I am here to understand.

[fringe spear]

this is what a solo techer has at 4:46.

this is when 8-9 bombers are rolling in. They just finished the geo and t1 vehicle lab

they cannot physically stop you from bombing your geo and then bombing your solars

[upbeat raven]

maybe t1 bomber coop meta is what the playerbase needs to start building AA

[fringe spear]

so what, if you make 8 nettles they just bomb your geo and keep flying through

[crude elbow]

Are you arguing that solo players must be able to defend against two players?

Because it feels like it.

What if the enemy techer had build way more units (with the cheaper factory) and then just tank push?

Would that be taxed, too? (Obviously not, but where to draw the line?)

I am really trying to understand where you draw the line. Exactly, not just this general direction. I want to understand your point of view.

[upbeat raven]

idk 3-4 nettles when you see it coming will take out most of it already, then you lose the t1 geo and maybe some solar that you could spread out if you expect the bomb

[fringe spear]

against 8-9 bombers?

[upbeat raven]

but u still have all of your m ready for t2 lab and enemy team used 2 players start res to do dmg

[fringe spear]

i play geo I know how much aa it tkaes to stop bombers

[upbeat raven]

assume each player has 1 nettle or so by default and if you see bombers coming you add more until the bombers are gone

[fringe spear]

been bombed over 50 times with t1 bomb

[upbeat raven]

nobody is denying the bombers will do dmg

[fringe spear]

you know you can bomb the nettle too. 2 bombers one shot a nettle

[fringe spear]

TWO solo players should be able to defend against when working together

[crude elbow]

Faster AA trucks, without g2g that skirmish the bombers...

[upbeat raven]

the question is is it guaranteed that it will always do enough dmg to justify 2 early player commiting resources to t1 instead of t2 tech

[fringe spear]

na this assumes 4 player team

you onyl need 1 techer per team. t1 bombing strats are most powerful when you buy t2 afterwards

[upbeat raven]

idk about small teams

[fringe spear]

okay, in large teams you still make do with 1 techer (coop 2+ people)

[upbeat raven]

so you use pond and geo for t1 bombing and eco to tech

[fringe spear]

technically you are using the sea positions because you don't give a shit about sea in coop meta

once you get t2 mid ships don't really bother you mid

[crude elbow]

Why?

You can't say:
11 soccer players that don't play together should be able to defend against a team that coordinates its tactics. Well you can, but that would be strange.

So where do you draw the line? A double prong, coordinated attack will always be more effective. That's the way it's intended, right?

[upbeat raven]

tbh im curious to see it in the extreme in public lobby. been back playing since a week or so and not much more to see other than pond tidals

[fringe spear]

so if the enemy team must do coop strat to defend this, then you agree that coop is mandatory?

recall: #1339430217583951882 message

your goal is to avoid afk play. I posit the reason why people do afk battery is beacuse coop is so strong you can throw away an entire player's worth of apm and still be significantly ahead vs 2 players who don't pool resources

[crude elbow]

In a team game? Yes.

It currently feels like you are saying: you should be able to attack only one single enemy. Because attacking the same enemy at the same time is OP and unfair.

[fringe spear]

the 2nd player could have air lab and figs

and try to defend. But it is undoubtably disadvantaged

[fringe spear]

we are saying the two solo players are doing everything in their power to defend it

including helping each other
remember this is a real game, you cannot just make 8 nettles every game you don't have perfect info all the time

[crude elbow]

I guess that's true. And the second player should be able to defend against the bombers if he dedicates everything to it. But only if the techer also dedicates quite a bit into AA, too.

[fringe spear]

so, they can defend it, if they have perfect info

and if they get faked out, they are incredibly behind

[crude elbow]

True, you can't just think you may blindly build random units without scouting information.

That's not fair. Way too save to defend

[fringe spear]

bro i know this

you think you get high os by making 6 nettles blind every game?

[crude elbow]

Nope.

bro I know this.

But a perfect single player air player should really shout the enemies at 3:40.
So you can react.

It's just a meta thing to do.

[fringe spear]

okay you send an air scout

you see 4 nanos

now are they going t1 bombing or teching?

[crude elbow]

Then scout 10 sec later.

Are we really going down the road of finding the perfect timing for a scout?

[fringe spear]

man we should run a scenario

2 players on one team, one plays air, the other plays tech. Other team, they coop on the geo

[crude elbow]

I am interested in:
If you scout at the right time:
Is there a possibility to react?

[fringe spear]

lets just say the air player scouts at the perfect timing which you cannot gurantee in a real game -- plus air scouts are not cheap

you can either bomb the geo, or you just bomb the air player --> the solars

[crude elbow]

But with the factories I am proposing.

[fringe spear]

you guys need to test and try to defend coop with solo

also there are coop plays that do not rely on surprise

[crude elbow]

Only if your perfect solo air player sleeps on the job and you don't build def.
Add fast anti air ground units in the scenario. They are important.

[fringe spear]

if you don't want to take any risk you can just tech and make ageo. and you are miles ahead economically

[upbeat raven]

a surprise t1 coop bomber rush when its not current meta and not scouted will demolish sure

[fringe spear]

I'm not going to add imaginary units when discussing bar

it's like woahh if we had a 2000 range flak truck wow your t1 bombing gets countered

ofc it would

we are talking about the game as is, or with patches that are likely to make it in soon

[upbeat raven]

if it becomes the dominant strategy ppl will space out their bases more and the basic precautions like earlier radar in reaction

[fringe spear]

ofc

[upbeat raven]

at some point in time your 2 players t1 bomber investment gets a few t1 mex and 6-8 windmills

[crude elbow]

Well then we can stop right here.
I am being serious with my fast AA T1 trucks.

Making fun of a guy that spends hours to try to understand you won't make any progress.

See you

[fringe spear]

????

[crude elbow]

That's the next step, my boy. You asked for it.

[fringe spear]

You can't talk about timings / how stuff would play out if the unit doesn't exist, doesn't have numbers, doesn't have anything. what lab is it built from, etc. etc.

should a unit like that exist? maybe!

I don't see how it solves coop tho

adding a good fast aa truck nerfs all t1 air

whether the attacker/defender is solo or coop

[fringe spear]

I didn't mean to make fun of your idea or you. It's just adding units is a hard sell, even for contributors. iirc BAR GDT said they won't want more units. I'm not even opposed to having a dedicated faster aa vehicle, and making the t1 aa bot faster.

Anyways, it was nice talking with you.

