Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Ideas to help newcomers/people joining a server mid-game
Ok, since a good lot of you can't tell the difference between "Hey, how should pointsfix be improved so that people who are against it can play it and enjoy it" and "HURF DURF POINTSFIX MANDATORY", I decided to remake this topic here... and because CarrierII will moderate the FUCK out of this topic. So to reiterate, post your ideas here as to how pointsfix can be improved, money wise. I will confess, it's a bit difficult to gain money early game or when you join a server mid-game (especially when your ref is dead). I'm thinking the idea of a higher universal credit trickle would be a decent idea, as stated before. This would make it generally better for everyone. Another idea that I had was to make infantry that can damage tanks get more points (and therefore money) than usual. This would include C4, grenadiers, etc. Therefore, early game harvester raids actually would give a good boost. Besides, if you can deal good damage to a tank as an infantry (excluding ramjet vs art and etc), you kinda deserve some additional points and cash. This would also bring rocket soldier officers a bit more into the mix, rather than being practically useless units as they were before. And once more, post ideas here, not bitch about pointsfix.
Re: Ideas to help newcomers/people joining a server mid-game
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 14:46 Ok, since a good lot of you can't tell the difference between "Hey, how should pointsfix be improved so that people who are against it can play it and enjoy it" and "HURF DURF POINTSFIX MANDATORY", I decided to remake this topic here... and because CarrierII will moderate the FUCK out of this topic. So to reiterate, post your ideas here as to how pointsfix can be improved, money wise. I will confess, it's a bit difficult to gain money early game or when you join a server mid-game (especially when your ref is dead). I'm thinking the idea of a higher universal credit trickle would be a decent idea, as stated before. This would make it generally better for everyone. Another idea that I had was to make infantry that can damage tanks get more points (and therefore money) than usual. This would include C4, grenadiers, etc. Therefore, early game harvester raids actually would give a good boost. Besides, if you can deal good damage to a tank as an infantry (excluding ramjet vs art and etc), you kinda deserve some additional points and cash. This would also bring rocket soldier officers a bit more into the mix, rather than being practically useless units as they were before. And once more, post ideas here, not bitch about pointsfix. I don't think it needs fixing. If you join a game with 5 minutes left and your ref is dead, you don't deserve to have any credits. That said, I wouldn't be against some kind of built-in donate command, especially if official ladder settings are at 0 starting credits.
Moderator's point: Yes, I will be moderating this under the following rules: 1) Any posts mentioning the fucking pointsfix without justification or relevance to the actual purpose of the topic will be removed. 2) Anyone who tries to drag this into ZOMG TT DICTATORS ZOMG or any other form of inane rubbish will be subject to warnings and bans. Me: How about changing the Points:Credits ratio for certain things... I'm still of the opinion fixing tanks isn't rewarded enough.
CarrierII wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 14:51 How about changing the Points:Credits ratio for certain things... I'm still of the opinion fixing tanks isn't rewarded enough. I'd be against that. As for not being rewarded enough, isn't it enough that the tank is being kept alive? APB doesn't give points for anything but unit/vech destruction and building damage/destruction, and they seem to be alright.
My point is there is no incentive to do it, if one is playing for ladder, under any points system, or even any ladder system (Spoony's planned new ladder (Pre-empt against flaming here, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT) penalises all of the losing team the same number of points). If I repair tanks all game, I help my team win, yes? (Let's assume that tank repair is a vital part of any map strategy, I think that's reasonable) I get 1/2, maybe 1/3 of the points the tank drivers get. Should my team win, I get <= 1/2 of the ladder they get, despite the fact I enabled their success. Should my team lose, under the current system, I lose more, for contributing! Under Spoony's proposed system, at least losing is fair... What incentive is there for competitive players to repair often? None. Why should they then? They won't, game theory states you should go for the most possible points, because that's best under any points/ladder system, yet tank repairers esp do not get this reward. The result? No one repairs as often as is needed, that causes worse playing experience. Try a larger organised game, they're awesome.
