Super Weapon (Nuke / Ion) Poll!! =D [for matches <24 players]

[roweboat]

Check out the poll options, just a few ideas.

 

Mainly sparked by the idea of limiting the power of super weapons on smaller matches. Discuss and vote in the poll!! Ready, set go!

Edited November 6, 2019 by roweboat

[Guest once upon the time]

Third vote was no possibility to vote nothing

[roweboat]

Sometimes I have good ideas, sometimes bad. =D

[Agent]

So as mentioned on Discord, I really think we need to look at alternative options other than just gating game mechanics based on player count. My preferred solution is to adjust detonation time, and possibly disarm time. There's also some non-direct bits that need to be tried out, like moving the bot regulation logic from Jupiter and into the base game, as well as filtering level availability based on player count.

Gating item access based on player count is the worst possible solution to this issue. I think something needs to be done, but gating isn't the solution here. Voted no on all 3 points.

[Agent]

To clarify, the baseline proposal for detonation time adjustment is:

MaxBeaconTime = 120.0;
MinBeaconTime = 60.0;
MaxBeaconTimePlayerCount = 24.0;
MinBeaconTimePlayerCount = 8.0;

PlayerCountRange = MaxBeaconTimePlayerCount - MinBeaconTimePlayercount;
BeaconTimeRange = MaxBeaconTime - MineBeaconTime;
TimePerPlayer = BeaconTimeRange / PlayerCountRange;
BeaconPlayerCount = Clamp(PlayerCount, MinBeaconTimePlayercount, MaxBeaconTimePlayerCount);

BeaconTime = (MaxBeaconTime + MinBeaconTimePlayerCount * TimePerPlayer) - BeaconPlayerCount * TimePerPlayer;

So a linear drop in beacon detonation time from 120s to the current 60s. Those numbers can certainly be adjusted though. An entire extra minute should be enough as a starting point though to allow players to more effectively respond to beacons and their associated infiltrator.

 

Given that there aren't actual options on this poll, it's just a straight yes/no vote, I feel like the poll should be closed and replaced with one that provides actual options to choose from.

[Guest once upon the time]

I think Rowe could make the poll again, but he could take as a third variant agents.
then it would definitely equal opportunities, no matter how it ends.

I did not know in the actual what i should choose, but i know what i would choose when the 3rd variant is changed.

[roweboat]

Okay I see what youre getting at. I'll update the poll momentarily

[Agent]

Ideally we should try to get more than 1 or 2 options for people to pick from in general. I still think more discussion is needed to see if there's other possible solutions here.

[roweboat]

I've added 3 now, will update as more viable options put forward.

[Guest once upon the time]

I vote for no nukes / ions with low player cont, because its not only killing a map .New ppl will  leave the game and this is not healthy for a Server or for the game self. .

[roweboat]

Granted if a new player has no idea how the beacon concept works, of course they will leave frustrated because all their buildings dying.

[Fffreak9999]

Another alternative could be to alter the damage dealt by a beacon based on the number of players. Drop the amount to 2.5k or 3k or something like that when at 16 players or under. Not outright lethal but gives anywhere from 25-50% health damage immediately.

[Mystic~]

Quote

Another alternative could be to alter the damage dealt by a beacon based on the number of players... Not outright lethal but gives anywhere from 25-50% health damage immediately.

As for early game options, my favourite option is to have a beacon weapon limited to 50% - so it would cause immediate permanent damage, but be required to use 2 to destroy any given building and then this returns to normal after 12 people have populated the server and maybe even also raise the cost for a period.

I think beacons only being placed within the limits of the enemy base will prevent beacon spam/abuse and noise pollution from beeps and Eva/Cabal announcements; and potentially limiting concurrent beacons placed to 3-4 maximum at any one time prevents an entire team beacon-ing the last building on something like Island scenario; if anything the PED should become the main objective.

Presently, in a small game, it's often much easier to buy a beacon and defend it with either a vehicle, higher class or even the rest of the team than it is to infiltrate or sneak a build kill so long as the team is at least mining properly and defending and more so once credits snowball with a silo capture or achieving the upper-hand with harvesters. I never enjoy progressing on a map where a building has gone down quickly on a low populated server, and whilst I would wait for the next game, I can agree with whoever commented that new players are going to get bored or frustrated and leave.