[twin phoenix]

but in this case 3 or 5 commanders boosting a t2 lab would still be far superior over solo t2 lab

you need to limmit assisting / sharing or else solo is allways getting the downsides way worse then coop

solo cant just get BP easily

[amber crow]

i'm against tax myself, but i agree with Chrono that cooped play just IS better than non-cooped even if non-cooped play is very coordinated, on voicechat, etc... while coop play can use a stoned player not on voicechat to have this effect

that's why I think coop ability should have a certain cost

not tax, i hate tax, but a cost that leverages the advantage

the cost can be anything, from time, to metal, to idk

[twin phoenix]

its very simple, dont let somebody share themself out of existance, check how much they have and how much it sets them back

as long as somebody has 50% of their ressource income by them,selfes they need to macro with some skill or they troll

[amber crow]

imagine gifting stuff caused them to be disabled for a while? it's a cost of metal and energy, since time is metal and energy in this game. or if you had to build something first to share resource. or if BP was just a fraction of your BP when you assist someone

as long as their is no cost, i think you can't balance out resource pooling for a project. problem is, early resource pooling is MUCH better than later resource pooling, so coop effectively causes the gamestate where gifting everything early is just the best that you can do @crude elbow unless there would be an upfront cost which early on is also hardest to pay up

i personally think a combo of a building unlock (unlocking sharing) , plus a balance of problematic units is the way to go

and the building that unlocks sharing of resources with anyone can be balanced cost-wise

[twin phoenix]

economical cooperation isnt really teamwork its like letting go of your stuff so someone else can have it

you can still have teamwork with units where 2 players coordinate different armies, that is much closer to soccer

like 1 player passing the ball to someone else is very close to flanking so someone else can slip through with his army

[amber crow]

with the hardest base-gifting that's true, @twin phoenix , but a lot of times the argument goes that any deliberate sharing is just braindead play, which it isn't. i've done a fair share of coop and it's fun to make strats, fun to pinpoint an exact build, and often times harder to pull off than letting 2 players play what they played for 1000th of times already. i think giving proper credit to some coop is important. but when basegiving is just better than anything else, its a problem

[twin phoenix]

but those in deptht coop builds are just as much roleplaying as solo builds

we see it in tourneys, you just build your mexes and give them away

they dont even keep enough E to D gun

[fringe spear]

by roleplay, ancap means it's "pretending to play bar" since you are just playing something that's obviously worse

[amber crow]

well yeah i did say that basegiving is straight up better and that's a shame. but i've done way more interesting coop too

the upfront cost can help with the most early coop i think which is also the most problematic

like, if you drop a constructor on buddy's mountain and make a rattle blueprint for them to finish - if this thing isn't possible anymore with a "fix", i think that's terrible for BAR creative plays

but if you make mex and solars and gift them - this can easily go away and noone would be bothered

[fringe spear]

could allow economy sharing with 30 sec self emp

[amber crow]

yeah i like that idea tbh

[twin phoenix]

the main issue is assisting

[amber crow]

i would like to see many such ideas implemeted alongside, as opposed to tax

[fringe spear]

later on you could tax assist

[twin phoenix]

the question is for example, should you be allowed to assist a rattlesnake on front? it feels unnatural if you cant but its needed to stop commie

[fringe spear]

self-emp is a way to nerf sharing eco units without completely disabling it

[fringe spear]

assisting a rattlesnake on front is exactly commie. you can't allow it

straights was dominated by commie rattle for a while

the hardest sweat 3 man commie rattle at like 7:10

[twin phoenix]

yeah but it feels a bit unnatural, the rattlesnake is right there, if it doesnt get build fast enought you die, its something people do who dont know what commie is too

[amber crow]

that's the thing. not all commie is the same. rattle on front assisted? what's wrong with it? it's a duo play, both players are hindered by making a fast t2 structure. problem is when this coop can push out units so fast and so early nothing can defend them

i would like players to not automatically see assist as a problem

[fringe spear]

it's for consistency sake

if you can't pool resources to make 5 mausers you shouldn't be able to pool resources to make a rattlesnake

[twin phoenix]

the issue is you could allso pool ressources through assist to make anything

t2 lab fusion afus nuke

[amber crow]

that's where balance comes in IMO. defensive stuff has to be balanced vs offensive in better way. like sniper, you won't use it for offensive - sure you can but it's probably gonna make you lose. while quaker is a different story

[tulip minnow]

time tax is still a tax

[amber crow]

i think the FUS and nuke timeline is perfectly fine assisted. it's so far into the game that if you want to have an impact with assisting, you're not having much to show yourself. and at this stage of the game, this is noticable and exploitable, no?

[tulip minnow]

I like time tax more than money tax too but its still a tax

there is no getting around it

[twin phoenix]

no that means commie Air + Eco allways wins

[amber crow]

i don't think it does

[twin phoenix]

of course both build up winds if you commie together you can go for fusion or afus sooner and make wind on the side after

[amber crow]

you just die to ground

[twin phoenix]

no its air and eco

were talking about timings way before eco does anything

[amber crow]

lets not pretend game is decided by 1 action even at 30min. players play horrible accross the board, noone plays amazing in this game, it's too complex and too many things you can do

i think its damaging to use arguments that something always wins in team game where anything can go sideways

[twin phoenix]

going 2 air with eco and air is allready strong, if you allso allow them to enter exponential scaling faster through commie then thats just the way to go

[fringe spear]

yeah to me time tax is same thing as % tax

[amber crow]

good luck defending quakers at 5min on front

[twin phoenix]

thats geos job

[fringe spear]

one is maybe slightly more palatable but it's all in the same vein of solutions.

[amber crow]

no, its your teams job as a whole

[twin phoenix]

or a frontliner who gets boosted if you allow commie

assisting would allso mean the infamous rainbow strat on glitters would persist

[crude elbow]

If you don't understand a thing, ask. You might be surprised how much though was put into a solution in the background.

Raghna wants to change rocket trucks. They currently are arties with vision range, aa and direct fire.
AA trucks should be AA and fast. That's Raghnas' take.

And Air? Guess what: faster AA trucks will enable stronger T1 Armada gunships. Which are currently just a joke.

[twin phoenix]

having 8 con turrets assist 1 players lab to make quakers

[fringe spear]

i mean I agree, I think aa in this game is too slow

I prefer dedicated aa trucks instead of a hybrid unit that cannot have good speed because it's tied to a different job

like how many times have we tried making dual ground air weapon before realizing that the air weapon requires more range than the ground weapon

[amber crow]

i think sacrificing a lot for commie just makes players more vulnerable. and most of your arguments are "you can still defend" - but reality is, it's a risk and risks cause loses in real games.

[fringe spear]

It's just that you have to remember, everyone else who isn't an inner circle dev doesn't have the luxury of adding their favourite pet unit ideas to the game

so it feel pointless for us to even think about it

[amber crow]

anyways, i'm not speaking on behalf of commie here, i have ideas how to incur costs, wheter metal, energy or time, when i speak about commie.

