A Path Beyond Anti-stalemate feature

[Pushwall]

So we already know that Seamist is set up to end the game if the objective building dies. Lunar Paradox has the same thing going on when the WF dies (though I believe it's not been seen yet) because the map also contains a helipad that is invisible and therefore unkillable (which had to be done to make aircraft purchasable without making room for a "real" helipad).

I now realise that I could combine this feature with the "trigger an event X number of times" logic used in FoI and Siege to make it so that if a team loses ALL their production buildings (Barracks, War Factory, Helipad, Naval/Sub, and arguably the Missile Silo) on any map (except Seamist/Hostile Waters where one specific building is an objective) then the game ends after a short time (say 3 minutes), giving the win to whichever team killed the production buildings (or in the case of mutually assured destruction, whichever team did it first).

How does everyone feel about this? I'd say that while it is possible for situations like that to lead to surprisingly tense kapitan/truck wars like the one on KOTG last Sunday, in almost all cases having no production buildings on one side just leads to a long wait for death, and having no production on EITHER side means both teams usually can't make any headway, and in both cases, leads to people quitting because they're bored of waiting for the next match. And it's certainly much easier than trying to figure out how to make the PP/Dome/Ref/CY extremely vital to a situation where you can only buy sarges and caps. And, you know, means we never have to deal with any Ransiks.

[ChopBam]

"!vote cyclemap" should become an option after the production buildings are destroyed.

[Pushwall]

Problem is !vote hinges on more people on the losing team who can read chat, know how to type in it, and not be perma-repair-trolls like some people seem to be, than on the winning team.

 And since it's a bot command, it hinges on someone being able to update it to do what you want instead of being active all the time.

[ChopBam]

I think they can be pressured to vote more often than not.

!vote surrender would probably be more useful as it would actually grant the deserved win to the other side rather than logging a tie.

The fact nobody seems able to work on bot scripting doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It's just a statement on current perceived feasibility.

[ChopBam]

Ending the game after production buildings are destroyed will make those production buildings even more of a target. It also makes my tech center idea less potent.

Just thinking out loud.

[Jeod]

!vote surrender is your best fit. I recall some instance where a smaller number of players needed to vote to initiate a surrender, and then the other team had to accept it. Might have been a different game.

[AZ-Stalker]

I like it when my team makes a valiant last stand with nothing to loose to defend one useless structure and actually pulls it off to win on points. If you're thinking about removing that options then I'd be against it personally because it would remove that fun factor to make way for faster map rotation.

But a console command on the other hand, well, if not well regulated could turn into what Renegade X is facing - teams giving up too easily after suffering a rush wound early game.

It's not a simple matter, even if it seems to be at first. Up to you more experienced fellas. I'm just dropping my 2 personal cents.

[SarahNautili]

I'd say both the people who enjoy that sort of drawn out losing battle defense AND the number of times the losing team can actually do that and it not be extremely frustrating for the winning team are both in the minority. In other words, doo et pushwall. 

[Raap]

Chat commands or anything that requires player input on that level isn't very intuitive and should be avoided. 

I suggested Pushwall's idea many months ago already, and I believe steps like these are essential to maintain a steady map turnover rate with minimal "boring downtime". I'd even say limit the 3 minute grace period to 60 seconds, which is enough time to destroy a building if such an attack was already in progress. One thing to avoid here though is having a script sequence take out an enemy base via destruction logic, this would then always default the victory to the team that destroyed all production buildings regardless of the other team doing the same within that 1-3 minute period.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Raap

[NodGuy]

1 hour ago, AZ-Stalker said:

I like it when my team makes a valiant last stand with nothing to loose to defend one useless structure and actually pulls it off to win on points. If you're thinking about removing that options then I'd be against it personally because it would remove that fun factor to make way for faster map rotation.

But a console command on the other hand, well, if not well regulated could turn into what Renegade X is facing - teams giving up too easily after suffering a rush wound early game.

It's not a simple matter, even if it seems to be at first. Up to you more experienced fellas. I'm just dropping my 2 personal cents.

I agree. Some of the best games I've had have been when we done one final rush to victory while having less active buildings than the enemy. 

[Bayonetta]

I'd say some form of Script should take effect where if both or one team are left with only one building that doesn't do anything such as a Refinery or CY. Then After 5 Mins the game ends with the highest scored Team winning. There's been too many games where literally it's been basic infantry vs a full base and it's just kill-whoring for 30 minutes until one team rage quits.

Then again it all depends on the level of Tech on a map and what basic Tech Teams get without having access to a War Factory or Barracks. Teams should be able to win with basic tech?