Aside: From a different thread, but related; can we have a super weapon option that can be called onto the battlefield without a beacon or booby-trap crate please? Something that could easily get a mammoth tank smoking or destroyed, something more powerful than just an airstrike - it seems a logical progression and not sure why it's not been considered yet considering this is how the strategy game also worked.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Mystic~

[yosh56]

This poll letting people pick multiple options is kind of weird

 

[roweboat]

Interesting Idea @Fffreak9999, I'll add it!

[Guest once upon the time]

Actually Nuke / Ions are completely superfluous with few players, as already mentioned by me in the previous post.
Why?
There is always the possibility to blow up buildings with C4 to destroy the counterfeit base. This is a bit more difficult than with Ions / Nukes.

Freaks suggestion I find too complicated and very difficult to negotiate for the players.
Nuke / Ion should be more expensive with less players and does less damage, but immediately harm 25-50%.
For me, 2 people (depending on the damage output) destroy a building with Ions.
If the number of players increases, the system will change again and possibly at a different level again, too confusing (especially those who have recently started or may start).

As written here you can also destroy a base with few players with C4, is heavier but it is enough and requires more teamwork.
The idea with no Ions / Nukes with few players is not new, but they have always found good.
Many players who join (with few players on a map) very often leave the game quickly when a building is already destroyed. Some people leave the map / game when an ion / nuke destroys a building and this often leads to imbalances of the teams.Can also happen with C4.
That's why no Ions / Nukes with few players.
Serverside settings would be an option, but in my opinion might also confuse some.

[roweboat]

12 hours ago, yosh56 said:

This poll letting people pick multiple options is kind of weird

 

Yes I thought so at first too. But maybe the solution isn't any single idea but a combination somehow ... Maybe.

[roweboat]

I agree @SilentKnight the solution should be something that is simple for the player in game to understand.

 

[TomUjain]

I understand the devs concern with 'turning off' a game feature and can see why the timer mechanic was put in (to get the best of both worlds)

we can agree that nukes / ions have room for improvement - and we can also agree with the unfair advantage nod has when planting said beacons due to the SBHs on low player games.

Scaling the time to disarm from the default 30 sec to as high as 120 sec, depending on player count would (in my view) stop this problem dead in its tracks; messing around with the price, or adding a cooldown or limit would not really stop the issue at hand. FPI did disable beacons if player levels were too low; granted this wasn't a graceful approch but it worked.

Regarding 'nuke spam' (a different issue) I highly doubt a timer would put a stop to it, slow it down perhaps, but not stop it. I say this because maps like snow; using beacons is a key tactic to clearing the area of tanks and inf, so timer or not players will continue to nuke spam I fear on full maps (64 players) we wouldn't even notice any difference as their is so many people (64 timers) the spam can still continue -- granted it will stop the rare 'troll' player who plants one after another over and over but thats about all it would do.

 

I have always felt that the current time to disable a beacon is too low, considering the power they have (to wipe out an entire building at full hp) combined with the cruise missile and SBH defending, this problem is amplified in small games. I wouldn't see any harm in increasing the default time of beacons but we would have to be very careful doing so. Paying 1k credits is a very high risk (unless you are a SBH) I do believe nukes should be used as part of a tactic and solo nuking isn't something we should be encouraging.

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by TomUjain

[Mystic~]

Longer disarm times for smaller player numbers sounds sensible, but makes no sense when there's larger numbers of people and 5 Hotwires ready to jump on a beacon. 

I've proposed a perfectly legitimate solution to ending beacon spam period, so I'd welcome any comments on this, this can be found in my above comment, the the essence is only allow placement of beacon's in enemy bases and not randomly on the field, can't be that hard to do as we've already created area management for preventing beacons in own bases.

Using a super weapon on the field without a beacon purely for stopping a swarm of tanks or infantry I've also proposed as something the Commander could use with something like 3000 cp cost. It means they can still be used on the field, just not as a deployed as beacon spams.