[fringe spear]

besides, whenever you add new units the balance will change a lot

it will change the power of t1 bomber, etc.

[fringe spear]

sacrifciing what for commie?

[crude elbow]

Risk and give up map control/awareness is a cost.

More potent factories are and more units are a risk.

So while being true: co-op a building so it is finished faster. It can still be tricky. Because you don't have the resources elsewhere.

A small benefit is fine. An afk auto win is bad.

Let's find something.

The time lag is indeed a nice and simple idea. I will add it to my solution bucket list. Thx.

[fringe spear]

commie that is overly risky is usually the result of a that unit being too risky

back when sneaky pete and spybot existed, commie tzar was very risky

mauser/hound commie was much preferred

[fringe spear]

By going faster, commie makes you safer

when you tech t2, you blow your com solo and you are vunerable for a long time with zero metal and no commander

[crude elbow]

Why is it a sacrifice? It makes the game more interesting. It's an investment!

[fringe spear]

when you make your ageo you are a sitting duck until you finish ageo and add nano turrets

when you do a commie bombing run you can know that the air player will not be able to stop it alone

which removes risk from the equation

normally when you do a solo bombing run, you run the risk that the enemy air player played safe, and your bombing run eats shit

[amber crow]

i agree it's an investment. where i see the problem (and also chrono and many others) is when this investment is just a by the book thing you do, because nothing beats it. vulnerability of having no units is often mitigated by positions that don't need units anyway, like tech in the back. if timings of cooped projects are not too fast, the other team which didn't funnel in a single project, can have ways to punish, but if timings are too fast, you have nothing to do but watch the destruction

scouting is a big help i think. doesn't fix everything (doesn't need to IMO) but it helps a lot to see what you want to prepare for

[fringe spear]

right now tournament play in 4v4 is just one person control all the economy. so when you make builds you are just optimizing for a 1 player economy with 4 comanders and 4k starting metal

[crude elbow]

I can see how it can look like it.
But I am not talking about a list that I can put into the game.
I am talking about a tool that I have found thx to the community.
I will take this idea, carry it into our discussions because the game can benefit from it.

[fringe spear]

This idea of having a fast aa truck deserves it's own thread

What if I told you: discuss coop but include my unit idea

that's not helpful because it's not likely that unit idea will make it into the game yet

[amber crow]

i think the team that works on this fix would benefit from open engagement and talk with community about ideas, things they work on etc.. i think the secluded nature of this brainstorming is kinda hurting the community

ofc its up to you guys but that's how i see it and feel it on forums

[fringe spear]

what tool is that?

[crude elbow]

Well again: you can't expect to be save against an unscouted effort of two players. By playing alone.

Your perfect air player must help you. And even then, it can be just a suboptimal game play to not combine strengths.

I think it would be unfair against the players that take their time to speak with each other.

At the same time afk gaming is not what I want.

[crude elbow]

Do you think che didn't have the same problem that?
He knows how to use it, and still found ways to win by actually playing the game.

[crude elbow]

And how would you know that?

Perhaps there are ppl working on solutions that aren't public.

[fringe spear]

GDT has publically said that no new units, and many contributors have repeateded that too

they coudl change their minds at anytime

[crude elbow]

Did you read this? @fringe spear

[amber crow]

Lets not get fixated 🙂

[fringe spear]

ragna is in the GDT i believe

ofc HE can add a unit if he wants

[crude elbow]

Why add?

CHANGE the AA truck.

Am I speaking French?

[fringe spear]

I didn't know he was replacing the whistler

not adding a new unit

no fast aa for you if you play bots ig

[amber crow]

@stone lynx in shambles

[crude elbow]

And how would you know that?

[fringe spear]

you know this style of talking is starting to piss me off

you realize this lack of communication is from the devs
I ask them plenty of things to no response
just fuck off

[crude elbow]

Then we are two.

You are assuming things.
ASK first.

[amber crow]

I'm wondering whats the reason for such a non-open communication of intents and design ideas? Do you fear community backlash because of lack of deeper understanding?

[crude elbow]

It might be that there already is an answer

[fringe spear]

the devs have explictily said they don't want to release details of what they are planning because "talking is just a waste of time"
and you are telling me to ask?

[crude elbow]

Exactly.
Because I am not this person.

[fringe spear]

why don't you bring the relevant details to the conversation instead

When I make a solution, I don't play coy and say "why don't you ask me how I solve that?". I just tell them the neccesary information

[crude elbow]

I do recognize this pattern it's used by some ppl internally, too.

[fringe spear]

okay, so Ima ask you, what is the coop solution that was pitched ?

and are they still developing testing it?

[crude elbow]

How?
The AA bot wasn't mentioned before.
I don't know what you assume.

[fringe spear]

if you know of some aa bot details why don't you just say "oh here we are also buffing aa bot speed"

that's what any reasonable person would do

jesus

[crude elbow]

You may ask, and I may only tell you in this specific thing, that I cannot answer it.

But what I can tell you is that this very discussion can have a positive impact on it.

I know I know. That's not what you wanted to hear. The problem is: the new patch will have big implications and we don't want a second air rework.

[fringe spear]

what do you think failed about the air rework?

I think the air rework failing had nothing to do with how it was presented

[crude elbow]

That is not true.

In development it is best practice to have a solution that actually works before the product is presented.

[fringe spear]

the contents/ideas just didn't work out -- and air rework is very challenging

[fringe spear]

na, always think and discuss before you code

[crude elbow]

True.

There were some good ideas in it, but it wasn't ready, yet. Additionally the feedback loops didn't work good enough.

Back then I wasn't in the team.

[fringe spear]

I think the public reception was that it all was bad

[twin phoenix]

if whistlers are anti air only it means people are more likely to skip them in their army

[crude elbow]

Don't we discuss right now?

[twin phoenix]

right now whistler is pretty good for anti shuri

[fringe spear]

Bruh, they apparently started work on coding it a month ago

that is not before coding

[crude elbow]

Maybe I am involved?

And I am here.
And talking and discussing with you.

[amber crow]

Are any upfront cost buildings to enable sharing on the table? Or are these ideas out of possibility?

[fringe spear]

well I'm going to assume that you aren't until you say you are

[tulip minnow]

can we discuss why taxes in any shape of form are a complete non starter and we are going with a complete balance redesign from the ground up instead? taxes as an option carries almost no risk, while what you are presenting appears massively risky and completely ignores years of minor incremental balance improvements?

[crude elbow]

Taxes are the worst solution. It works but it doesn't help the game.

