#No-Trade (grace) period

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

shell terrace
#

Idea for a no-trade period setting on server

#

This came in by E-mail - so not from me:

There's just one aspect of the game that I find troublesome to the point where it's giving me a small amount of anxiety. This awesome, complex and a bit complicated game is already quite difficult to learn but its incredibly fun to experiment in. So learning is fun.

You learn by playing with others and so far I've only played team games. But the higher ranked I get the more demand there is to play a certain way, even from the start. In no game I've played yet are you able to trade with your team mates from the start. Most games limit it or offer options to limiting it and even in those where its possible it usually requires some sort of building or some time to pass.

Here trading is available from the get go, not only of resources but of everything you've built. It's leading to situations where at the start of the game you (as a Tech player let's say but others as well) get bombarded with requests. Requests that are often the same every single game.

Denying these requests gets you tons of toxic hate to which at some point breeds hate. Accepting them means playing the way others want you to play "for the win" every single game. No allowance for experimenting or trying something out of the ordinary is given in public games.

Just an option that lets you toggle as host:

How far into the game trading can begin and whether or not it should be allowed at all.

I understand that there is an "overflow" mechanic to the game so perhaps this suggestion could be limited to trading buildings and units. But for me personally I'd proabably even go as far as to limit the overflow mechanic so as to not allow cheesing of this. If the option is there I'd use it and those that do not mind would not need to play in my games or the games of people who feel like me.

I understand that most people might not mind this. And that it helps with creative builds in clan and private games. But in public games its causing anxiety and rigidness and hostility. I've seen it happen to others as well.

Please, I just want to be able to try out new builds and dream of strategies and play an awesome game without being someone elses eco-booster for 5-10 or even 15 minutes straight.

Thank you kindly

empty hemlock
#

To implement no trade, you would need to disable:

  1. sharing eco directly
  2. sharing eco units (probably in this case the sharing can affect ALL units)
    --- includes trans/scout?? impacts some maps
  3. assisting allied construction (this is less common than sharing eco/resources, but leaving it in would be a loophole) -- for example if 2 players did a double start boosting the same lab, now the enemy team has no way to counter share resources, since their bp is in seperate bases.
#

Some people said they disliked not being able to share t2 units to micro when they make them

royal zenith
#

Overall I would welcome an option to completely disable transferring units and eco.

#

At least for testing. I'd like to see how the regular high level player base receives it.

#

(One minor thing I would implement would be to allow sharing of one constructor if the player has no labs or cons of their own. But only that one con)

empty gale
empty hemlock
#

there's cases where people give another player 20 pawns to secure their flank
I think people don't like not being able to do that

#

but there are positives

empty gale
idle tendon
thin veldt
#

I've played my fair share of eco, as well as frontlines. And I believe that good eco players play all lanes (even more so than all players who should already play all lanes when opportunity comes). Having units on multiple sides of the map, because you assist armies and plug holes is extremely hard to micro at once while also min-maxing the scaling. APM required exceedes frontliner apm by a lot if you play like that. In this case not being able to share t2 units is abnormally taxing on eco IMO

#

But its no prob if eco just monospams

empty hemlock
#

good eco is a difficult position to play, you have to micro and make game-wide decisions while controlling stuff in 1-2 locations at the same time

#

and you are responsible for building the team's utility structures

#

and making t2s, deciding who to give first, transporting them

empty gale
#

In general I think a no trade period sounds nice if it is possible to share 1 t1 and 1 t2 con to each player (at least as an option), so that it is still possible to play eco position on some maps and to help players out that lost all his constructors.

quaint inlet
#

Just make the timer so short that there's no need for any t2con exceptions.

empty gale
#

So having at least an option to allow the sharing of a t2 constructor could make it possible to have that and make a longer no trade period. Also you want to be able to at least share 1 t1 con if someone lost all his constructors (but only 1).

quaint inlet
#

Well, it would still solve 2 commanders sharing a lab from the beginning.

empty gale
noble dock
#

+1 for a toggle to completely remove sharing for testing.

merry aurora
#

+1 for a toggle to completely remove sharing for testing.

empty hemlock
#

is the existing nosharing work with 99% tax?

#

it's a bit jank but it should work

#

as long as you enforce people not slider down

nova eagle
#

This is similar concept to 1.5 trade beacon that can only be built by t1 con, would have similar effect.