CarrierII wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:01 My point is there is no incentive to do it, if one is playing for ladder, under any points system, or even any ladder system (Spoony's planned new ladder (Pre-empt against flaming here, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT) penalises all of the losing team the same number of points). If I repair tanks all game, I help my team win, yes? (Let's assume that tank repair is a vital part of any map strategy, I think that's reasonable) I get 1/2, maybe 1/3 of the points the tank drivers get. Should my team win, I get <= 1/2 of the ladder they get, despite the fact I enabled their success. Should my team lose, under the current system, I lose more, for contributing! Under Spoony's proposed system, at least losing is fair... What incentive is there for competitive players to repair often? None. Why should they then? They won't, game theory states you should go for the most possible points, because that's best under any points/ladder system, yet tank repairers esp do not get this reward. The result? No one repairs as often as is needed, that causes worse playing experience. Try a larger organised game, they're awesome. I happen to like most of Spoony's little projects and ideas, so you don't need to worry about me flaming them. And I would argue there is incentive. If the tank repairer doesn't repair the tanks, the team loses and he loses ladder points, as opposed to if they do repair tanks and succeed. If they lose anyway, one can assume it's because the other team was better and they deserved to lose.
Yes, but players who play for ladder (and I imagine there are many) will not be interested in filling that role because they reward they get is too small, and therefore won't fill that role, leading to a vacancy in that role...
Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 16:49 I don't think it needs fixing. If you join a game with 5 minutes left and your ref is dead, you don't deserve to have any credits. I disagree, people shouldn't be punished for something they weren't even there for. Well, not to such an extensive degree anyway. Can't count the amount of times someone joins in, ref is dead, and they leave, thus fucking the team into the ground MORE. For one, a FAQ or tutorial of sorts should be made for players to understand some of the deeper mechanics of Renegade, and to be able to pull through in dire situations. If players know they can still make some money and even possibly win under extreme circumstances, it'd make the game a hell of a lot more fun. For two, some new methods of gaining credits with cheap units would be fairly helpful. It wouldn't really be better than if you had more expensive units, but should be an option rather than "well, this building's gone, we lose". Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 16:49 That said, I wouldn't be against some kind of built-in donate command, especially if official ladder settings are at 0 starting credits. That'd be great actually, but there should be a "pure mode" option then that disables this and some other things. Again, a FAQ that lists the various Renegade functions (Including how to donate if a built in donate command is put in) would be necessary. Quote: I'd be against that. As for not being rewarded enough, isn't it enough that the tank is being kept alive? APB doesn't give points for anything but unit/vech destruction and building damage/destruction, and they seem to be alright. APB has vastly different gameplay mechanics than Renegade, so yeah.
CarrierII wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:12 Yes, but players who play for ladder (and I imagine there are many) will not be interested in filling that role because they reward they get is too small, and therefore won't fill that role, leading to a vacancy in that role... If nobody is interested, then teamwork is obviously not very high and that team deserves to lose. If one team repairs their tanks and the other does not, the team that does repair will win, and will be rewarded for it. I don't see anything wrong with the situation. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:19 I disagree, people shouldn't be punished for something they weren't even there for. Well, not to such an extensive degree anyway. Can't count the amount of times someone joins in, ref is dead, and they leave, thus fucking the team into the ground MORE. They aren't being punished. They simply aren't being rewarded just because they weren't there for something. And I don't see how that fucks the team into the ground even more, since after the player leaves they would be in the exact same situation that they were in before he joined. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:19 For one, a FAQ or tutorial of sorts should be made for players to understand some of the deeper mechanics of Renegade, and to be able to pull through in dire situations. If players know they can still make some money and even possibly win under extreme circumstances, it'd make the game a hell of a lot more fun. I'd support making a better Multiplayer Practice, if that would be a good enough tutorial. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:19 For two, some new methods of gaining credits with cheap units would be fairly helpful. It wouldn't really be better than if you had more expensive units, but should be an option rather than "well, this building's gone, we lose". This I disagree with. Building destruction should not be softened at all. We already have silly stupid tactics where people let buildings die intentionally on some maps. If anything, the penalty for a destroyed building needs to be increased (Perhaps stopping the PTs in that building from working, or something). GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:19 That'd be great actually, but there should be a "pure mode" option then that disables this and some other things. I'm suggesting the donate be incorporated into "pure" Renegade. I'm hard-pressed to think of one major server that doesn't offer it anyway. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:19 APB has vastly different gameplay mechanics than Renegade, so yeah. I wouldn't say the differences are so vast as to invalidate my point.
Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27 If nobody is interested, then teamwork is obviously not very high and that team deserves to lose. If one team repairs their tanks and the other does not, the team that does repair will win, and will be rewarded for it. I don't see anything wrong with the situation. True, but teamwork itself should be rewarded all around, not just to one guy. It'd be like if the Medic no longer got points in TF2. Almost NO ONE would play the Medic. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27 They aren't being punished. They simply aren't being rewarded just because they weren't there for something. And I don't see how that fucks the team into the ground even more, since after the player leaves they would be in the exact same situation that they were in before he joined. They actually are, as they're now locked out from a large majority of things just because they weren't there. While I agree they shouldn't be rewarded, I'm not suggesting this either. The options that could help if you lack a building would be there even if you did have the buildings. And perhaps "fucking the team into the ground even more" isn't the best choice of words, but it certainly doesn't help them when they desperately need it. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27 I'd support making a better Multiplayer Practice, if that would be a good enough tutorial. That'd be nice, but I'd like to see Multiplayer Practice eventually turn into a skirmish mode (pretty sure they planned this anyway). But a tutorial would be nice, too. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27 This I disagree with. Building destruction should not be softened at all. We already have silly stupid tactics where people let buildings die intentionally on some maps. If anything, the penalty for a destroyed building needs to be increased (Perhaps stopping the PTs in that building from working, or something). It shouldn't be softened ALOT, yeah, but the sheer fact that you lose major credit income, vehicles, or barracks should be enough of a drawback. No reason why you can't atleast have somewhat of a fighting chance. Also, said tactics are usually only applicable to un-pointsfix'd servers. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27 I'm suggesting the donate be incorporated into "pure" Renegade. I'm hard-pressed to think of one major server that doesn't offer it anyway. I know that, but I mean a new option that would be called "Pure mode" which would disallow various functions (Starting credits above 0, donate, etc). Either that, or just a simple option to disable specific things (donate ability if it's put in, etc). Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27 I wouldn't say the differences are so vast as to invalidate my point. Actually the differences are quite vast. For one, APB doesn't have alot of engineers running around repairing vehicles last I checked. Infact, engineers/technicians were almost exclusively for repairing buildings. So, vehicle combat was usually strictly vehicles. Which is cool in its own right, but that logic doesn't much carry over to Renegade, nor should it. There's alot more differences between APB and Renegade, but just tell Chronojam APB is too much like Renegade and you'll get a 10 page paragraph listing the differences (with a couple dedicated to calling you a douche).
