Tremulous Forum
General => Feedback => Topic started by: Markimedes on June 15, 2006, 07:58:45 pm
-
I don't know about everyone else, but in my experience 1 out of every 4-5 games ends in some .. lamer is a good word I suppose .. switching teams and deconstructing your reactor/overmind and spawns.
I like the simple ease of deconstructing a base, but the ease present in using it to the detriment of one's team is, to me, not worth the simplicity.
I would rather have deconstruction impossible than have it used in such a way. However, base moving is one of the main elements present in Tremulous, and I beleive it is a good one.
The solution I present is a combination of this concept and the simple voting system also present in Tremulous, which I also admire. (I don't know if it was there in q3 or what, but I think it is awesome, f1,f2, brilliant!)
Basically, I think that a team should have some bearing on whether or not a building should be deconstructed. At any given time, at least 2 members of the team, other than the deconstructor, must agree to the deconstruction before it can commence. Unless of course the team consists of less than 3 members, in which case the entire team must agree. (No votes will be subtracted from the yes votes-2 yes votes and one no vote equals one Yes vote)
It may sound clumsy, but I think simple terms would soon evolve to cope with the situation-
Deconstructor: base move?
Deconstructor has called a vote:Deconstruct building: Reactor? f1 yes f2 no.
People could then ask why he is moving it, and in many cases where the moving is justified (on certain levels it is almost mandatory), deconstruction will soon commence. On the other hand, a player just switching to your side from a losing team-
Lamer:base move?
Lamer has called a vote:Deconstruct building: Reactor? f1 yes f2 no.
(Ok his name probably wouldn't be Lamer, but moving right along...)
The obvious reaction would be a torrent of no votes, and the probable kick vote would commence. An obvious side effect would be the instant identification of lamers on your team, good facts to know.
Obvious problems that I would forsee with such a system...
Lamers would turn from deconstructing noobs to vote-denying noobs and would not allow base deconstruction.
In response I say-It is easier to survive with a base intact in a lame place than survive with no base at all.(And you could always kick the player.. who knows, he might be right)
What about if there are 3 lamers on yoru team? They could do the same thing couldn't they?
I say.. Won't happen often, and if you have three lamers on your team, you're screwed anyway...
I had other problems with my system but I forgot them, surely someone else will find them, and I can and will turn my thoughts around on a dime given persuasion.
I just feel that base deconstruction by aggressive parties is a real problem in Tremulous.
And that post was.. way way too long, I am sorry.
-
There are a few flaws in this
1. The delay factor - sometimes you need to move FAST. If you are waiting for a vote you have no chance
2. You could only have one building being deconned every 30 seconds (assuming thats what the vote timer is)
3. If another vote is running for some reason, you wouldnt be able to decon
4. Deconvote spamming would be rife, legitimate and non legitmate
5. Sometimes an experienced builder needs to decon something for a reason the rest of the team isnt aware of (e.g. running in and deconning a telenode left behind after a base move that aliens are camping)
There are other issues i'm sure as well, but I think thats enough to think about for now.
A better solution to this problem may be to have a build timer when you join the team - you are not able to decon anything for say 5 minutes after team switching. It could be set up so the restriction didnt apply in the first 5 minutes of the game, so early base moves could still be carried out.
This idea of course still isnt perfect - it could still slow you down in the middle of a tense conflict and cause problems.
Another idea perhaps would be to have a decon privilidge system, where a player would call a vote and his team would decide whether or not he is responsible enough to be allowed permission to decon buildings. But again this is wide open to griefing, as it would be prone to vote spamming and people automatically voting yes without considering who is applying for it.
-
1.There is a delay system already in place, which prevents this high speed moving anyway,. The vote would be over by the time the next building is ready to be deconstructed. Deconstruction would happen upon successful completion of the vote, the deconstructor would not even have to be present when it commences.
2.A system could easily be made where this type of voting would be separate from all other votes, even to possibly using f3 and f4 or some other key to vote.
3.Answered by above.