Or put more maps with a CY on it. So that if that is the only building left then a countdown begins where that team automatically loses if they don't destroy at least one of the opposing teams buildings within a set time-limit.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Bayonetta

[JigglyJie]

Whilst I generally agree with an anti-stalemate feature (and did vote yes) I also echo about what has been said regarding last stands and comebacks, they may be rare but they do happen and when they do it really is a great sense of achievement. Sort of like a pyrrhic victory, if you will.

[OWA]

You guys need reinforcement bays.

But in all seriousness it's good to see that this is being taken into consideration, as it's one of the fundamental flaws with this game currently. There potentially a number of solutions to this problem and I would agree with Raap surrounding the whole "requires chat" solution.

You could drop in vehicles for the losing team periodically (if they've lost their WF) via Chinook; that would stop the game from being as stalematey, but maybe the solution isn't to give the losing team things, but to debuff them so it's harder for them to defend a single building in the end.

We already know that we can make buildings take more damage when others have been put offline, so an alternative solution might be to make buildings take more damage when there are less of them left. So, for example, if a team has just a Barracks left, that Barracks will take twice the damage so that the game can end quicker.

It's food for thought at least.

[Pushwall]

Something I was considering letting the Radar Dome do to give it more presence was add a terminal that, if the WF is dead (but not if it doesn't exist i.e. Hostile/Seamist), can be used to buy a Medium/Heavy Tank for double the standard price once every so often (maybe a 2 minute timer), which would be airlifted in by a Chinook just like on Seamist. That's kind of like the reinforcement bay except not free - free vehicles kind of kill the point of the economy I'd say. But that only gives more presence for potential comebacks to one of the non-production buildings...

[Alstar]

I like @up idea. Having a thing like that would be really helpful.

Personally id be against main idea, because same as AZ-Stalker mentioned, i witnessed a lot of great last stands where defenders finally managed to win via points.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Alstar

[Killing_You]

I'm going to be a prude and say that it'd be better to have stuff drive in from off map rather than be airlifted in.

But in all seriousness, I agree and I disagree. While it's a cool idea, it would devalue the other structures unless we feel like they would just do things that would play support to the main objective, and then only have them on a map when they're needed there. For example, we would never see a Power Plant on a map unless there was a RADAR dome or powered defenses (AA, TC/GG). I *think* that's the case already, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I guess we'd also need perks for the Dome and CY beyond what they do already so that they're not just dead weight. Otherwise, ##vote yes

[Pushwall]

10 minutes ago, Killing You said:

I'm going to be a prude and say that it'd be better to have stuff drive in from off map rather than be airlifted in.

There are so many dome maps where this doesn't work due to map boundaries being water, cliffs, closed off, or too far away from the bases (Under, Bonsai, Coastal Influence, Siege, TTC as Sovs, Pipeline as Allies). Airlifting works everywhere except Under where some of the overhang may have to be removed to make the nook not clip through it.

[ChopBam]

4 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

Airlifting works everywhere except Under where some of the overhang may have to go to make the nook not clip through it.

We could probably make a custom cinematic for that map where it flies in low.

Might as well use an LST if we're going to do that though. 

[Pushwall]

10 minutes ago, ChopBam said:

We could probably make a custom cinematic for that map where it flies in low.

Maybe so. Or we could just not have that feature on Under; all the close quarters and tunnels mean that not only is radar on that map more useful than it usually is, but that and the easy LST backdoors mean the War Factory is way less important than it usually is.

10 minutes ago, ChopBam said:

Might as well use an LST if we're going to do that though. 

Where's it going to land for the Soviets? The entire Dome-side beach is blocked off to prevent V2 base-to-base, and the sub pen's beach is a very tight fit (which real LSTs may also be using for Allies to leave/Soviets to embark at the time) and vehicles have a hard time climbing it. Plus it's really far away from the dome that people are buying it from. Far easier to make the custom cinematic or cut out some of the overhang than carve out a bunch of extra beach room for the Soviets.

[NodGuy]

On that map, LSTs for Allies and airlift for Soviets?

[Killing_You]

I'm just being a prude because I think it looks better. But, of course, that's beside the main point.

[KevinLancaster]

4 hours ago, Pushwall said:

Something I was considering letting the Radar Dome do to give it more presence was add a terminal that, if the War Factory is dead (but not if it doesn't exist i.e. Hostile/Seamist), can be used to buy a Medium/Heavy Tank for double the standard price once every so often (maybe a 2 minute timer), which would be airlifted in by a Chinook just like on Seamist. That's kind of like the reinforcement bay except not free - free vehicles kind of kill the point of the economy I'd say. But that only gives more presence for potential comebacks to one of the non-production buildings...

Is there no way to un-destroy buildings to simulate buildings being rebuilt in RA with the change that they would have less health?

[Raap]

Cheesy/comedy way of getting vehicle reinforcements: Drop in Soviet vehicles by cargo plane without parachute but iron curtain invulnerability, and chronoshift Allied vehicles. For those odd bases where conventional means are impossible.