[fringe spear]

see the gdt has been so nocommunative after 40000 messages we still don't know what is on the table and what is off the table

[fringe spear]

explain why

[tulip minnow]

taxes are THE only option

[fringe spear]

worst is a very bold statement

[twin phoenix]

i can see why they wouldnt want taxes, but way more important: Is a nerf to sharing and assisting in any way on the table?

[crude elbow]

No funky new mechanics.

Time lag sounds somehow interesting, share with income speed is in the back of our heads.

[twin phoenix]

because without any nerf to sharing the issues will remain

[tulip minnow]

those are taxes

[fringe spear]

no funky new mechanics
ignores the 1 mechanic that has been tried and tested

it's not the most elegant, but it does work

[crude elbow]

No, time is a delay.

[fringe spear]

time is a tax

[tulip minnow]

money now is worth more than money later

[fringe spear]

If sharing emp's your solar for 20 seconds, that's a 400 energy tax

[twin phoenix]

yes but a more forgiving one

actually its not even a tax no

because if its m/s based you just keep the stuff until its shared

[fringe spear]

yeh if it's not self emp

and you can keep it, it's just requires you to pre-share it

requires a pre-command only

[twin phoenix]

it means someone afk boosting would just afk the ressources while he owns them

[fringe spear]

their starting resources?

[twin phoenix]

yes but assuming somebody isnt afk they will generate more and more ressources and they will propably do so quicker then they share them

[fringe spear]

hmmm? can you specify what the restriction is concretely?

[crude elbow]

And there we go again.

It is a rough idea. It has flaws.

I am not here to defend it. I just heard it for the first time.
@amber crow have fun defending it.

But this attacking attitude makes it hard to discuss anything.

[fringe spear]

i mean you claimed it was the worst idea

If I called your idea the worst idea, you'd want evidence right?

more than simply saying "it works but it doesn't help the game"

[twin phoenix]

i talked about this idea a lot, if you have 10 m/s income only let the person share 3m / s for example it means they physicly cannot share themselfes outof existance

[crude elbow]

Ok, fair.

Tax is the least fun idea.

[twin phoenix]

i think its the way to go even if some form of bosting eco or geo might be mandatory but that could just be seen as paying for t2

[fringe spear]

raising the cost of the tzar is not "fun". But it helps the game. same thing as tax

[crude elbow]

And it doesn't matter.

Taxes are off the table. We will have to live with it.

[tulip minnow]

tax would mean I can have fun playing the game again while you guys figure out whatever you wanna figure out

I will test anything you present to the utmost

[fringe spear]

do you guys even understand why high os players don't like the state of public games?

[twin phoenix]

there are other ways of limmiting sharing, capping the transfer rate depending on your income allso works without burning metal into non existance

[crude elbow]

I agreed.

The patch has better solutions.

[fringe spear]

well, we are indeed waiting.

[tulip minnow]

like I said before, time tax is something I prefer too but I still call it a tax

[fringe spear]

so you disallow sharing units?
if you can share units you can bypass that ez

[twin phoenix]

no thats an entirely different topic

[fringe spear]

if you can share units you just share your mexes wtf

[twin phoenix]

ressource sharing is easier to solve then units

[fringe spear]

and rez/cons
????????

[twin phoenix]

i want unit sharing nerfed im not sure wich way tho

could be buildpower based

[fringe spear]

that's hardly a completely idea if I can just share my whole base

[fringe spear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73HWHIE-Pnc

I can coop without sharing a single resource directly. I just share my mexes and share my solars

[twin phoenix]

i know

i talked about buildpower transfering units to other players before

[fringe spear]

okay, unit sharing aside. My issue with a limit is
People will just always share the maximum every game. And that is not very interesting.

[amber crow]

I feel we lack the "game is a work in progress" approach. Jump to conclusions with 200% speed, saying how something will pan out with utmost certainty. Doesnt help anyone, just fuels the conflict

Not sure why this debate has to be so aggro, but its not helpful. Ideas dont come to front but get burried in word sparring

[twin phoenix]

in the context of supreme isthmus yes, but in the context of lane maps thats less viable, it allmost comepletely fixes somebody grabbing lots of reclaim and just sending it for instant bombing run or t3 to backline and instead encourages eco scaling on the front

[fringe spear]

So the rationale so far not having taxes:
"Taxes are the worst solution. It works but it doesn't help the game."
"Ok, fair. Tax is the least fun idea."
"And it doesn't matter. Taxes are off the table. We will have to live with it."

man it baffles me

[amber crow]

learning to let go is also an OP skill in life, chrono

surely reasons are more indepth but who's gonna read them if we just fight over words days on end

[fringe spear]

fight over words?

[twin phoenix]

i would try taxes as a modoption but theres other possible solutions (wich nerf sharing)
as long as the devs arent believeing sharing doesnt need to be nerfed im happy

[fringe spear]

it's more like lack of communication and expressed reasoning

let's be real, they just subjectively don't like taxes that's all

[amber crow]

i agree communication is lacking, but personally i wouldn't wanna be the person that has to type something in 40k thread and get shred to pieces. would you? i can understand that. i'm tired sometimes just by participating, how could i also design stuff while also engaging. but i agree, lack of comms makes people angry, hopeless etc

[tulip minnow]

40k replies to coop is a problem speaks for itself

[fringe spear]

I mean if you have the opinion that taxes are the worst solution, dev or not

[amber crow]

well i also believe they are the worst solution btw xD

[fringe spear]

If you think anything solution is the worst solution, I'm gonna be interested to here what evidence/reasoning you have

yeah, but why?

[amber crow]

but just because my vision of BAR is such that i can't see stuff being taxes as interesting. i want more fluid sharing AT A POINT. maybe with limitations that are gamey, part of strategy

tax is just a filter you put over a picture. its horrible, even if it would work well

[fringe spear]

na

[tulip minnow]

if you put a limitation on sharing that is by defenition a tax

[fringe spear]

taxes ARE what's interesting. because taxes are tradeoffs, and tradeoffs are what makes any game interesting

[amber crow]

call it whatver, but it's not a "tax everything by 40%" thing. its different and plays different

[fringe spear]

do you want more metal long term, or do you want faster tempo?

[twin phoenix]

at least its a solution, they didnt say t2 rewrok or tier 1.5 centurion is a solution at all 🤣

[fringe spear]

how much do metal do you think having an extra 2 mauser/quaker on the front 30 seconds faster is worth?

is it worth 400 metal? Maybe? depends on the situation

[tulip minnow]

I just dont see any threads that say "gameplay balance needs to change so much that its practically gonna become a diffirent game"

nobody is asking for that that I can see

[twin phoenix]

i think capping the transfer rate could streamline the interaction where frontliners buy t2 and then tech just uses that for units cause he lied and gives t2 later

[fringe spear]

how would it streamline it

wouldn't it play out the same way?