4.What I like about votes in this game is they are unobtrusive (in a corner of the screen kind of way), so spamming would have no effect whatsoever, adn the offending party could be kicked. People would only be annoyed by it if they choose to be.
5.Run in, press e, run out. It would be the same as normal decon from the point of view of the player, since you don't need a vote to press e-just a vote for the deconstruction to take effect.
I don't think a build timer to join the team is a good idea, since you need to move right at the beginning of the game if you are doing a move. Unless you mean just moving with the /team command, in which case i still don't agree, they could be legitimately moving to change the balance of the game, which would require immediate building and deconstruction rights to augment the team they switched to.
The decon priviledge system sounds like a good idea though, prolly better than mine.
-
Very bad idea.
When teams have only 1 or 2 builders there will be time when killers will be in the middle of a battle. The builder will get stuck till the killers get some spare time to vote. Do you think you will really be able to think about wheter a telenode (you dont even know which one and actually you dont care at all at the moment) should be moved when you re fighting a Tyrant ?
Moreover, if you move all the base, you will need to get the agreement for every building...2 telenodes, 1 armory, 1 medistation, 1 reactor, 4 turrets at least. That will be at least a 9 votes. This game would be more about voting than playing...
-
That's why only 2 other members need to give the deconstruction its blessing. Lesser buildings might not need to invoke a vote.
And how hard is it to press f4? People already incorporate so much into their routine, strafing, dodging etc. The occasional vote would not be much of a hardship to do in the occasional breather.
It's not like you have to vote, priorities such as a tyrant would of course come first If a tyrant is attacking nobdoy should be deconstructing anyway.
Again, the eventual goal is only to prevent malicious deconstruction, and I think the building priviledge system idea would solve the problem.
-
And how hard is it to press f4? People already incorporate so much into their routine, strafing, dodging etc. The occasional vote would not be much of a hardship to do in the occasional breather.
Yeah, but the F1 and F2 keys are away from the regular keys, causing a delay in reaction time.
It's not like you have to vote, priorities such as a tyrant would of course come first If a tyrant is attacking nobdoy should be deconstructing anyway.
The tyrants attacking may be the reason for moving certain buildings like armoury and nodes.
-
If it is an necessity, players willl find a way to make it happen. I woudl rather have that inconvenience than have the inconvenience of spawning in a base without a reactor, or simply not spawning at all, due to one lamer.
-
Relocation should only be considered in the first 1 or 2 minutes of each round, after aliens have access to marauders and dragoons, humans should only move armoury/dc/med as far as important buildings go. Moving reactor after getting s2 is just stupid against any decent alien team.
Your proposed system has several flaws as it was said before, and one of the biggest problems is that there are more sucky team players than crappy builders, most people don't give a damn about their base so they would vote no for relocation, not counting the time it takes for them to actually pass the vote in case they would want to move.
-
I just think the existing system is more flawed, there will always be people who want to abuse or destroy any given system, and I just think it is way too easy in the current system.
/team humans
*click construction kit*
*click ok*
e
/team aliens
Game over. I don't care if my system is used or something better or worse is used, as long as deconstruction is made less of an exploit. It is just.. very annoying to have every few games be a complete dud due to someone, anyone, who has the lame idea to destroy your base with your own equipment.
-
Sounds like you need to play on servers with proper admins.
-
I don't think a server should have to have admins to properly function, not even remotely.
-
I have to agree with Mark... something needs to be done about this.
I think the voting system is plausible, but some conditions should be set. For instance, make a vote required *only* for deconning reactor or armory, and *only* require a vote after the first 2 minutes of a game.
This would prevent unnecessary voting, prevent the worst of lamering, and allow for base moves. F3 and F4 seem like the best options to me.
-
This is a game, not a voting simulation.
Lame players shall be the ones to punish, not regular players. Also, what prevents the lamers from gaining 100 credits and start deconstructing the base with a painsaw ? On that point, if that horrible voting system is used, I'd do the same to workaround that crap !