I still think some failsafe game ending mechanic is needed, one way or another. But that doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to "backup vehicle reinforcements", both serve two different purposes.

[Raptor29aa]

Back up, double priced, vehicles... I like it.

Although how does a losing team afford it? I mean the uber expensive tank would rarely be bought. (I mean how many enemy soldiers would have to die for just one tank?)

Either way I do like the idea, good luck for the losing team they will burn through their funds 2x as fast. 

-

since we are on the idea of reinforncements could the CY have a 3x as expensive engineer? (I was thinking for pipeline)

[Pushwall]

So just bringing this topic back for a bit. How about a "sudden death" trigger, which means that once a team loses all their production buildings, their buildings become unrepairable (or perhaps all their repair tools become useless - so any previously-bought engineers can wring out one wrench's worth of repair), so the game can end faster even if both teams are production-less? Would have to figure out some alternate purpose for the CY though since that's a non-production building and all it does is repair...

[Bayonetta]

That's too Harsh. Because you still have Access to decent infantry without Production buildings that are capable of destroying buildings and a Basic income through the Refinery/Silo.

 

Anyhow I'd rather see a feature where if it's a Stalemate i.e one building left per team, (Refinery or Dome etc) and it's been like that for 10 minutes without much happening in terms of building destruction. Then a Warning pops up every 2 minutes that the remaining building takes a progressive amount of extra damage x4 x8 x12 times the normal amount of damage it should.

 

 That way a bunch of rifle dudes can eventually destroy the building without too much effort. (Applies to both teams when they only have one building left) This gives then both teams an actual reason not to just camp in their bases.

Speaking of the CY.. Can it also provide a buff to engineers? while it's active? like Engineers repair faster while its active too? or something similar to that?

Edited July 15, 2017 by Bayonetta

[Jeod]

I like that idea. It's even better than what I was going to say! (A stalemate resolution button pops up somewhere in the map)

[gammae102]

I sort of agree with the "heroic last stand" sentiment, and I like to give teams the opportunity to make a comeback.  If something were to be done though, I think something script-based would be good.  I would like to see something where if X amount of base damage isn't done by either team in a certain amount of time it can trigger the map ending.  This forces the winning team to attack more aggressively and finish off the enemy base if they want to win by base destruction, and prevents them from just killwhoring.  It also allows the losing team to extend the game if they are able to make a counterattack and do some damage to the enemy base.  It might not help if everyone on the losing team is only repairing the last surviving structure, but no solution will be perfect, and that's what demo trucks are for.

[delta]

On 4/8/2017 at 11:30 AM, KevinLancaster said:

Is there no way to un-destroy buildings to simulate buildings being rebuilt in RA with the change that they would have less health?

How's this for a crazy idea? Allow all buildings to be rebuilt for a high cost. Then, for most maps replace the Ore Refinery and Ore Truck with 4-6 silos (basically like TS_Field and TS_Desert_River). Killing a silo would be easier than killing a refinery, and doing so would give your team an advantage, but it wouldn't be an all-or-nothing knockout blow.

Edited June 8, 2018 by delta

[Pushwall]

Rebuilding does not work well in a game where buildings provide functions that are not directly connected to the engine's basic building controller logic and thus have to be removed completely instead of merely "disabled" when the building is destroyed:

• Refinery non-vanilla dump zone
• Helipad/airfield/naval refill/repair zones
• Spy infiltration zones
• Radar Dome airdrop terminals
• Missile Silo flare terminals
• AI target spots on buildings

So basically, if you revive a refinery/missile silo, have fun having regaining none of those buildings' functionalities and all of their "must be destroyed to end the game"ness (you know, that thing killwhores love to abuse that we want to avoid). If you revive an airfield/naval factory, have fun not being able to refill or repair your units there. If you revive a radar dome hoping for airdrops, well, you should have revived your war factory instead because it's better and actually works when revived (maybe). If you are Soviet and revive any other building, praise the gods for your new and improved building that can't be infiltrated by spies. If you're playing with bots, praise the gods for your new and improved building that bots completely ignore cause they still think it's dead.

Base destruction victories are a rare enough occurrence already. You know, that thing you're supposed to be doing that just won't feel as great to do if someone can undo it after the fact, because it just wasn't easy enough to do it preemptively with the golden wrench? With the amount of people who go out of their way to keep repairing when they know they've lost, how will adding the option for people to rebuild a building that they have no chance of making a comeback with, not lead to more needless drawing out of ended games?

Removing main buildings means having to remake VIS data. I have done that enough times, fuck it, I am not doing it again unless a map requires it, so sweeping changes of building layouts for all maps for a questionable experiment will not happen unless someone comes up with a complete replacement for VIS or improves engine performance enough that we don't need VIS to prop it up.