[amber crow]

while i think involving community is good, i don't feel like community driven game is good. community is on average terrible judge

[twin phoenix]

more viable to upgrade mexes / scale eco then making more units as techer if the ressources arent there instantly

and if you boost earlier than tech just gets more eco earlier

[fringe spear]

yeah it's kinda wierd that they are taking coop as the reason to completely rework the game

if you want to rework the game just rework the game

[twin phoenix]

im against reworking units in the current state of the game yeah

coop needs to be fixed first

any nerf to units is made by poisened feedback right now

[fringe spear]

i agree. otherwise you may over nerf units because they are commonly cooped, meaning they suck ass when played solo

[amber crow]

I think what devs want is not a coop fix but a game made such that you can deal with strong coop

[fringe spear]

solo seaplanes is NOT op, but coop seaplanes is fricking insane

[tulip minnow]

and it does not even at the end there will be strong strategies/weak strategies and strong units/weak units, and you will coop whaever is strong and will be better than non coop

coop strenght is not related to game balance

[fringe spear]

i mean you can deal with strong coop but you will always coop yourself

[tulip minnow]

it exists on a diffirent mechanical plain

[fringe spear]

of course having counterplay to coop is good -- in base game you can just do the mirror strategy, but slightly more economic

but that is seperate from the fact that coop version of strats is a lot better than two solo players
meaning solo play is still dead

[amber crow]

Things like commander and sneaky pete helped with certain cooped units enough so you could play something else and not insta die

[fringe spear]

sneaky pete was cancer tho

[amber crow]

And no tax was involved

[twin phoenix]

one of the strenghts of rate limmit transfer is that, if you start sharing ressources early but overtime, the opponent can get a feel for how rich his opponent is, you can see how fast he builds stuff or how quick units come out of his lab,

with instant sharing you could send 3K metal and pop out units at max speed

[fringe spear]

sneaky pete + com was the generic answer to everything

enemy rocket bots? dgun. Enemy porc? dgun. Enemy t2? Dgun. Enemy medium tanks? dgun

[tulip minnow]

sneaky pete was bad design because there was no counterplay

[amber crow]

Well by counterplay you mean mass units through it? I think its good to have such stopping mechanics in a game with such fragile eco

[twin phoenix]

this would still be an issue with tax btw, send 3k M to navy player he recieves something like 2.2K wich then instantly turn into units comepletely catching his enemy off guard

[amber crow]

It helped t1 coop too

[fringe spear]

t1 coop aims to crush you before you have e to even make sneaky pete

and/or force to use com so your com will be in sight

if your com is cloaked he isn't repairing thugs

[twin phoenix]

btw why are we discussing this here when we could be leveling the "coop is a problem" thread

[mild dawn]

I do totally respect the GDT needing to be a closed invite-only group that can have private discussions. A democracy-of-the-players is unlikely to come up with a fun and balanced game...

But when multiple solutions are discussed in chat (taxes, market buildings, etc) while the GDT declines to accept friendly PRs (chronopolize's springs to mind), nor even publish meeting minutes or create position papers (which could even be unsigned), it becomes just a case of frustration for those who want to try out the proposed solutions.

[fringe spear]

"A democracy-of-the-players is unlikely to come up with a fun and balanced game..."
very true

yeah, we don't know
a) what GDT's objective is for the final balance of coop/solo. Do they want to disincentive not owning a base? What's the goal?
b) what mechanics are on the table, what is off the table?

[mild dawn]

(Still personally in the "lobby-adjustable transfer tax seems like a reasonable first option" camp... I know it does not solve everything)

[fringe spear]

And there are important things to be gained by communicating:
a) players can sanity check ideas based on what GDT's decided objectives are a)
b) players have provided multiple workable solutions
c) talking to players tells you why they like/dislike coop, and what other parts of the game they want to preserve if possible (e.g t2 con sharing, combat unit sharing)

[celest sedge]

like hawnestly

[fringe spear]

i've seen a lot of inner circle projects kept private before releasing (often with confident sounding promises)

and more often than not they turned out badly

it's better to get shit pointed out before you invest the time in it.

though, that ship has sailed. hope you guys release test soon

@crude elbow
Since you offered, I have another question

Would it be possible to have an OPTION to use tax or other sharing restriction, without the intent of adding it to base game?

currently in options, you can disable whatever units you want, you can add cheats, you can set no rush 20 minutes

Reworking/balancing the entire t2/t3 units tiers is going to take a year at least. Meanwhile we high os players are still having to resort to inferior verbal rules and kickban enforcement if we want to play solo economy without playing solo vs coop.

[crude elbow]

I can ask.

[fringe spear]

thank you, I genuinely appreciate it

[twin phoenix]

i would hope the t2 t3 rework has nothing to do with the coop solution

[fringe spear]

because there is no way for me to contact GDT, and well I don't want to ping Ptaq again

he usually doesn't answer anyways 😉

[twin phoenix]

do you know, or can you ask if nerfs to assisting and sharing units are being considered or is delaying of sharing units allso in the back of your heads?

[gaunt forge]

the impression I get is no

[twin phoenix]

since delaying ressource transfer doesnt fix wind boost

i mean the devs dont like wind boost im pretty sure

[fringe spear]

if you can share 4 winds, you can share your whole base

and commander (unless they remove that)

[twin phoenix]

yes, wich is why i would have to assume they are thinking about limmiting unit sharing too but i cant know for sure

[gaunt forge]

as I see it... the game has always had freely transferable resources and units, so there's a lot of inertia when it comes to overturning that... because of the fundamentally conservative direction of the game

[fringe spear]

freely transfer resource, but at high levels, not free to own base

[fringe spear]

I see, that provides some context

[gaunt forge]

that's just my take of the general vibe though

[twin phoenix]

theres 3 parts of sharing wich propably need to be nerfed assisting unit sharing and resource sharing

ressource sharing being considered for nerfed was semi confirmed to be a t least considered by robert so the question is what about the other 2

[crude elbow]

As modulo said.
It might be a no, too.

All I can do is take the wish to let the mod option into the internal discussion channel. There I can ask if we can leave it in the game.

Wish me luck.

[mental mauve]

I'm at the point where I'm happy to try w/e the devs want. Then hopefully through reasonable feedback we can fix the thing. On the surface these changes don't seem like what's being asked for from a gameplay/design perspective relating to coop. Excited to try it out and see regardless.