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:44 True, but teamwork itself should be rewarded all around, not just to one guy. It'd be like if the Medic no longer got points in TF2. Almost NO ONE would play the Medic. I haven't played TF2 to any large degree, but in a srs bizns game if one team used medics and the other did not, then the team that used medics would hypothetically win, regardless of points involved. If they didn't, then the medic isn't that useful and it's something you can get away with. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:44 They actually are, as they're now locked out from a large majority of things just because they weren't there. While I agree they shouldn't be rewarded, I'm not suggesting this either. The options that could help if you lack a building would be there even if you did have the buildings. If an airstrip goes down, a new player who has just joined the game would not be able to buy vechs. If a barracks blows up, new GDI players won't have access to higher-level infantry. Why should the refinery be any different? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:44 And perhaps "fucking the team into the ground even more" isn't the best choice of words, but it certainly doesn't help them when they desperately need it. I would argue that they're getting exactly what they deserve. They lost a building. This entails some sort of punishment. Yes, it's harder to win. That's the price of losing a building. That's what gives incentive for the opposing team to kill buildings. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:44 It shouldn't be softened ALOT, yeah, but the sheer fact that you lose major credit income, vehicles, or barracks should be enough of a drawback. No reason why you can't atleast have somewhat of a fighting chance. You do have a fighting chance. Grab an engineer and repair that last medium tank or arty alive on your team. Sneak up behind those snipers and shotgun them to death. Repair a building that's under attack until you can afford a Gunner or something. All this is possible in the current confines of your standard pointfix'd server. What else do you want? GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:44 Actually the differences are quite vast. For one, APB doesn't have alot of engineers running around repairing vehicles last I checked. Infact, engineers/technicians were almost exclusively for repairing buildings. So, vehicle combat was usually strictly vehicles. Which is cool in its own right, but that logic doesn't much carry over to Renegade, nor should it. They do feature mechanics which fill a similar role. In fact, they're a ton stronger than any engineer or technician in Renegade could ever hope to be. GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 15:44 There's alot more differences between APB and Renegade, but just tell Chronojam APB is too much like Renegade and you'll get a 10 page paragraph listing the differences (with a couple dedicated to calling you a douche). I don't argue that there are gameplay difference, but they aren't so vast as to invalidate similarities between them. In both games you buy a tank and go blow up your opponent's shit while preventing him from doing the same to you. I would say Renegade has a lot more in common with APB than it does with TF2, yet that analogy still stands, right?
The overall idea of giving a possibility to multiple the number of points (and hence credits) gained per damage point done is IMO the only real way to go. All proportions stay the same, there'll just be more money injected into the game. If you put a multiplier of e.g. 1.2, it will give the exact same effect as when you made all chars and vehicles 1.2 time cheaper. This also makes it that the "winning" team also has more credits but they won't really be able to use them as they'll already all have a decent char / vehicle. So it'll give an advantage to the loosing team, new joiners, ... However, you need to DO something other than scratch your nuts to actually gain this money: you need to do a minimum amount of damage. So it incites people to do damage and it rewards them more for doing so . It also makes it easy for the ladder: just divide the points gained by 1.2 and you'll have an idea of how many points could have been gained without this. This isn't 100 % correct of course, as you would have gained even less as you'd probably have had less damage in the game without the fix (as people would have preserved their investments better, maybe there would have been less tanks, ...), so an extra penalty could be awarded (say 20 % or smth like that).
So you suggest to increase cash-flow? Mostly to give the losing team quicker access to anti tank characters to break a (deserved) siege? I think the most expensive units are the big chars, right? And in my opinion, no vehicles stand a chance against a teams of rave's + saks (PIC+Havocs). Of course, the characters are not as offensive as vehicles but I really see that changing the cashflow will turn a well vehicle-infantry balanced game into a inf/snipe mode
Wiener wrote on Wed, 07 October 2009 09:44 So you suggest to increase cash-flow? Mostly to give the losing team quicker access to anti tank characters to break a (deserved) siege? I think the most expensive units are the big chars, right? And in my opinion, no vehicles stand a chance against a teams of rave's + saks (PIC+Havocs). Of course, the characters are not as offensive as vehicles but I really see that changing the cashflow will turn a well vehicle-infantry balanced game into a inf/snipe mode I suggest that servers who want to have a bigger cash flow for their players have the possibility to do so, as an alternative for "points bug", indeed. The problem you point out is the same with "points bug". It are green vehicles that give away tons of points, hence credits. So points bug already favours the use of infantry over the use of tanks bigtime. I'd actually say it favours it much more than gaining more credits/points per damage point done as the tanks will also gain more credits/points in the latter case. Quite obviously servers that aim for more competitive gaming wouldn't adapt anything and just run the game purely with pointfix.