-
Thing is, they don't deconstruct with a painsaw, they do it with a construction kit (note-construction, not deconstruction.. heh). This would prevent that. Someone pulling out a pain saw and sawing the reactor is a tad bit more noticeable and noisy then using a kit. In any case, it would slow laming down considerably.
I don't see it as punishing good not lame players, simply as rewarding the entire community by thwarting lame ones. Me, I would rather press f4 every so often than come back to a deconstructed base.
-
This whole voting system sounds absolutely terrible.
The proposed gain isn't worth all of the trouble or delay. Sometimes you need to move something damn quickly, and don't have a minute for everyone to make up their mind.
Besides, often, I don't think enough players would vote to make this worthwhile. The other day, I was on a noob inundated server, and we had a hard time kicking a base killer. Now, kicking a base killer is a simple thing. If I have to explain that I want to move something important, I don't want to sit there for 5 minutes begging my team for it until the structure gets sniped or destroyed.
Besides, I am sure the smarter lamers will figure out to just painsaw the base. I mean, 100 credits. You can get that damn quick.
And then where will we be? Stuck with a completely useless and frustrating system.
-
I have never, not once, seen a deconstructor kicked before the damage is done.
Which is why I think a solution should be found- If nothing comes of it, at least I can say I have tried. I don't care if you come up with your own solution, I just don't like losing illegitimately.
-
I remembering writing down the "unbuild-reactor vote" thing. It looks like a great idea, but there could be so many problem. Specially when moving at the beginning of the game.
I'd say is better to have the 2-5 min ckit ban (for players who joined the game recently.
And a kick-vote just for the team. So if humans want to kick a builder or a feeder, or whoever, wont have to xplain the other team why to kick.
-
Thing is, they don't deconstruct with a painsaw, they do it with a construction kit (note-construction, not deconstruction.. heh). This would prevent that. Someone pulling out a pain saw and sawing the reactor is a tad bit more noticeable and noisy then using a kit. In any case, it would slow laming down considerably.
I don't see it as punishing good not lame players, simply as rewarding the entire community by thwarting lame ones. Me, I would rather press f4 every so often than come back to a deconstructed base.
You never noticed the awful deeconstruction timer you get when you deconstruct a reactor or another big building ? With that, it gets faster to deconstruct a few buildings ( ie, more than 1 ) with the painsaw than with the ckit.
-
You get a deconstruction timer when you deconstruct ANY building..
-
You get a deconstruction timer when you deconstruct ANY building..
Yesk, but when you deconstruct a reactor, it fells like the timer is at least twice longer !
-
That's cuz your are waiting to get owned by dretches though.
-
Also clicking a lot while its still counting down does slow it down, due to the red flash thing. Also teaches you to do reactor moves with 2 builders so there is no wait.
-
add the vote and remove the cool down timer on the constructor after deconstruction, so it'll generally take the same time as currently, but tkers will be powerless.
-
Hmm.
Another thing I noticed is that the C-Kit has to be equipped for the timer to run down. If you pull out your blaster to toy with a Dretch, the timer will freeze in place until you equip it again.
-
Hmm.
Another thing I noticed is that the C-Kit has to be equipped for the timer to run down. If you pull out your blaster to toy with a Dretch, the timer will freeze in place until you equip it again.
I think that that part should be changed, sometimes you need that blaster to scare aliens away from you newly building structure and you realy don't want the build timer to take forever.
-
I agree on the new topic, the timer should run down regardless of whether or not you actually have the kit equipped.
As for the vote for reactor thing, no way. Lamers all ready spam the chat, and votes, and can destroy a base with or without a c kit. The only really effective way I can see in this is to have admins right there to kick/ban losers like that.
One idea I had was make it so the structures are all immune to team damage, and you vote on your two or three builders. You'd also start on the same team as you joined last game, so there could be long term strategy, and not just that sudden jump into the game where you can't do a move since everyone spawned with a c kit. It isn't perfect, but then deconners are very far from perfect.