[fringe spear]

agreed. I don't think these changes really relate to coop but a patch is a patch

[mild dawn]

I realize it goes against the grain of what the game has always had, but, (a) I believe transfer tax (and eventually unit-sharing fee) can be explained to users (WYSIWYG) and (b) as Chronopolize highlighted, we have all of these other configurable options around unit balance or unit restrictions or even resource productivity buffs.... What is the harm in one or two more game configuration sliders (resource sent tax slider / unit transfer fee as percentage of metal cost slider)

I realize it will cost some dev time. I am willing to lend a hand developing the tax option, though I think Chronopolize did most of the work on that. (not that I have much free time, but...)

[stone lynx]

sorry who is raplacing the whistler?

[amber crow]

Just an idea someone from the team mentioned, that whistler MAY become AA only unit, faster etc

[stone lynx]

im am messaging Zercus right now

[mental mauve]

ngl probably a good change

[violet fiber]

For 1v1 it would be a welcome change I think, having faster AA as an option would be really interesting.

For large team games it feels like core veh would suffer even more early game since lasher balls are the primary tool core veh has against coms.

[crude elbow]

But a com isn't an air unit so perhaps another unit should be good against the com.

We can't implement all this in one go, but we can make an idea list 😉

And Cortex would benefit widely in T2. Currently you have 0 fast AA in the entire ground based army for Cortex. No Platis no Jags

[amber crow]

https://discord.com/channels/549281623154229250/1395467314031362058 for ideas

[wraith basin]

Does this mean current gdt does not have a solution

[wet gate]

they have one

[wraith basin]

Is the implementation just taking a long time?

[crude elbow]

Quality is more important than speed. The amount of work was a bit underestimated.

But currently the tax is still in the game, so that's at least something.

[wraith basin]

The tax option is broken and unusable and they rejected chronos pr to fix it

[twin phoenix]

but wether or not the official implementation will have any nerf to sharing is still being discussed?

like the lag / income based delay you mentioned

[tawny birch]

Any unit-or-lab-based balance solutions to co-op are ultimately misguided because, when properly understood, coop is nothing other than build optimization. Any m or e saving that can be done via coop will instantly make it better than its solo build counterpart, it is a very simple algebra.
The only actual balance adjustment I can think of is if having multiple labs was straight up more BP efficient than having BP turrets, which seems obviously undesirable.

[crude elbow]

We will try to avoid it.

[tawny birch]

Need an anti-coop 8v8 player on the consultation team

[crude elbow]

Well then you forgot to take the units into account that have to walk/drive around the map.

3 stouts that are rushing to your team mate to save him? Well that could be a new lab and a stout in your base, defending it.

And of course it is better to play together in a team game, as a team. The thing that is understandable is afk battery solo fac gaming.

[tawny birch]

Well, this time I didn't mention it for brevity's sake (I have at other times), but yeah that's the only other inherent advantage to having multiple labs, travel distance 😂

[twin phoenix]

but this allso means that in any spot where 1 person is behind another its better to boost the one on front

because your units take longer

[crude elbow]

Not really. In ATG it's quite valid to tech in the second row.

[twin phoenix]

yeah but its still better to give 4 winds early to gain more ground in those crucial early seconds

and the enemy who doesnt get winds is gonna have a bad time

[crude elbow]

Must sleep now.

[twin phoenix]

so everybody starts to give winds

[tawny birch]

Please don't fall into the team game = maximize all team-oriented mechanics, it gets reductio-ad-absurdum'd instantly as a principle (why not Zero-K it? That'd make it even more team-oriented), and if taken as just a design choice it may need to be sacrificed for more enjoyable gameplay. The entire crux of co-op being a problem for so many gameurs is the fact that solo play is dogshit compared to it.
(I may have misinterpreted your last paragraph)

[twin phoenix]

BAR design philosphy says somehwere if an action is meaningless the player shouldnt have to do it but windboost is literally that you just do it by default

you can try to rebalance the game in such a way that you dont need to make E buildings to start spamming scout units but thats just removing gameplay

[crude elbow]

You did.
But that's ok.

I am a strong believer in:
High risk. high reward
Low effort. Should be punishable

I hate afk gaming as much as you do.

[crude elbow]

I know only a few maps with this meta. So that's not really our biggest concern, I guess.

[twin phoenix]

but you can do it on glitters and isthmus, wich is a huge chunk of the playerbase allready, some rotato maps like erebus lake and the ice map with the river would allso apply they just dont have as much of a meta

if the playerbase increases even the more niche maps will develope the same kind of metas istmus and glitters have

then its a seperation between pure lane maps where everyone is front and maps that have those issues i mentioned

personally i dont mind lane maps but its boring if that is all that is supposed to be balanced because to me theyre all kinda the same

[wraith basin]

Lane maps have the greatest skill and creativity expression. You can literally transition to anything or any play style. Glitters and straits are super confining

[sonic knot]

Solution. Play rotato with randos.

[vale lantern]

From what portions of the proposal that Robert has been able to tell us, that being resource sharing being limited to your income, not what's in storage, or through local assistance with BP, and possibly changes to lab efficiency, I can see some of the greediest co-op builds becoming more vulnerable to an opposing team that builds more labs, since the other team will have an easier time turning their starting resources into units. This is a small window that probably only lasts until both teams have spent their starting resources, after which the co-op team will gradually build momentum due to all of its standard benefits.

In other words, it may become slightly easier for solo players to counter suspected co-op play with hyper-aggression early in the match, while the co-op team is working out how to funnel their resources into one spot, likely through sharing BP.

[fringe spear]

a coop build doesn't have to be greedy

coop build can make just as many units as a solo build
it's your choice how greed you want to be

[amber crow]

I think we need to embrace a degree of coop will stay optimal. I just hope full on funneling isnt, when balance hits

[fringe spear]

I mean has coding work on it started yet, or are they still figuring out what has to be done?

[wet gate]

its in the github game channel somewhere if you really wanted to find it

[tawny birch]

I expect a medium amount of clownery if any part of it can be construed to violate WYSIWYG.

[timid mountain]

I found it guys

[fringe spear]

you can't make people admit double standards, but at least you can have a good laugh

[vale lantern]

There actually may be a point near the start of the match where a solo team can pump out units faster than the co-op team if the co-op team has fewer labs, but only until the solo team runs out of metal. Although this window becomes even narrower once the co-op team delegates wind/solar production and has some players start by building their lab before any E generation. This is why I specified the "greediest" builds.

[fringe spear]

Here are most of the things where cooping them produces advantage

This is why we say that reworking t2 / tier split doesn't address the fundamental issue of coop

[tall crane]

It should be all of them.

[fringe spear]

i admire your expertise

[tawny birch]

Respectfully, that's sad.