CarrierII wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:01 My point is there is no incentive to do it, if one is playing for ladder, under any points system, or even any ladder system (Spoony's planned new ladder (Pre-empt against flaming here, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT) penalises all of the losing team the same number of points). If I repair tanks all game, I help my team win, yes? (Let's assume that tank repair is a vital part of any map strategy, I think that's reasonable) I get 1/2, maybe 1/3 of the points the tank drivers get. Should my team win, I get <= 1/2 of the ladder they get, despite the fact I enabled their success. Should my team lose, under the current system, I lose more, for contributing! Under Spoony's proposed system, at least losing is fair... What incentive is there for competitive players to repair often? None. Why should they then? They won't, game theory states you should go for the most possible points, because that's best under any points/ladder system, yet tank repairers esp do not get this reward. The result? No one repairs as often as is needed, that causes worse playing experience. Try a larger organised game, they're awesome. 1. why repair friendly tanks? because it's a great help to your team winning the game. 2. why help your team win the game? because it's the only way to get ladder. 3. under my ideas to revamp the ladder, individual score will only mean anything if your team wins. 4. why get less points repairing tanks than the tanks are getting? because they're the real powerhouses, you're their backup.
Spoony wrote on Wed, 07 October 2009 14:18 CarrierII wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:01 My point is there is no incentive to do it, if one is playing for ladder, under any points system, or even any ladder system (Spoony's planned new ladder (Pre-empt against flaming here, DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT) penalises all of the losing team the same number of points). If I repair tanks all game, I help my team win, yes? (Let's assume that tank repair is a vital part of any map strategy, I think that's reasonable) I get 1/2, maybe 1/3 of the points the tank drivers get. Should my team win, I get <= 1/2 of the ladder they get, despite the fact I enabled their success. Should my team lose, under the current system, I lose more, for contributing! Under Spoony's proposed system, at least losing is fair... What incentive is there for competitive players to repair often? None. Why should they then? They won't, game theory states you should go for the most possible points, because that's best under any points/ladder system, yet tank repairers esp do not get this reward. The result? No one repairs as often as is needed, that causes worse playing experience. Try a larger organised game, they're awesome. 1. why repair friendly tanks? because it's a great help to your team winning the game. 2. why help your team win the game? because it's the only way to get ladder. 3. under my ideas to revamp the ladder, individual score will only mean anything if your team wins. 4. why get less points repairing tanks than the tanks are getting? because they're the real powerhouses, you're their backup. You all missed the point, there's no motivation to do it. A player playing for ladder tries to maximise their points --> tank. Unless you can talk everyone into taking turns with driving the tank vs repairing the tank, only one mindset is going to get you high on the ladder...
CarrierII wrote on Wed, 07 October 2009 10:48 You all missed the point, there's no motivation to do it. Apart from actually winning the game, which you'll need to do to get ladder at all?
That's too much of a step, the idea of "I have to earn LESS points than other people (on my team), in order for my team to WIN, so I get ANY points" is a little counter-intuitive, esp' when combined with the obvious "I must maximise my points". That's the problem.
CarrierII wrote on Wed, 07 October 2009 17:10 That's too much of a step, the idea of "I have to earn LESS points than other people (on my team), in order for my team to WIN, so I get ANY points" is a little counter-intuitive, esp' when combined with the obvious "I must maximise my points". That's the problem. frankly, if you're thinking in terms of your own individual score instead of your team's results (and it's obvious you are), then it's easy to see why you think there's no motivation to do it.
I know what to do, it's an odd thing for a new player to do.
Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:56 I haven't played TF2 to any large degree, but in a srs bizns game if one team used medics and the other did not, then the team that used medics would hypothetically win, regardless of points involved. If they didn't, then the medic isn't that useful and it's something you can get away with. Naturally, that's a given. But why not reward the medics? There's no real reason to not reward them... if anything there's reason TO reward them. Yes, they can still win regardless of points, but people are less inclined to be engineers in Renegade because of the whole points/money deal, atleast in public servers. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:56 If an airstrip goes down, a new player who has just joined the game would not be able to buy vechs. If a barracks blows up, new GDI players won't have access to higher-level infantry. Why should the refinery be any different? Because if the Refinery goes down, you're locked off from nearly EVERYTHING without arduous amounts of point/money whoring. Credits affect more than just one thing. Barracks and war factory are self contained if they're lost. If the refinery is lost, you're pretty badly fucked unless you've got a nice teamate who will donate to you. But for one, that doesn't even happen that much anyway, and two, I'd like to see a more natural way of getting money than simply donating if your ref is dead. Again, the other team can still do this too, so it's not suddenly shifting the focus to the losing team. They're just not AS badly superassfucked as they would be. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:56 I would argue that they're getting exactly what they deserve. They lost a building. This entails some sort of punishment. Yes, it's harder to win. That's the price of losing a building. That's what gives incentive for the opposing team to kill buildings. And again, they do still lose a good bit. I'm fine with every building being lost except the refinery (as in, they all usually punish you a fair amount except the ref), because it's difficult to get decent money if you lose the refinery... which makes it very difficult to get anything else. I don't mind it being difficult, just not as difficult as it is now. Simply increasing the ability to get money with free units (Engineers come to mind the most) would remedy this problem. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:56 You do have a fighting chance. Grab an engineer and repair that last medium tank or arty alive on your team. Sneak up behind those snipers and shotgun them to death. Repair a building that's under attack until you can afford a Gunner or something. All this is possible in the current confines of your standard pointfix'd server. What else do you want? Yes, it's possible, but it takes way too damn long to get decent money. By then that last tank might be dead, that sniper would have probably caught on to you and fuck you up any time you try it again, and repairing that last building barely gives you decent credits. Once more, a good lot of this would be remedied by simply allowing repairs to increase the amount of money/points you can gain than usual. Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:56 They do feature mechanics which fill a similar role. In fact, they're a ton stronger than any engineer or technician in Renegade could ever hope to be. True, forgot about those, but tank fights still end up being very different than Renegade's. APB is more of a siege game, wheras Renegade ends up being a field game. So having large field based standoffs that last for awhile hardly happen to the degree they do in Renegade. Plus, mechanics moreso balance the fact that Allies' tanks are weaker than Soviets, giving them a bit of a fighting chance (assuming you're stuck in an area where there's not much room to move). Dover wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 17:56 I don't argue that there are gameplay difference, but they aren't so vast as to invalidate similarities between them. In both games you buy a tank and go blow up your opponent's shit while preventing him from doing the same to you. I would say Renegade has a lot more in common with APB than it does with TF2, yet that analogy still stands, right? While that may be true, the way engineers work are still vastly different. Especially since both teams get them. Also, the TF2 analogy was put out because of the simple idea that support roles should get credit where credit is due. That's moreso what I was getting at. Essentially, engineers are what Medics are in TF2. Engineers in APB, again, serve a different function. Yes, support roles are there, but again, I rarely see THAT many people filling the support role. I could go into an argument saying that APB should reward supporting roles much more, but that's for another time I guess. Plus, I haven't played APB that in depth in awhile, so who knows, your analogy could stand some more ground than I think. Also, Spoony (Sorry to not respond to each and every post individually, but this does sum up most of what I'd say anyways), while I do understand you should still use engineers/techs/hotwires regardless of personal score, why NOT allow them to get more points and money than they currently do? I can't see it really somehow destroying Renegade's balance. Sure, gameplay might change a little, but for the most part, it'll still remain the same. Just that engineers will be a bit higher up on the ladder than some douche who thinks he can sneak into the enemy base as a lone SBH.
