Award for killing spawns

[lamefun]

I didn't say the changes were impossible or hard to roll out. Gameplay revisions take time and often take multiple tries over a long period of time to get set straight with a lot of playtesting to get set straight. In fact, without professional game designers it's hard to see any of the changes suggested taking hold first time around.

"It will take multiple tries unless done by a professional, so it's best to never try." It's a good logic if applied to, for example, surgery. Not so good if an unsuccessful attempt can be easily reverted.

I understand that many successful games work best in the 1v1 format, but an equal number of team-based games work best with a team and are broken in 1v1.

They are successful. They have enough players to regularly have games with big enough teams for the game to be fun. Unvanquished does not.

Its selfish to assume that they will change their game just because any one person may want a playable 1v1 system.

I agree, if the game already had regular 10+ rounds, it would probably be selfish, but it doesn't.

In the alpha 43 release illwieckz said "Every one is working hard and future releases will ship exciting changes! The most important change for every one: next month we will do some gameplay experiments, so, do not miss the community games each sunday at 20:00 UTC!"

IMO this should've been done much earlier.

To be honest, I don't even see why we are still talking about this...

Because the game is 3 years into development and still has no players?

[Comet_]

I didn't say the changes were impossible or hard to roll out. Gameplay revisions take time and often take multiple tries over a long period of time to get set straight with a lot of playtesting to get set straight. In fact, without professional game designers it's hard to see any of the changes suggested taking hold first time around.

"It will take multiple tries unless done by a professional, so it's best to never try." It's a good logic if applied to, for example, surgery. Not so good if an unsuccessful attempt can be easily reverted.

Again, you misunderstand my words. A better analogy would be like fixing a computer. It's easier with a professional and less prone to mistakes. Not that mistakes can't be made; but rather that you need to understand that patience and careful deliberation is most likely going to be the key to "fixing" the game. The thing that I'm trying to emphasize in that statement is that one quick change is not going to fix the game. Games don't work like that and there is always going to be someone that is displeased with the current state of the game. The best way is to move forward intelligently and make sure that the player base can agree on changes because the players will be the ones who will be affected the most.

I understand that many successful games work best in the 1v1 format, but an equal number of team-based games work best with a team and are broken in 1v1.

They are successful. They have enough players to regularly have games with big enough teams for the game to be fun. Unvanquished does not.

I guess that's a fair point. It's hard to gauge how many people will be playing Unvanquished once it's Beta version releases. I do have guarantees from multiple people that they want to be very active in Unvanquished when it does release its Beta.

On a side note about your suggestions of one vs one game modes, I have very much been thinking about a deathmatch gamemode. Check out my crudely drawn image of an example map layout (spawns are at H and A and the ramps are rounded for no wall crawl or perhaps there is a 1 way door similar to Tremship after leaving spawn):

http://imgur.com/qpC7I0Q

Something like a reverse "Gun Game" that they have in other videogames. Every alien starts off as Tyrant and every human as a Luci. You slowly work your way down the tier list by getting kills with each weapon/alien until you are eventually a human with a rifle and a dretch. I think it would be fun given the already existing systems in the game. The games would be short, there would be no camping, and there is no punishment for death. Perhaps it would be good even for 1v1.

In the alpha 43 release illwieckz said "Every one is working hard and future releases will ship exciting changes! The most important change for every one: next month we will do some gameplay experiments, so, do not miss the community games each sunday at 20:00 UTC!"

IMO this should've been done much earlier.

Agreed. I've been ready for this day for a long time lol

[GORE]

I noticed another guy mentioned the same thing over a year ago here, but nothing has changed.
I mean its huge to even kill a turret in the swarm of bullets, you desperately go all in for that. What's the point to even try penetrate the base when you get no points for it and end up being a dretch?

Every time this happens I ragequit, the game could last over 1h when it should end in less than 30min. Can someone tell me how many more alpha releases until this have been resolved?

[lamefun]

Super-true.

[Viech]

As topic. Can someone explain why no reward? It makes no sense, if it is the most important building in the game and you manage to kill one and get no reward.

To give a precise answer to a precise question, if you're killing enemy spawns then you're already winning the game, given that there only is a sane number of well protected enemy spawns on the map (which there will be, in particular, when they yield your team credits on destruction).

Getting more abstract, it's true that it would be nice to have a sufficient income in both momentum and credits if the enemy manages to turtle for whatever reason (whether they want to because it's too good for their economy compared to attacking or whether they have to because they lost map control). The momentum part is already solved by awarding momentum for base expansion and building in general. The credit part is what's lacking. As Ishq outlined, there are problems associated with awarding credits for structure kills. What this also doesn't solve is the situation where the enemy camp is so strong that killing structures is hardly possible without already having a certain economic advantage. Despite those two reasons I'm not strictly against rewarding structure kills with credits. However, I prefer to look for different approaches as our current credit system has nice asymptotic properties as outlined here.

[GORE]

I noticed another guy mentioned the same thing over a year ago here, but nothing has changed.
I mean its huge to even kill a turret in the swarm of bullets, you desperately go all in for that. What's the point to even try penetrate the base when you get no points for it and end up being a dretch?

Every time this happens I ragequit, the game could last over 1h when it should end in less than 30min. Can someone tell me how many more alpha releases until this have been resolved?

It's been a while since I picked up this game. It baffles me that this hasn't changed. It delays the outcome of the game so much unnecessarily. To dive in to a swarm of turrets to destroy a teleport in the last sec before dying isnt winning the game. You end up with no points and a dretch.

[Ishq]

I agree to some extent. We definitely want to reward killing bases, especially critical structures like drills/leeches/spawns/OM/RC, but we also don't want to penalize teams for building forwards either. Perhaps the best way to do this, and something I've been meaning to do for a while now is to scale rewards (momentum and monetary) for killing structures with the distance to the main buildable. ie, forwards give less money/momentum, while structures close to the OM/RC will net much more. What do you think?

[illwieckz]

It would mean forward bases are more disposable, it can encourage to build them in either way (territory capture is less risky), but in another way by making the territory disposable, it does not encourage to defend it a lot, so in long term it probably discourage the capture despite the short term first impression. In fact, the game is already heavily centralized because of the single point of failure which are RC and OM, I'm not sure we need to increase the centralization more, it's probably strong enough.

[GORE]

So what alien unit is good vs mass turrets?
Do I even want to approach them and try to possible kill spawn that are behind them?
If I fail, then the damaged buildings gets repaired and when I approach second time its all the same plus now opponent is prepared.
If I succeed. I gained zero points and humans can easy build another one.

GAME IS FUN! Well done.