[fringe spear]

but yes, you can coop just about anything

[fringe spear]

yeah that depends on how bp heavy the units are

for example, 2 players can definitely pump out ticks/scouts faster than 1 lab because it's bp gated

but thug/decurion? not so sure

[onyx crest]

And walk-off time gated

[fringe spear]

that's why there is a limit to how many players eco to concentrate on one lab, if you want t1 units

But making people make more t1 labs, doesn't address the core coop problem, it just fixes 1 symptom

[tawny birch]

Planetary Annihilation realized that having multiple labs is cool (visually) and modified the walk-off time so that beyond 4 cons assisting it was more efficient to build another lab (otherwise you can't spend resources fast enough). What if.....................?

[grizzled echo]

This makes it sound more like a map problem.

Is it a genuine issue that isthmus, with it's very well defended back positions is extremely amenable to commie? Likewise glitters?

The benefit is significantly less on wider maps (T2 mexes still obviously op, a couple lanes contributing to a tzar probably still good, but overall less strong)

[fringe spear]

this is a old misconception that many players had 1-2 years ago

tournament is all coop, every map coop is optimal

the only case where coop is not impactful is when you have a 2v2 on a massive map

both players require labs, and have enough metal to tech without much need for coop

[onyx crest]

Assuming the GDT 'solution' of solve co-op via balance:

Most of the co-op "unit" advantages there are answerable via balance as long as there is an answer vs them than scales better than linear.
So if you need X metal to defeat a Y metal seaplane strat, ideally you only need 2 * X metal to defeat a 4 * Y metal seaplane strat. So a funnel co-op gets rapidly diminishing returns.

The factory skipping (1 factory funnel), Geos, eco ramping, etc. Those probably all need fundamental reworks or behavior changes.

[edgy rover]

Just putting in the weekly reminder that changing coop without taxing it or removing it isnt possible with the current laws of physics

Its impossible. And I can guarantee it.

[main night]

Its possible if they rework BAR in its entirety, it would only take years 😛

[edgy rover]

Yea, by changing the game aka removing it.

Or taxing it.

Theres literally no other way.

[fringe spear]

if there is a better than linear answer

for everything, and good scouting options. You just coop economy. and use the better than linear answers to stop what your opponent is doing 😆
nice try

[onyx crest]

Hence, why the economy aspect of co-op (savings from skipped factories, geo, serial eco ramp), needs an answer 😛

[fringe spear]

there is no answer, it's just a numerical nerf
which nerfs coop and solo alike

you could make geo 50% as good and you still would coop it

units better than eco? coop units
eco better than units? coop eco

[mild dawn]

I just don't quite get why the GDT is so against "dial-a-tax-percentage"... It seems like it would elegantly solve several problems and be way less work than balancing very different build costs.

What am I missing here?

[onyx crest]

Ya, agree, numbers tweaking/balancing the eco is a fools errand. It has to be something more radical. Either taxes, share barriers, or kneecapping the ability to boost/accelerate a friend's geo or fusion

[mental mauve]

yep

[vale lantern]

I'm afraid that Kellar's lawyer's comparison of co-op to cancer is rather apt... While not everyone here agrees on how much of an issue co-op is, any simple "solution" to it either doesn't do enough to prevent it from simply adapting, or requires massive changes to surrounding systems and still runs a risk of it returning in a more toxic form.

[edgy rover]

Cancer usually isnt an issue til youre old.

So its exactly like cancer, infact

[onyx crest]

What do you dial it to? Why punish giving resources to the poor man of your team that needs help? How do you eliminate the bad mouth-feel of resources disappearing into the ether? How do you handle sharing eco buildings? (EMP? How long?), how do you handle mex and reclaim stealing? Lotta edges to deal with.

[fringe spear]

if you don't want to help a guy by sending resources, help him before he is about to die, with units

scout the push that will kill him so you have time to bring units to defend him

add / rebalance amphib units so they can help sea better at t1 vs t1 ships

Why are we promoting sending resources over sending units to the sea?

[edgy rover]

Also bar works like rl. The rich gets richer.

Never do u want to send res to a guy dying. U wanna feed the guy pushing anyway

[fringe spear]

One is zero commitment no travel distance, and no unit variety

[onyx crest]

GDT would probably argue with sufficient balance, they can favor sending units vs sending resources 😛 (Not sure how myself)

[fringe spear]

yeah i dunno how you make sending resources better than making t1 t2 lab, and walking units all the way over

just send resources and their bp can boost the lab instead of making more e

and now you have e in a safer location in theback

[marble cedar]

My own opinion on the matter mostly revolves around option [4].
Suggestion 1: A separate low-cost economy structure, which accumulates charge over time up to a limit for small energy upkeep. Charge can be expended to share metal resource or units/buildings in metal equivalent, or to take over the direct control of units from an resigned teammate. A player cannot share metal or units in metal value above the charge stored, including overflow.

• Easy to balance due to variety of variables. Doesn't tie sharing to time, but to optional investment. Effectively negates the idea of sharing being free without completely impeding it.

• Will make many super-early unit trades impossible.
  = The ability to share the metal can be displayed as an overlay on top of the current metal bar or as variable in the same widget, is additional widget similar to converter indicator deemed excessive.

Suggestion 2: Tying all the aforementioned functions to Metal Storage buildings.

• Removes the necessity of adding extra structures. Makes both T1 and T2 Metal Storages more useful and important, including as a structure to protect against raiders.

• Necessitates greater base values, making the sharing capacity a more expensive and less flexible parameter to acquire due to current substantial cost of Metal Storages.
  = The principle can also be tied to Energy Storage buildings limiting the Energy sharing over time.

Suggestion 3: Share protection for the starting metal. The metal that the players are starting with cannot be shared or used in assisting tasks. The protected value is colored on the metal bar as different shade, compared to the metal that have been mined by extractors and therefore can be shared. Protected metal will be used first when building own's units.

• Will alleviate all the most cancerous cases of early commie strats that work through exploitation of player's combined starting resources.

• Will not address the unit sharing at all.

[mild dawn]

*What do you dial it to? *
Whatever the lobby decides, defaulting to 0% tax. Let the players decide if and how they want to use it. If they hate it, they can always start their own lobby. I expect noobs/unranked will stick with 0% tax, and ranked might settle on a meta-expectation of a 10% tax. Tournament organizers can of course set the tax, or maybe it becomes part of map pick/ban negotiation? Look, I assume you play too, you notice when someone turns off balance and starts moving players, they’re not setting up for a fair fight. Same will happen with tax – if tax is off, big resource transfers are on the table and you might be in for a slightly more unbalanced game.

We have a million other options (Legion, Extra Units, resource buffs), let the players discover a healthy tax rate...