@carrier If you would hypothetically reward the repairer as much as the tank doing the damage, then noone playing for ladder would get a tank any longer because repairing someone else's tank is a better way to get points: you're safely behind the dudes tank, you don't need any aiming / dodging skill and you can rely on the enemy's skill to get points (the more damage the enemy does, the more points you get). Actually, it wouldn't matter any longer who's the best tank driver as the tank doing most damage won't get a points advantage for his team any longer, due to the repairers.
Goztow wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 01:55 @carrier If you would hypothetically reward the repairer as much as the tank doing the damage, then noone playing for ladder would get a tank any longer because repairing someone else's tank is a better way to get points: you're safely behind the dudes tank, you don't need any aiming / dodging skill and you can rely on the enemy's skill to get points (the more damage the enemy does, the more points you get). Actually, it wouldn't matter any longer who's the best tank driver as the tank doing most damage won't get a points advantage for his team any longer, due to the repairers. Actually, snipers would have a field day then, because even if you're behind a tank, a good sniper can still nab you. So some dodging and general common sense IS required. Plus, if there's no tanks, how are they hiding behind someone's tank . Also, if the enemy dishes out enough damage, they'd still be able to kill the tank despite an engineer or two. You'd need 3 or more to successfully out damage a good tank player. Maybe two, depends on what's being used to repair and the vehicles. And if that's the case, that's 4 people out in the field. In which case, if the enemy is remotely intelligent, they'd still be able to destroy these engineer campers. And lastly, they still will, if they can kill the tank, and if their team is smart enough to pick off the engineers rather than just mindlessly rushing in with tanks. If anything, this would boost teamwork more than if engineers were bad at making a bit more points/credits. However, if points is REALLY an issue (which I doubt it would be), maybe a way to make it so they only get more money, but not points. That'd still give people an incentive to be an engineer without disrupting any balance (which I still personally don't think it would if they got points too).
No, it would encourage people to repair for 2 minutes, then leave the tank to die... Whenever I take the role of repairer, I usually end up with 1.000'ish credits, just because I stick to it until we're pushed back. A hottie doesn't gain much credits but doesn't spend any either. All it needs to do is stay alive. May I also note that pure repairers are overrated, especially in smaller games. In e.g. 4v4 it's better to have 4 tanks with hotties / techies in them than to have 3 tanks + 1 dedicated repairer (if money is not an issue, of course). The reason is simple: more firepower will avoid the enemy killing you (4 shells = dead enemy art / med, even if it's repaired) and if you loose a vehicle, the dude who lost it can still repair others. Just to show that IMO the general balance between characters and vehicles, that is in place and that relates to the damage done, is good.
additional, you lose sight of the main target when making repairing (defensive gameplay) more attractive: "its destroy the enemy base" and not "keep your base alive"
I wouldn't bring the points up by that much, but I think they're too low, I can't quote stats on it, but I'd say you get something like 1 point every two seconds w/ a hotwire... there's no reward in being a hotwire (You have to dance and fix some guy's tank, not fun) and now the game doesn't even give you credits or points or any form of recognition for your support role. I do agree that tanks are of course essential, but the issue is the teamplay move (To balance techs with tanks) is not obvious, as anyone thinking "I need to score highly, because that's an indication I'm doing well" (Note: (NO OFFTOPIC) that's a pro-pointsfix arguement, because getting insance quantities of points for doing no damage encourages silly play (sniping the harvester)) Someone who is new-ish to the game will play to maximise points, and try things out to see what makes the most points, thus they won't try repairing for very long, leading them to the wrong conclusion that it isn't a worthwile thing...
y'know, i think a new player is probably gonna think more about solving the immediate situation than be looking too much at his individual score... anyway, the idea that you don't get hardly any points for fixing tanks is just plain silly. you get half what the enemy gets for attacking them, and if you're actually keeping the tank alive, that's gonna add up. it's certainly not gonna be much less than you'd get if, say, you were a gunner shooting the enemy tank, or a deadeye shooting the enemy art.
I always seem to earn too little for repairing, a lot less than I would doing either of those things you mentioned. What this really boils down to is the fact tank support is hard to come by, and an attempt at "killing two birds w/ one stone".