-
"]One idea I had was make it so the structures are all immune to team damage, and you vote on your two or three builders. You'd also start on the same team as you joined last game, so there could be long term strategy, and not just that sudden jump into the game where you can't do a move since everyone spawned with a c kit. It isn't perfect, but then deconners are very far from perfect.
FF immune buildings :P Tyrants will LOVE those fire proof lucifer proof turrets.
-
Instead of calling a confusing vote , why not require 2 players to deconstruct a building ? It would enforce some basic teamwork for base moving (instead of being open to anyone's whims) , and we could drop the deconstruct timer that way. As said above , if there are several lamers on a team then it is screwed regardless...
Also I think all alien forms should have the option to evolve back to a granger. It should be allowed to sacrifice your evolution for the team when the eggs have been destroyed.
-
Instead of calling a confusing vote , why not require 2 players to deconstruct a building ? It would enforce some basic teamwork for base moving (instead of being open to anyone's whims) , and we could drop the deconstruct timer that way. As said above , if there are several lamers on a team then it is screwed regardless...
Also I think all alien forms should have the option to evolve back to a granger. It should be allowed to sacrifice your evolution for the team when the eggs have been destroyed.
1. Because you can't always afford two builders. In smaller games, getting another builder might steal up to 33% of your fighting power for a mere technicality. I guess for a reactor move it'd be ok, but sometimes you need to move FAST, and ALL anti-lamer decon protection basically stops you from playing most effectively.
2. The second that happens, Aliens will win 96% of the time. Instantly.
-
this is a quite longish post, thus the most important point right at the beginning, in a nutshell: there's no reason why moving stuff should be exactly the same as deconstructing something, then constructing something. by making the game aware of something just being moved to another place, other instances of deconstructing can be restricted and dealt with much better. also, some types of griefing are very easy to detect and should not require a player to initiate a kick-vote (which is something that can be abused and is often turned off anyways).
now for the details, in all their rambling glory: moving stuff (as opposed to deconstructing for good) should be a non-issue, as it's trivial to solve. here is one way to do it: for genuine deconstruction, have a separate key, or use a double-tap of the decon key, something like that. now when you use the decon key as usual, the building isn't deconstructed yet, it is just marked for moving. its potentially free build points are displayed separate from the usual build points, or builders just get a message, such as "<player> marked a <structure> for moving". for the builder who initiated the moving, the timer ticks down as usual, as if he/she deconstructed already. as soon as a building of the same type is constructed somewhere else, the original one is removed as usual, as if deconstructed. in order to prevent exploitation of that feature, the new structure will start with as many health points as the original one had. bonus feature: you can mark, say, a turret for moving and then construct a tesla generator; this works as long as the additional 4 build points are in the ordinary build point pool. so the turret is transformed into the tesla, and of course you can't transform a turret into a telenode or a hive into an egg. only buildings of the same general type.
with such a mechanism in place, deconstructing can be restricted, while moving is as easy as ever. no multiple players required (but permitted) to take part in it, no voting, no hassle. deconstructing reactor/overmind can be totally prohibited, as this is only needed as part of moving.
however, all of this is moot if FF is on and players can just trash their own buildings. i have a suggestion for that. this is all still assuming that *moving* is as easy and unrestricted as ever. it is important to be able to kick/ban griefers and lamers. whenever a vote is initiated, typically half of the players don't know the reason. this has bad consequences. current version clients are sometimes buggy and the vote does not refer to the intended player (or the initiator of the vote just hit the wrong line in the GUI). still, people vote YES, without knowing why, and innocents are kicked, while the griefer is still there.
this can easily be improved when it's about harming your own team: people get "minus-points" for that. deconstructing a turret/acid tube, or destroying one, or killing a team-mate all get you one boo-boo-point. spawns are worth two points, reactor/overmind four points (defense computer 3 or 4). when a player gets four points within 10 minutes, the server *automatically* initiates a kick-vote and also tells players the *reason*. so if someone deconstructed with consent from his/her teammates, they'll just vote no and no kick happens. but if it was maliciously, they can kick him out. another kick-reason that is easy to detect is spamming. i would suggest that unlike the normal kick-voting, this special kind can _not_ be turned off by admins of pub servers.