#

cant share unless you have a beacon so it forces everyone to make a t1 lab + con

#

kind of a grace period of 5 mins

lilac mica
#

I proposed multiple times no share option in advanced settings with manually set time with max time 5-10 minutes

thin veldt
lilac mica
noble dock
#

I dislike coop and hypocrisy, we are not the same

lilac mica
clear mountain
#

ok here's the biggest issue with this:

#

You can just "trade" by sacrificing the unit and rez it

#

it won't work

#

There's no way I think this can be fixed

clear mountain
empty hemlock
#

rezzing has various costs

clear mountain
#

like what

empty hemlock
#

firstly you have to bring the unit, have something kill it, pay 50% energy to rez it, and the rezzer's bp cost

#

it takes apm and you have to walk the unit+ rez there

clear mountain
#

yeah but if we go by the 10 minute grace period its alot of time to do it

empty hemlock
#

it's a lot of work, would be easier just to transfer money w/ tax

clear mountain
#

also it will just lead to more cheesy bypasses like this

empty hemlock
#

so you have to kill your own solar, then have an ally player rez + eat it

#

to bypass a whopping 45 metal tax on a solar

#

not to mention the bp cost to construct the solar

#

i guess more likely is you rez the solar to keep it

clear mountain
#

I am thinking about the t2 units mostly not the t1 units

empty hemlock
#

if you kill your bull and then rez it that's kind of a waste of making a bull
it's just afk

#

are you talking about sharing combat units or what
fusions?

clear mountain
#

get this: player wants to boost a spider to a player because of the grace period they wont be able to for 5-10 or 15min as mentioned in this suggestion. a spider can be made in atg within like 5min if rushed properly you take it to your base and start rezing it must take you like maximum of 1min to get it to be your own 6min in the game you now have a spider meanwhile the other players still on t1 units

empty hemlock
#

there's nothing problematic about sharing combat units. even instantly
because teamwise the team can only make a normal amount of t2 units

clear mountain
empty hemlock
#

the "problematic part" is when you have 3-4 people all pile their eco on to the techer so you make like 4x the t2 units
from 1 lab

clear mountain
empty hemlock
#

theoritically killing your own fusion/lab with a pawn so that an ally can rez it could be advantageous but it's a lot of work and you need the rezzers + 50% energy + rez time + repair time

#

no need to worry about an potential exploit that isn't even guranteed to be gamebreaking

clear mountain
#

I am really curious on how they plan to fix this I feel like it's something they simply won't be able to

empty hemlock
#

limit on sharing, tax on sharing, grace period no sharing, sharing has delay before recepient recieves the resources, etc.
or building to unlock

clear mountain
empty hemlock
#

i d'k what they discussed. apparently they have discussed the topic a ton

#

but they don't like sharing tax for base game because it's an arbitrary number

#

(even though ressurect requiring 50% energy and 0% metal and 100% bp is also totally arbitrary)

#

resurrect requiring 50% energy is like a 50% discount on e and 40% discount on metal (compared to the wreck)

clear mountain
#

even then you could run into the issue of t2s construction bots/veh will they be soft locked aswell?

empty hemlock
#

and ressurrect cost is a game changing number

#

all game modes are heavily influenced by rez cost

empty hemlock
#

there's 2 reasons why in my mod I made a special exception for t2 cons

clear mountain
empty hemlock
clear mountain
#

ahh

empty hemlock
#

this whole patch is just improvements and fixing remaining loopholes

clear mountain
#

you really thought of everything didnt you lol

empty hemlock
#

someone had to

#

reason to make t2 con an exception

  1. without t2 con sharing, a frontliner will have a very hard time ever getting to t2 economy if their team is losing. it's better for them to reclaim their mexes and let the techer t2 the mexes. Since they will have to save 3.4k metal and build their own t2 lab and con. Metal cost + tempo loss.
  2. people are deeply accustomed to buying t2 cons. If you completely change the gameflow it will be hard to people to buy-in to the modoption
tidal summit
#

lol. Good turn around on this one ;D. I think its a good idea. I mean why not. Its a fantastic learning mechanic to implement into the game.

raven pewter
deft stag
#

I really like the idea of unlocking trade through a building, then that could be balanced by building cost. Would also add cost to tech up without making lab extending t1 phase and making t2 rush on larger maps less viable.

Not sure what to do with overflow, but stuff that is evenly distributed within the team is not as big as a problem as pooling resources in one place.

