Multi-idea proposal for a better gaming experience Unique for each palyer to decrease copying

[noble wigeon]

Problem
Early-game sameness: Everyone follows the same opening build order because deviating risks falling behind in resources.

Immediate strategic divergence: Players begin with different economic philosophies, shaping their build orders from second one.

Suggestion

1-Introduce a Commander Customization Page that allows players to choose their starting resource levels and production traits before the match begins.

Like if I want to have only 500 metal and energy at the start, but instead my commander will produce 50 energy Or produce 4 metal

2-Adding customizable commander Like if I don't want the guns in my commander, I want to make an increase in the building power, remove the weapons and only add building power Double it.

3-The ability to cut and finish unit production with a surge of energy, but the unit will have limit in their HB.Like half of it If I Let it produce at half of the production prosess time

4-And in the customizable page, like if I don't want to create an entire solar that will give me 20 energy, I want to create a smaller one give me only 10.Or I want to create A bigger one Give me 50.If you put a customizable cost for each .And I choose from the customizable page which one I wanted to enter the battle with. 5-Instead of the open skill , which I don't mind it staying, I want to add an idea that instead We bought the how many wins and how many losses
or
We don't decrease the player Or increase them If they lost or win only Like if someone had the highest efficiency and resource management and the highest Damage and destruction to the enemy production And his team is lost He shouldn't decreased in their open skill Could be increased And if team win But one of them did not produce any unit, did not make damage, and did not Efficiently manage their economy he decrease.

Multi-idea proposal for a better gaming experience Unique for each palyer .to decrease copying

Multi-idea proposal for a better gaming experience Unique for each palyer to decrease copying

[subtle minnow]

Sounds good for a custom lobby with rpg-like commander vibe. Not sure about having this in base game, it will get even more gamey by teams who know each other. if this happens, fightwar probably uninstalling

[noble wigeon]

if y mean by (it will get even more gamey by teams who know each other) Teams with strong coordination could exploit customized commanders. For example, one player might go full builder, another full combat, and another full economy—creating advantages against uncoordinated players. Then that's exactly good and right because Teamwork about coordination And the customization will increase this And it could be add to the lobby to set the customizable commanders off

[subtle minnow]

Yes, but better to make it so this modoption has to be turned ON, instead of all lobbies having to turn it OFF. This is a very experimental rpg-moba like idea, it's not really close to BAR. Makes no sense making it default game but rather a custom game

[noble wigeon]

I’d argue that the strength of this idea lies in its potential for team synergy and strategic depth, not just raw mechanics.
I get your point but I think having customizable commanders ON by default actually supports better strategic diversity.
Teams that coordinate well will always have an edge that’s true in any competitive stratagy game
by defaulting to ON, we encourage players to explore new roles, experiment with builds, and discover synergies they might not have tried otherwise
Turning it OFF should be a conscious choice for purists or competitive balance—not the default. That way, the base experience stays rich and flexible

Either way, I’m glad we’re bouncing ideas around. This kind of debate is how good features get forged.

[subtle minnow]

I agree with strategic diversity but here's the thing:

1. idea is far away from BAR predecesors
2. even now there's a big struggle of balancing teams that are on voicechat vs random teams. BAR is kinda unique in having 8v8 as a most popular game mode and a huge balance problem lies in the fact that 8 people are very hard to coordinate unless they are a tight team. Its just too big format to be balanced as team vs randoms. I think this idea will push the inbalance further, with coordinated teams

There's a lot of talk about how coop mechanics trump over individual skill. The upcoming rework tries to lessen this impact, but such an idea widens it. I do think its a very fun idea and i'd play it for sure, but i can hardly argument in favor of becoming a default

[noble wigeon]

Fair point . coordination does tilt the balance . but that’s the nature of war. Giving players more tools doesn’t break balance, it challenges others to rise. Let the battlefield evolve. And it's OK if you really see it that way It's OK to let it as Experimental

[atomic jetty]

Interesting, especially the last point.

You could gain relative OS with trophies.
So based on your OS and the others in the game, a trophy will give you some OS, reducing loss or potentially, if you are carring alone the entire losing team, it would even offset it and give some OS in total.

This fact enables for skilled players to progress through the "ladder" based on skill, and make it therefore a rating system even closer to true skill.

[stray solstice]

About different os metrics, this has already been shot down (https://discord.com/channels/549281623154229250/1402699570328371362)

Most of the reasons are outlined on the website's balance FAQ

Examples of in-game scores include Actions per minute (APM), metal produced, damage dealt and suchlike. While many of these would correlate in favour of good players none of them are a direct indicator of skill. Additionally none of them would be able to represent communicative ability, encouragement or leadership. In some cases they could be misleading, a player who does very little damage but to a very important area might be a linchpin of victory and a player who wasted metal might have produced the most and let their team down.
What really matters is how much a player contributes to winning games. Wins and losses are the best indicator of a player’s overall skill when taken as an average over many games. Using any other metric to influence rating could also shift player motivations, such as trying to farm damage instead of trying to win.

In short, it's easy to game. And doesn't take into account a lot of other skills

[stray solstice]

Early game sameness

-# I'm assuming you mean the 2mex 2wind 1mex 2wind lab start (or solar variation).
I would say that this isn't that big of an issue, a definitely not big enough to add another menu.