Solo nuking is a tactic, especially if the rest of their team is elsewhere or it puts pressure on them to make a mistake, often fails, but it can work. I agree somewhat that it's very easy for Nod on some maps to place beacon's, but this needs to be considered against GDI's overwhelming heavy armour and Nod's need for stealth tactics.

[Handepsilon]

This was actually a poll regarding to beacon usage on (usually very) small player numbers. Admittedly the title was a bit vague, but this has nothing to do with beacon usage when the server is in a good number

Quote

Longer disarm times for smaller player numbers sounds sensible, but makes no sense when there's larger numbers of people and 5 Hotwires ready to jump on a beacon. 

The proposition was longer disarm time ONLY on smaller player number (like 6v6). There's no plan on lengthening the disarm time when the team can actually afford to dish 5 hotwires into the beacon

[roweboat]

Maybe I'm bad at making polls. My bad. D=

 

Regardless if anything can come from the discussion here, great. 

[Guest once upon the time]

I'm not sure how the correct term for this is, but you could make as the Airstrike a lock that is only an ion / nuke possible. But really only refers to normal number of players and not very few players. But I'm very sure that some / many would have something against it.

Few players should not be able to ion / nuke.

PS: If someone has already written in this direction, just forget my post.

[Mystic~]

I was playing on Oasis yesterday and it was a bit frustrating not being able to purchase a beacon to end the game because we had less than 12 players on the server, whilst the enemy team camped their barracks with mines and out repaired our tanks for quite a while. As we had no Hon we had to wait for someone to get a crate Sydney to even be able to take down the mines, a beacon would have flushed some of them out for sure.

[crazfulla]

Limiting ions based on player count is fine in smaller numbers but 24 players is still quite a big game. In the original Renegade I don't recall people having a probvlem with nukes/ions. Only a minority thought pedistal beacons were cheap, but that was always a server option which could be disabled.

What I don't like about beacons however is that they have a segment where they are invulnerable, IE cannot be disarmed (the last 10 seconds or so). I think a better solution that would keep most people happy would be to remove that feature, making beacons easier to disarm. Also consider increasing the benefit from disarming them. More XP or something to make people think twice about using them. I remember in original renegade SBH would spam beacons but 99% of the time they were disarmed, achieving nothing other than gifting GDI points.

[vandal33]

Yeah,last time I played Renegade, beacon placements on low player games are nothing frowned upon (even mods do that). The real annoyance which causes players to become toxic is when you do it on a pedestal (low player games only). 

If superweapons are overpowered in low player count, instead of outright banning it, how about we make it visible on enemy radar if there's not many people on the server.

[Guest once upon the time]

2 hours ago, vandal33 said:

Yeah,last time I played Renegade, beacon placements on low player games are nothing frowned upon (even mods do that).

Should that mean now that it does not harm the game because the moderators do too? Peculiar interpretation for me, but if you think so. Everyone has their own opinion about it.

 

[RypeL]

So there seems to be a clear winner.

[RypeL]

We will add this option again next patch. Server owners can configure the playerlimit needed for nukes to activate and additionally the PT Nuke/Beacon icons will now display how many players are needed before it activates, so that players can be aware.

If a better solution comes up and finds enough fans we can reevaluate.

[Marinealver]

Last week I was playing on a server and when I said we needed beacons someone threatened to mute me on the server and was threatening bans to those that suggest them being enabled again.

Thing is beacons are needed in Renegade X to keep the game progressing. Without beacons the repair lock on the MCT makes buildings neigh invulnerable. Beacons don't necessarily destroy buildings as they get disarmed but they do force engineers away from the MCT just by threat of it being there. When they are taken out of the game the balance and pacing of the game is ruined.

[Guest once upon the time]

Ions / Nukes are not taken out of the game, but only should not be possible when very few players are on a server.

Furthermore, the solution is very good because the serverowner himself can set the number of players as little.
Can look like this for example the server A says :under 8 players no ion. Server B does not say no under 6, etc.
What sounds good is that players can see from when Ions / Nukes are possible.
At the moment a very good solution.

[Madkill40]

Regardless of the outcome of the poll this should not be mandatory for every server to follow, make it a server-side option. 

It doesn't matter if every server enables it, the principle of allowing a choice is important.

[Fffreak9999]

The setting for it is a server side variable, and can be set to whatever the server owner wants