I think you should have to build both to recieve and send resources. Meaning that if you dont have the building nobody can send to you and you cant send. If you got the building you can only share to/from players that have the building built.

tidal summit
toxic fiber
#

Wouldnt it be possible to tax shared units/building the same way u can tax given metal/Energy. As in if u share 1000m and 5000e woth of units/structures u have to pay 100m 500e for the transfer. excact rate would than just to get tweaked for peak gaming.

#

u would keep the flexibility (which is a nice mechanic imo) for a cost.

empty hemlock
#

unlocking trading by building cost is a flat fee tax

#

if the scouting aspect of the trading building is too much and you want to nerf that, you could make it display a global annoucement and/or take 15 seconds to turn on after you build it

empty hemlock
#

it's a little uninuititve but yes
Another way is to have the eco buildings self-emp itself for 20-30 sec

#

just like units take 30 seconds+ to walk to the frontline from the back, giving effecient eco from the back should take time to impact the front

toxic fiber
#

thats also an interesting idea. I rekkon if u make a pop up when hovering the sharing button which shows the cost of selected sharing it could be decently intuitive.

empty hemlock
#

some econ units are way more higher pay back than others
paying 30 metal to transfer a solar is infinitely weaker than paying 10 metal to transfer a mex

#

a time delay equally taxes both

toxic fiber
#

I partly see that, Nonetheless the example u provided ild argue is a rather specific case as mexes are better than anything, generally payback (value) is defined by the metal and e cost of a thing (tho obv never pefect). Its not optimal but i feel like it would give a quick and easy temporally fix to the biggest commie issues. Having said that time delay is def also a possible solution.

empty hemlock
#

yeah but that applies to energy structures too

#

solar being much more painful to give than fusion

#

it takes a fusion 30 seconds for example to make back 10% of it's cost, but a solar like 50 seconds

nova eagle
# raven pewter How much metal would that beacon be?

idk would have to balance it with testing, maybe 400m and considerable E, so you cant reclaim lab and make it straight away, would need a bit of E. Or make it E cheap and allow the fast beacons for some co-op but it still forces everyone to make lab and con which i think is already massive help

#

I would also recommend not being allowed to share buildings ever, with or without beacon.

#

Build assist i think can stay as is probably, unaffected by beacon

#

I think beacon would also need to be 1 only, and have some spacing requirement

#

otherwise you could start beacon with techer and he can finish it for you. you end up with 8 beacons in a row next to tech

#

Or maybe you include build assist with beacon as well to not have that.

#

But i still think ea player should only be able to make 1 beacon ea at any time

thin veldt
nova eagle
#

but people making m stores is a thing so its nothing special, "remember to make your estore m stores guys" bit tidies

tidal summit
thin veldt
#

I dunno if storages are such a hurdle to warrant flying cons around. What they do is delay funneling and enforce an upfront cost for players that do that. Mind that no resource funneling or too big of a hurdle isnt ideal IMO

raven pewter
#

Some people say it would just force people to make t2 air lab and tap every mexes on the map
but that sound very bad to have the first lab be useless and not able to make units that will wreck the map
plus upgrading to many mexes at once is super bad

nova eagle
tidal summit
#

Yeah air meta would change to build a snipe fighter to try catch the flying cons.

I then started rolling this idea around in my head and something novel came up with respects to the ongoing problem of "air rework". I like playing air, if ur playing it right you have a lot to do and a lot of angles to exploit for ur ground team. But...understandably many people find air play "boring", @sand ravine usually makes a good case for it. Lol.

But heres the pitch (rough idea)...(very rough idea). What if air players needed to defend something in order to increase fighter cap. Hmmmm, im having an iteration on this idea atm, so like for instance a single floating airpad (1 square) needs to be built every (x) amount of fighters.

This pad also has a min distance is can be from the lab, and is an aircraft itself, (tanky, slow) in order to mitigate the player just hording them at the back. So these platforms would then be seen as air targets of great value, and in order to get an upper hand on ur opponent, you need to protect yours and destroy theirs. This would get air players to actively make sorties into enemy fighter lines to try get the kill. Which would have airplay much more sport like. #air #airrework @shell terrace

I think air needs objectives against the other air player. This perhaps could be the way to rework air. And i want to be clear here, i thought all the other attempts at the air rework were awful. So im not suggesting changing the speed, or any other metric.