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 11:42 killing two birds w/ one stone". I resent that
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 11:42 I always seem to earn too little for repairing, a lot less than I would doing either of those things you mentioned. Usually if I tech vehicles, then I am repairing the whole game. While I do get credits for it, coupled with the credits per second and the harv dumps, there is always plenty enough to buy another vehicle or switch chars should I choose to go on the offensive. As far as points...lol...if you decide to tech then it's a given that you won't be say, getting an MVP. edit: so recs by the way are a good addition to the game imho. To me a !rec is a local motivator in-game while the ladder is a distant motivator.
Goztow wrote on Wed, 07 October 2009 03:28 The overall idea of giving a possibility to multiple the number of points (and hence credits) gained per damage point done is IMO the only real way to go. All proportions stay the same, there'll just be more money injected into the game. If you put a multiplier of e.g. 1.2, it will give the exact same effect as when you made all chars and vehicles 1.2 time cheaper. This also makes it that the "winning" team also has more credits but they won't really be able to use them as they'll already all have a decent char / vehicle. So it'll give an advantage to the loosing team, new joiners, ... However, you need to DO something other than scratch your nuts to actually gain this money: you need to do a minimum amount of damage. So it incites people to do damage and it rewards them more for doing so . It also makes it easy for the ladder: just divide the points gained by 1.2 and you'll have an idea of how many points could have been gained without this. This isn't 100 % correct of course, as you would have gained even less as you'd probably have had less damage in the game without the fix (as people would have preserved their investments better, maybe there would have been less tanks, ...), so an extra penalty could be awarded (say 20 % or smth like that). You should copy my post in Just kidding, ^^ is basically exactly what I said. 2.0 ratio is too much, 1.0 is no different. I really think it's between 1.2 to 1.5. Testing would be needed Also if it was a setting. Say between 1.0 and 1.5 had 0 penalty, above that would result in a penalty, or not be possible through the TT patch.
giving more points to those repairing would be creating a new point bug in the pointmod what's the point of that? that's punny as hell
CarrierII wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 17:42 I always seem to earn too little for repairing, a lot less than I would doing either of those things you mentioned. ok, let's suppose your teammates have meds and they're fighting some arties. (and let's suppose we're talking about a pointsfix server) you can hotwire the meds or you can shoot the arties with a deadeye. if you hotwire the meds, you can get slightly less than half the points one arty is getting by attacking them. (arty gets 5 points per shot on a med, so you'll get something like 2 per second) if instead you get a deadeye and help shoot the arties, you'll get about the same... about 2 per shot. on a pointsfix server, this doesn't seem to be a problem (at least, what you're saying is a problem). it is on a pointsbug server because the deadeye gets way more points per shot (for no reason) whereas the hotwire's points are still 2 per second.
Spoony wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 15:45 CarrierII wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 17:42 I always seem to earn too little for repairing, a lot less than I would doing either of those things you mentioned. ok, let's suppose your teammates have meds and they're fighting some arties. (and let's suppose we're talking about a pointsfix server) you can hotwire the meds or you can shoot the arties with a deadeye. if you hotwire the meds, you can get slightly less than half the points one arty is getting by attacking them. (arty gets 5 points per shot on a med, so you'll get something like 2 per second) if instead you get a deadeye and help shoot the arties, you'll get about the same... about 2 per shot. on a pointsfix server, this doesn't seem to be a problem (at least, what you're saying is a problem). it is on a pointsbug server because the deadeye gets way more points per shot (for no reason) whereas the hotwire's points are still 2 per second. Not to mention that a deadeye costs 150% as much as a hotwire.
Increase points for repairing tanks and you'd make damaging a neutral tank, getting a team-mate to hop in, then repairing it a potentially awesome option on maps with defenses.
i have considered that, but there are already plenty of exploits like that which don't even require tanks... pointsfix or no pointsfix