A better way to change opening build orders, comes down to maps imo. Most common 8v8 maps start you with 3mexes in range and high wind.
This can be changed to a two mexes start, or three spaced out mexes adding a larger trade off to walking.

The commander customization page is also not the best idea. As it:

1. Adds even more complexity for new players
2. Hard to scout
   -# Even if you change the commanders' look per change, units don't go to ghosts
3. Your 4th option sounds like choosing between different buildings? I don't see any reason to add extra complexity, especially for new players

[stray solstice]

For number 3
-# HB is a typo right? Ment to be HP?

How will this work with resurrection? If I rez an enemy's unit will it sometimes have half max health?
Will these units look different or have a different health bar? Because hp bars are present based, is there something showing the bar locked at 50%?

This would also buff t2 unit rushes, as for many t2s, the range matters more than the hp.

-# Just to clarify, I'm assuming that this would spend the remaining metal to make a unit?

[crystal moat]

So basically Zero-K?

[noble wigeon]

I agree with what you said, but that doesn't mean removing my idea; it means adding to it, like the air player.Should gain points from How many fighters they have and how many bombers they Shut down and the eco playes should gain point for sharing t2 constructor.And sharing resources As for sharing units.It must be divided.The earning from it must be divided to the one who give it and to the one who used it.And As for the spam
Of ticks or like that.There should be also a system adding point to you based on how many unit you lost in the battlefield.Like if it was a huge number.Meaning you are producing units and using them.

[noble wigeon]

Totally fair—early game sameness isn’t a crisis. But the goal isn’t to fix something broken, it’s to unlock more strategic diversity. Commander customization isn’t about menus, it’s about meaningful choices that evolve with skill level New players don’t need to touch commander loadouts. Just like advanced build or radar jamming, it’s there for depth—not obligation.

[noble wigeon]

Yeah, HB was a typo—meant HP

you can surge finish a unit early by dumping extra energy, but it spawns with reduced max HP. It’s a trade-off: speed vs. durability. Not a free buff.

if you rez one, it comes back with its original reduced cap—not full HP

True, range matters more for some T2 but that’s the point. Surge-finishing lets you gamble: get that artillery out faster, but risk it folding under pressure. It’s a high-risk, high-reward play, not a straight buff

So if you couldn't run faster than T1 unit Your t2 will Be destroyed easily.

[stray solstice]

the Air player. Should gain os from how many fighters they have and how many bombers they Shut down

So, if I greed t2 and make less figs I should gain less os?
Or if I double air with someone and they make figs and I make bombers, I should gain less os?
What if the enemy air player makes no bombers and instead goes ground? Does that mean that I am less skilled than if they made more bombers without fighters?

This illustrates the main issue with these arbitrary metrics.

• They can't get the whole picture
• Favor some play styles over others
• And can be gamed

The reason why Os is based off of win/lose is because that's how the games should be balanced.

Each team should have as close to an equal chance of winning.
Not as close of a chance to making more figs, or dealing more damage, or making more units.

[noble wigeon]

What I'm saying is kind of mixed system. In which way If you reach that trophy point by the normal setting that is in the original game base game. You will gain an additional point from these things, even if your team is lost.But if you didn't reach that trophy.Even if you did this while you were in the winning team, you should decrease your.Open skill. Which mean if you weren't effective in the game, you won't gain any skill and you will lose even if you made million fighters.But if you.made them and you reach the most Destroying unit of the enemy and resource production.And then you lost your.Team, all of them lost.But in the reward you gain the most.Besides, you will decrease your open skill due to the loss, but you will add it to. There will be an addition to it because.Of your scale have reached that trophy point.

I never meant removing the original base game skill system.I meant adding to it to make it like a true skill of the player even if his team lost.

My original idea was the one who reached that trophy point will gain a skill.Points even if their team lost.I am not very insistent on the part when you make fighters and gain skill from making them like a crazy.

[noble wigeon]

these is what i mean and we lost

[wispy gyro]

Does not mean you played well or deserve to win grip up and learn to win

[noble wigeon]

Well this is why I am requesting a new thing that is the true a new designer skill mechanism not the same as the one I asked it for about in the previous messages but I'm requesting a new one by the developers those who have a skill in playing the strategy game than those who does not and live of the hard work of their team or maybe someone intentionally wanted the team to lose

[noble wigeon]

And you can't say that it is hard to reach this point in a losing team

[stray solstice]

The issue here is that you're almost treating OS as a ranking system.
It is not.

Os is a blancing system, that tries to blance the game based mainly off of skill.
Awards are not a consistantly accurate indacator of skill. And would bias certain skills over others, leading to unbalanced teams.

Having award you up through certain leagues is a different discussion. But OS is not and should not be consisted a ranking system

[noble wigeon]

Oh now I understand something new thank you very much but if you don't mind me asking as there is a plan for the future to modify it and I am thankful to know it is not indicator of the skill or rank but lobby sometimes a prevent those with low os from playing kinda like a we don't want a trouble in our team

[stray solstice]

Mentors cannot see internal discussions. (Rippsy could answer this one)
So I can't really say if there is an official plan to implement a ranked system (I'm guessing there may be one after matchmaking)

Prevent those with low os from playing kind of like a we don't want a trouble in our team
The grammar is a little different for me to dicier.
But you can add a min os to a lobby, with !minratinglevel <os>
It will also show the os restrictions in the lobby title

[noble wigeon]

Ok thank you