Why punish giving resources to the poor man of your team that needs help?
As someone who sucks and has been gifted a lot of stuff, I appreciate being given help, and I like helping others, and I do help others. I believe the game shines as a team game. I don’t want to punish it much.

But do the math on a 10% transfer tax. It would cost an extra 100 metal to transfer 1000 metal (1100 metal total). Definitely something, but less than a Thug.

A 10% unit-transfer-fee would mean 43m to transfer T2 Con Bot, 270m to transfer a commander, 430m to transfer a fusion, 970m to transfer Afus, 380m to transfer Razorback, 2900m to transfer Juggernaut. It’s definitely a cost, but if you have excess eco or a struggling teammate, it might be worth it. Again I expect noob lobbies will default to 0% tax.

*How do you eliminate the bad mouth-feel of resources disappearing into the ether? *
Players will get used to it. Defaulting to 0% tax means users won’t deal with it by default, but those wanting a more disciplined game can set a tax rate. I don’t like paying transfer fees in real life either, but it’s worth it for certain cases.

Tax might be possible to tweaked to be either go to (a) the void (b) enemy team (c) distributed to your team (“If you bring gum to share with a friend, you must being enough to share with the whole class…”)

*How do you handle sharing eco buildings? (EMP? How long?) *

Unit transfer fee, likely 10%, in my opinion. Or EMP, which, again, might be something that could be configurable… (again, 0% tax for noob games)

*How do you handle mex stealing? *
We have a Code of Conduct already.

*How do you handle reclaim stealing? *
I note that Code of Conduct B.4.3 explicitly says reclaim/revive isn’t griefing. Also happy to share what I have with whoever asks. Also I suck so bad that, when I get knocked down in 8v8 (which is often), I pump rezbots, play janitor, and overflow all the metal I suck up to the entire team, or the Eco player, or more likely to whoever seems to be cranking units already. Guess that means your 60% wrecks are now 50% wrecks with the transfer tax?

*How do you handle boosting / assisting? *
I don’t have much of a problem with this (scoutable, requires APM / movement). If it becomes a problem, I could see some sort of logarithmic decay on how much additional constructors add to a build (was mentioned as an Age of Empires mechanic)… we already have this behavior for Pinpointers.

Lotta edges to deal with.
Yes. In my humble experience, you find edge cases faster by trying out the code a lot, rather than by pontificating on the most perfect design.

[fringe spear]

-- Why punish giving resources to the poor man of your team that needs help?
First they give you the symphathetic case that everyone agrees with, then they come for your base 😆

[golden arrow]

"TakeRep" command returned an error: strconv.ParseInt: parsing "Why": invalid syntax

[fringe spear]

Better a man have poor base than no base.

[vale lantern]

On Mex stealing, while it is handled in the CoC, there are other edge cases where it may be deemed preferable by a commie team to give or self-D the Mex so their teammate can have it, or outright leave it for someone else and spawn at front instead. Not likely to be an issue unless taxes are very high.

[fringe spear]

mex leaving always exist you can balance it a bit via mapping

reclaim is interactable by the enemy team. Snipe rez bots, eat it yourself. If you know the techer could suck the reclaim then be extra careful about dropping it

wrecks are 40% taxed already anyways

[vale lantern]

Rocks/trees/crystals could also fall under commie, but there is a limit to how much someone can get from them. Rezbots aren't the only way to collect them either, any form of relatively fast BP with the ability to reclaim counts.

[fringe spear]

if you treat rocks/crystals as an income source yeah

mapping principle: don't put lots of rocks in safe locations, put them in contestable locations like altored divide

[crude elbow]

That is the goal.
Make active play worth it.

Will we hit the goal perfectly with the first shot? Never!
But we are determined to give our very best.
We are trying to speed testing loops up.
It's not always easy to agree when the stakes are high.

[crude elbow]

Thx, this helps

[crude elbow]

Interesting, will bring it up internally

[crude elbow]

Interesting...
What about a flat:
X sec no share mechanic at the beginning of a match?
So co-op REALLY gives up map control. Wanna single fab? Fine. Start with your coms in one spot. Let's see how it goes, when the enemy has 4 T1 labs that aren't metal bricks.

Everything I say here is my personal opinion.

[fringe spear]

if you can't share at the start everyone would just open with their own lab

you build extra bp and when the coop restriction lifts you start building

coop is not a fixated on only having one lab

it's pooling resources to make something good, faster

(If labs are cheap sometimes you don't need to reclaim your bot lab when you commie t2, you just leave your bot lab up for extra utility)

No resource sharing for X minutes is suggestion 2) in the original post of this thread

[crude elbow]

Great to see this new way of communication in this thread btw.

It's way easier for me to find new ideas.

[timid mountain]

If you want more ideas please look into what other games have done to address funneling. The primary example I can think of is League of Legends' Taric & Master Yi meta. There's probably 100s of youtube videos around the subject.

[hot flint]

taric is love and life

[marble cedar]

Its one of the good solutions from the simpler ones, though depending on the specified time it will impede early unit sharing without making a dent in any commie builds later down the line (T2). It can become especially fitting after the expected balance patch, because planned changes will make T1 setup easier to do without boosting. Its not very flexible given it only involves one variable and might be hard to balance.

[twin phoenix]

actually, this solution is in the back of their heads, is what Robert said, just in case they will need it, but the actual goal seems to be to not nerf sharing in any way unless unavoidable

I think it's unavoidable but devs don't seem to think that yet

[fringe spear]

if you can only share 10% of your current income, everyone who is able will just share the max. and they'd have to handle ally assist and also disable sharing units (at least eco)

but honestly i'm not picky, solves giving your base away = great

i'm fine with any fundamental nerf to coop, or delaying sharing to mid/late t2

[fringe spear]

it's good to hear that it's in the back of their heads, at least

[tawny birch]

It will be unavoidable.

[fringe spear]

In the unlikely event that it does solve coop and we can't break it via cooping then problem solved! end of story

[tall crane]

When I see this, I see S tier only has two strategies and think "we need to make the balance better so even more coop strats are S tier"

[hot flint]

best way to balance coop is to play ffa

[amber crow]

ffa is just so boring. i'd love to play it but being at mercy of how the sands of war shift is just too daunting to me, feels like playing rogue-lite BAR

[gaunt forge]

play 2-player ffa to reduce randomness and politics

[hot flint]

2 player ffa is goated af yes

id love a 2 player ffa tourney that'd be badass

[upbeat raven]

with 4-8 commanders per player?

[glacial scarab]

The GDT has concocted a response and first-steps solution to this thread here: #1396640349207924746 message
As such, it's come time to lock this one up.