The economy is simply not made with "4-6 silos" in mind. Remember that a silo basically provides 2/3rds as much income as a refinery and has the advantages of not being able to be sabotaged by spies, providing money instantly, and not relying on the protection of a unit which is pretty vulnerable on about half of the maps that have a refinery. So if you have 4-6 silos, the window for early infantry rushes simply does not exist - with 6 silos people can buy snipers after 13 seconds of game time, rangers after 21, V2s after 30, and by the time the infantry rush actually reaches the enemy base, anyone who bought a sniper/ranger will have made even more money during the wait so the economical setback of having done so to defend an infantry rush is a drop in the bucket. When it comes to vehicle play, Allies can start preparing their light rush 38 seconds into the game, and in the time it takes for the WF to be available for another light, everyone has another 96 credits - meaning that by the time a light rush of modest size actually reaches the Soviet base, the Soviets will already be pumping out Volkovs, Teslas, Mammoths, and laughter as they repel the light rush and then make their slow push to the Allied base before anyone can possibly hope to set up an adequate response (like large AT mine fields). Allies inevitably lose some buildings, but hey, at least they'll maybe have the money to rebuy some buildings... which will inevitably die again because they can't stop further rushes. Another possible scenario is that Allies just first thing buy rangers, give them to a thief, that thief takes another thief passenger, and everyone just fans out to all the silos, because several of those are practically guaranteed success when Soviets have no chance of mining all of their 6 silos that fast. And if any game ends up with Soviets needing to spend money to rebuild buildings, they're going to have a pretty bad time keeping up the mines on all of their silos. Pipeline is a pretty telling case study on what happens when a map has too much money: it's the most Soviet biased map in the game. It's doubtful that money is the only reason but it's safe to say that it's a pretty big one and that's why I dialed it back in this patch (we have yet to see if it works out though).

 

Something I was thinking of is increasing the HP pool of the War Factory and then either decreasing it for other buildings, or increasing the anti-building damage of most weapons to give the same effect as reducing most building HP.

The War Factory is without a doubt the most important building in the game (though in fringe cases like Under this is arguable) and there is no changing that without completely rewriting the game balance from scratch again while nerfing vehicles into the ground to the point that they wouldn't feel satisfying to use. In pre-Delta the Refinery used to be a close second since it was either the only source of income or the only viable source of income depending on whether the map had a silo or not - but even then there was still the issue that the Refinery basically can't function without the War Factory. And to this day that's still an issue, only slightly countered by the fact that on Radar Dome maps you can now buy OT airdrops which you have to collect resources with yourself. And now silo income actually matters and there's a third source of income: damaging and killing enemy units. But the War Factory is still as important as it's always been, and the Radar Dome isn't an adequate replacement (but then it probably shouldn't be anyway - and even if it was, that would require adding radar domes to more maps, and I've already said my piece on changing the presence of main buildings).

Since the War Factory shares the same HP total as every other main building (except the CY which is stronger) and is so much more important than everything else, if you end up in range to hit the War Factory, there are only 3 reasons you would ever attack a nearby building that isn't the War Factory:

1. The War Factory has a repair squad, it's outrepairing your attack team, and it can't be stopped
2. Another building happens to be severely damaged already
3. The War Factory is dead

Making it harder to bring down, while making other buildings easier to bring down, may give more encouragement to whittle down the enemy's options by taking out said easier targets first. Or you can be greedy and go straight for the WF before anything else, but if you fail to the 10% HP emergency golden wrench squad which would've been less likely if you'd attacked a weaker building (or nonexistent without the barracks), that's on you  And if this results in the War Factory often being the last or close to last building to fall, well, that should mean less stalemates, right?

Could possibly also raise the health of naval buildings while increasing the anti-building damage of naval units. Or instead of raising HP, separate the armour classes of naval buildings/non-naval buildings so that non-naval buildings can be made much weaker to naval weapons, so that LST rushes against naval buildings don't get any weaker. The whole point of the gunboat having worse anti-building damage than even the ranger, and destroyers/missile subs having only slightly stronger anti-building damage than main battle tanks, is to make it harder for a surprise gunboat/sub rush to instantly shut down the other team's naval options. With the damage the way it currently is, destroyers/missile subs don't really have any choice but to take out the naval factory first because attacking any other building requires getting close to land where land units can easily shut them down - if they took out non-naval buildings much faster then there'd be more of a risk/reward factor there. We may even see people on Hostile Waters actually attacking a building that isn't the ANY/ASP.

This even has its roots in the RTS, where the WF/naval have more health than every other building except the CY which they tie, and have light/heavy vehicle armour which are in most cases either equal or superior to the wood armour of other buildings.