BEACONs - low player games

[Snow.]

Beacons should be disabled on low player games, even on <10 players people use them, my personal opinion their is not much skill needed to use and defend them in low player games. I suggest a minimum playercount of 30 player to enable beacons.

Beacons are part of the game, and it is ok to use them, but on some games/matches it is overhelming and much annoying! I have already thought about improving the sitatuation, the only option I could think of is to limit the number of beacons to use, e.g. to 10 (or dynamic adapted to the number of players or by time).

A few patches ago, beacons were fully disabled (I dont know why), I personally had much more fun in this time, because people had to try harder with more strategy to destroy enemys base.

Whats your opinion about beacons ingame?

Edited May 3, 2020 by Snow

[isupreme]

Could this be decided by allowing players to vote on it?

[Mystic~]

Sometimes it can be extremely difficult to destroy a building being repaired from inside and has good defences such as lots of mines, these games need beacons to flush hot wires outside, the scenario I came across was no emp grenades due to missing bar/hon. I really dislike beacon spam tho, and I don't think there should be no such thing as a 'fake beacon' during a game. It's either planted on or around an enemy building or it should be disallowed, but it's a point many devs so far seem to not get. I believe there should be a max cap of beacons that can go down at any one time, like no more than 3-4. It's stupid to see 7-8 beacons all on the ped for example.

[roweboat]

So a few months back this was implimented in a patch... except the code got messed up and beacons were disabled completely.

 

To be honest... in most cases I think it made the game better.

[Cheesemonk]

Personally, I love beacons. They are the only effective way to force hotties/techs outside of a building and provide an extra strategy in the toolbox of ways to assault the enemy base.

One of my favorite experiences in this game is successfully sneaking across the map as an SBH carrying a nuke and climbing up the WF ramp to place it right on the edge of the roof. Equally as enjoyable is sneaking across the map as a spy and placing the beacon in the back of a base defended by an AGT/OB. I feel the skill required to successfully sneak, money invested simply to make the attempt, and loud beeping/countdown are a fair trade off for the power to instantly destroy a building.

This being said, in low player games they are MUCH harder to defend against. If you can win the 1v1 or 1v2 battle against the defenders it wins the game with a single fight. I liked the server-specific rule that used to be common of disallowing them when the player count was under 24 (CT servers i think?). As a personal rule I don't buy beacons in games under 20 players unless the other team uses them first.

I would support banning them in games with too few players (20 would be my number, but you can pick whatever number you like). It also seems reasonable to limit the number that could be placed simultaneously, although more then 2 at the same time happens so rarely in my games it hardly seems worth mentioning.

[MARIUSZ]

I confirm, using a lighthouse with a small number of players is pointless, it should be from 20 players.

[Atomsk]

It bothers me that it is a game mechanic that is currently available, but the unwritten rule about when or when not to use them, is entirely up to everyone's interpretation and grounds for flaming. I don't mind being called out on something, but not for shit I didn't do. 

[crazfulla]

Beacons are a critical part of the game and can be the only way to break a stalemate if your team won't vote on a commander. I don't think it is fair to disable them completely, regardless of player count. But perhaps some kind of rational limitation could be implimented to prevent abuse (including fake beacon spam in high pop matches).

Suggestion 1: Have a cooldown from the start of a match, say 30 minutes, prior to which beacons cannot be purchased.

This would force people to use traditional means to destroy buildings early on, ie vehicle and infantry rushes. Then if it becomes a stalemate later on, beacons can be used to help break it. It would mitigate the number of beacons used in smaller matches since low pop ones seldom last longer than this.

Suggestion 2: Add a cooldown timer per player so they can only buy one beacon every 10 minutes or so after that.

This would contribute heavily to reducing beacon spam regardless of player count. It would directly address the issue of people buying beacons when they arguably shouldn't, rather than punishing people for being in a geographical location where they play during the small hours.

Edited May 13, 2020 by crazfulla

[roweboat]

I think another suggestion made at the time was to increase the countdown time based on player count

[crazfulla]

10 hours ago, roweboat said:

I think another suggestion made at the time was to increase the countdown time based on player count

Yeah especially since compared to old ren, not being able to disarm a beacon in the last 10 seconds SUCKS! I loved the thrill of disarming one right as it was about to hit lol.

Edited May 13, 2020 by crazfulla

[roweboat]

yeah you see the nuke right in front of your face, but then poof, gone =D

[isupreme]

Sorry to repeat myself but....

Could this be decided by simply allowing players to vote on it?

[CL Smooth]

On 5/10/2020 at 8:54 PM, crazfulla said:

Suggestion 1: Have a cooldown from the start of a match, say 30 minutes, prior to which beacons cannot be purchased.

Suggestion 2: Add a cooldown timer per player so they can only buy one beacon every 10 minutes or so after that.

Or both?  Maybe recruits could start with a 30 minute cooldown for beacons, but it gets reduced with veterancy?

[MammothMKII]

I remember before that beacons were not allowed in games with less then 24 players, or was that a server specific mutator? 

[HIHIHI]

It was a server specific mutator at first. The capability for that has been added to the base game, though, as a server-configurable option. Some servers employ it, and some don't.

