Some good news about Team Matchmaking (TMM)
-
@FtXCommando Please for the love of FAF, include mapgen
-
and crazyrush!
-
Actually I'm strongly against gimmick maps in map pools because they break my personal principle of a player being able to spawn in with full grasp of game mechanics and being able to iron out a strategy as well as a guy that has 1000 games on the map. Obviously experience has a lot of value and it's impractical to really expect such players to be competitive against one another, but the point is that everything is equal when you enter the game and survey what your options are.
If I had a map that had one random crazyrush mex in the corner, then there's no real reason for you to realize that's a mechanic until it's possibly too late to adjust anything about your build to account for it. Same with the crazyrush map itself. You have no idea if these mexes are infinite, you have no idea if buildings block the script, you might have had no idea that the mexes even expand and blocked it with pgens at the start. It's BS as a player, like if every FAF map had 0 natural reclaim except this one map that is put into a pool every 3rd month.
Of course it is put in tournaments, and that's mostly because people for whatever reason enjoy playing it. I just rationalize it as people knowing the make exists beforehand so it's a fair game since they should be expected to enter the tournament with a knowledge base of the maps in it.
When it comes to map gen, it's the same criteria I had before. It needs to meet the same minimum baseline of quality that I require manual maps to reach.
-
-
@Morax said in Some good news about Team Matchmaking (TMM):
In the words of Mando,
"This is the way."
Is Princess Rhianne a joke to you?
Heretic.
-.- -
@FtXCommando Would some kind of partial full share be possible? Where a portion of the killed players units are killed instead of transferred? Something to make killing a player slightly more impactful, if possible.
-
Is it possible? Yes.
Is it coded? No.
-
Will map sizes be chosen at random or will there be more weight for a specific map sizes?
-
If I put more 20x20s in a pool, you're statistically more likely to get 20x20s as every map has equal weight.
-
@FtXCommando 10x10s are superior, 5x5s are good too, please fewer 20x20s (but 20x20s that play like 10x10s are fine)
-
@FunkOff Are 30x30s possible?
@FtXCommando Ok. I will get to work on that then.
-
Not directly. You can make 40x40 map and set the playable area to 30x30. This will accomplish the same effect.
-
@KaletheQuick Sheikah made a sim mod called Structure Share: you inherit a dead teammate's structures and engineers, but attacking units die. If this is what you're looking for, you can find it in the Mod Vault
-
@FunkOff Hmm, not too bad. Still loading all that data into memory and Vram, but still probably less slow than a 40x40.
@phong Not exactly, but it sounds like it would use a lot of the same hooks and functions.
I like full share, but I just feel like the enemy team should be 'hurt' a little more by losing a commander. And incentivize a little away from suicide com strats.
-
That mod was made as a first step to just let people play around with it. If there is interest it can save some units as a percentage of mass cost as well. Just some effort would need to be added to make sure it was predictable and doesnt come across as random as that would be bad since it would make it harder for skill to be a factor
-
Something to consider is that mobile units can die to ACU death nuke, but structures cannot. Therefore, in a structure-only share condition, structures (mex uprades and pgens) are a safer investment than mobile units: Mobile units can die to enemy or ally death nukes and will not transfer upon death. However structures of all kinds will not die in death nukes and will transfer upon death. Therefore, the structure-only full share incentivizes turtling.
I think instead of changing how share works, why not just make ACU death nukes do equal damage to units and structures with the mod, but defining the right damage number will be tricky to not incentivize comm bombing as a strategy.
-
Give players a prompt to pay a "small" mass fee equal to 20% of the mass worth of the remaining units and buildings of the deceased to receive their remaining assets. Prompt stays up for half a minute during which the units and buildings in question are transferred to a neutral civilian faction and receive diplomatic immunity and are protected by the Geneva Convention. Reclaim and capture attempts result in immediate termination of the Commander rank and excommunication from the game. Upon accepting the fee you start paying out the mass at a consistent rate reaching the finish after 2 minutes. Excessive money will accelerate the process but failure to collect the funds by 2 minutes time will start piling up the extra % on the fee to pay exponentially. Failure to end the payment after 10 minutes results in declaration of bankruptcy and immediate confiscation of the Commander unit. The first on the team to claim the base will be responsible for the payment but naturally they can seek assistance via various non-destructive means such as "Farmsletje, I need mass." and "This 1300 doesn't need his t1 pgens anymore anyway".
-
This post is deleted! -
Idea that would be probably too complicated to implement:
On death, units (including engineers) are instantly transferred to ally. This incentivizes using your ACU in risky combat and investing in units. Direct resource buildings (mex, pgen, para) are transfered as well.
All other buildings become neutral and must be recaptured (somewhat easy because of transferred engies). Since the neutral base does not have resources, its shield and radar turn off. In addition, PD turns of until recaptured by any player (otherwise they would suddenly start shooting former allies. Alternative: PD just gets killed).
Basically killing a player would open up their entire base to easy damage (because no shields) until the allies of the dead player manage to recapture the structures, but eco ist not lost. At the same time enemy players can steal the base by capturing themselves, creating an additional strategic option. The player that received stuff will have a slight buildpower bottleneck he neads to deal with unless he was stalling a lot before.
And this means that killing a defending/turtling player is more rewarding than killing a spamming or pure ECOing player.Imo the goal should be to hurt player deaths in lategame more than in early game, and should hurt people that are build power bottlenecked more than people who are eco bottlenecked.
-
If you look at highest-level 2v2s hosted by Nexus, it is rare to sacrifice an ACU. They try to keep their ACUs alive. And those players are competent at running 2+ bases. Lower-level players tend to be unable to do that.
Losing an ACU is a much bigger penalty to people global-rated 1300 and below, than it is to people rated 1700+. When low-rated players sacrifice their ACUs, in general they won't help their team, unless they take an enemy player with them.
The idea that full share causes more problems than it fixes, I think, is a false one. I haven't seen it.
Let's just launch TMM with full share and see what happens. If there is an epidemic of games ruined by full share, we can revisit that. Let's not try to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
?