[Fffreak9999]

By default, the required values for players needed to activate beacon purchasing is 1.

This means that the first player to join unlocks beacons straight away.

[roweboat]

So the solution to no beacons is no players 🤔😜😏

[Atomsk]

On 5/13/2020 at 6:49 PM, isupreme said:

Sorry to repeat myself but....

Could this be decided by simply allowing players to vote on it?

Do you mean, voting on it and promising not to, even though beacons are available to buy, or to implement it as a system so that the beacon only becomes available to buy if the majority votes yes? 

[isupreme]

ah... yes.. 

I mean that in the game the mechanic would be enabled so that we players could vote to allow or not the beacon option.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify!

Edited May 16, 2020 by isupreme

[limsup]

6 hours ago, BioZ said:

The same with Commander power. What should a small team do, when on Field 3 Dozas with buf attacks the bar?

I think this is a valid concern. I have seen FPI address this issue in the past, would love to see the base game provide some sort of a solution to this...

[roweboat]

12 hours ago, BioZ said:

The same with Commander power. What should a small team do, when on Field 3 Dozas with buf attacks the bar?

 

 

I agree. an option to limit which commander powers can be used based on team sizes would be great.

 

Honestly sometimes I just want commander so I can control harvester.

 

Or if only 1 team has a commander power, limit which powers can be used.

[Madkill40]

Depends how badly we want new players to introduce themselves to their own base and its defence first before running out into the complete unknown...

[Atomsk]

On 5/17/2020 at 12:46 AM, isupreme said:

ah... yes.. 

I mean that in the game the mechanic would be enabled so that we players could vote to allow or not the beacon option.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify!

Thanks for clarifying! I agree, although it would be nice to have a default minimum required amount of players for beacons. I think I've seen 20 and 24 but with the changes in servers it's hard to keep track  Seems like a good amount. It would be pretty nice to be able to override that minimum with a vote. 

Otherwise, the root of the issue of early-day, low-population games isn't resolved: people getting toxic with each other, because someone placed a beacon on a server that allows it.

In either case, whatever the server configuration allows: if you can buy a beacon, you should be able to use it.

[SinisterPoem]

On 5/13/2020 at 6:49 PM, isupreme said:

Sorry to repeat myself but....

Could this be decided by simply allowing players to vote on it?

So you want every warmup on every game start with a nuke enabling vote? Or do you want people to have to proclaim "HEY EVERYBODY I'LL BE IN YOUR BASE WITH A NUKE IN WHAT, 3 MINUTES, CAN YOU GUYS LET ME BUY IT? btw don't start camping please, thank you"?

 

Anyway, nukes and commander powers are a cancer to low pop servers. MARIUSZ is a serial offender with it when he's tryharding (read: playing renx). Taking commander, 1000 nooby shooty and a beacon and laying the alarm clock of doom by bar/hon, then cruising  and smoking it forces you to be a sydney to shoot down the sucker cruise (if you can see it beyond the smoke), 1000 nooby shooty to smoke the smug bastard, and a hottie to have enough time to find the beacon in smoke and disarm it, usually all 3 at the same time because low pop games somehow tend to have very few people in base at any given time.

He IS an asshole for doing stuff like this, but at the same time perfectly showcases the problem with superweapons and commander powers on low pop.

 

Besides, low pop games are usually 80% new people checking the game out, and I honestly doubt that disabling them would detract from their enjoyment of the game (quite contrary, imho). Because enjoyment is what games are all about, right?

Edited June 25, 2020 by SinisterPoem

[DoctorB0NG]

On the official servers, beacons are disabled until 24 players are in the match.

[dtdesign]

15 hours ago, SinisterPoem said:

Anyway, nukes and commander powers are a cancer to low pop servers. MARIUSZ is a serial offender with it when he's tryharding (read: playing renx).

You are correct. Every. Single. Word.

People like MARIUSZ are the reason I do not play in lowplayer games, because some tryhard will abuse every little bit out of the game for the sake of winning. 10vs10 on Field with Nod being base locked? MARIUSZ will happily roll in with 5 buffed mammoths, you simply cannot defend against that if your team is made out of a bunch of randoms. These things become unkillable.

[R315r4z0r]

Player count shouldn't define the ability to use a beacon. Game time should. Or at least some combination of the two.

Beacons are stalemate breakers. Stalemates can happen even in low-player games. In fact, it's more likely to happen in low-player games (and personally, low-player games are my preferred way of playing this game). I actually played a match a few months ago that was literally just 2vs2, and it just went on for way too long. Having a beacon would have been better than wasting an hour in a 2v2 infantry only match where each team's bases only had infantry structures left.

Beacon usage should be defined based off of how long a match has been going on for as well as some other factors.
Mainly: Matches should enable beacon usage after 40 minutes of play. Regardless of how many players are in the game. You can debate the exact time, but I think 40 minutes is fair.
Optionally: This timer should decrease based off of the number of structures your team loses. So, if your team only has one building left, it may potentially be the better idea to enable beacons for that team as a means of potentially retaliating.

Edited July 13, 2020 by R315r4z0r