i also have ideas about how to restrict construction to proven/trusted builders, but as far as deconstructing is concerned, i think those ideas are pretty worthless, as you can still trash your own buildings with firepower if only FF is on, and i think FF should be on ^_^. however, i think the auto-vote for kicking griefers would be easy to implement and very hard to exploit. the base-moving system would not be as trivial to implement, so it's debatable whether the effort would pay off. however, i think it's obvious that it is better than other proposed solutions. it doesn't require players who are in the middle of a fight to concern themselves with votes about stuff going on potentially somewhere else entirely and it doesn't require two or more builders.
there is an alternative that is much simpler to implement, but restricted to one and the same builder doing the deconstructing and constructing when moving something: just implement the boo-boo-point system, with this minor addition: if i decon something, i am burdened with the appropriate amount of minus-points, but in case this would trigger a vote, the system waits a minute. if i rebuild a structure of the same type within a minute, the boo-boo-points are removed again. this is really simplistic and could be exploited in horrible ways ... still it might be better than nothing.
-
The easiest way to deconn a base is with a painsaw. If you are moving, one builder in the target location, and one psawer at the old base, you will move faster than anything else.
-
it's at best pointless, at worst very dangerous, to deconstruct faster than the builder can rebuild. OTOH, you can defend yourself with the painsaw while waiting for instructions to decon more. (you lose the ability to check available build points yourself.)
-
Deconning is a big problem
Voting about decons isn't the answer...
1-system.. 1 billion votes, 2 systems.. 2 billion votes... it could get extremely annoying to have 2 votes going on at once...
The move option as opposed to decon seems like a good idea to me... but sometimes you HAVE to free up points for something someone wants to build somewhere else.. you have to decon an egg, and will not be building another egg etc... if you do the decon but not the reconstruction that someone else might want to do immediately.. you get negative points.. you won't be getting positive ones.
What bothers me a bit is.. decon is 1 button.. and the turret or whatever is instantly gone... I think the person who is deconning should have to stand by the thing they are deconning while it decons... have some kind of beam or something so you can see them doing it. This would fit in with the way the game goes along.. and you see some guy run up to your armory and start deconning maybe there could be some way for people to stop that.. that ISN'T voting....
-
Maybe allow decon of some building, and force moving of important building (reactor, last telnode, last armoury, ...)
It still allow base moving, and avoid lamer deco.
Some servers already forbide deco of last telenod
-
A very simple solution is to not allow players who just switched teams or who have just joined in the middle of the game to deconstruct right way. Maybe allow them to deconstruct things if they have been playing on the team for atleast 5 to 10 minutes (perhaps this should be configurable as an svar on the server). This would certainly help prevent people from switching teams and deconstructing everything right away or griefers who just connect to a server, deconstructe everything and then hop over to the next server to do the same thing.
Another idea might be to make it take time to deconstruct structures the same way it takes time to construct them. Honestly though, it doesn't make much sense that deconstructing buildings is done instantly but building them takes a good amount of time. During the time the building is being deconstructed, other builders (or perhaps even normal players) in the area should be able to cancel the deconstruction by using the building.
The moving idea is fairly good but there are cases in which it will cause a team to loose. This can be avoided, however, by reversing the process for important buildings such as the Reactor, Overmind, Eggs, and Teleporters. Instead of going over to the current building to select it for moving, you instead need to mark the area you want to move the structure to first. So if you want to move the Overmind to the next room, a player must first go there, mark it out as the new location for the Overmind by building a "phantom" Overmind there then return to the current Overmind and deconstruct it. Of course, the player deconstructing the building does not necessarily have to be the same player who marks out the new construction area. So theoretically, if you have two players cooperating to move the Overmind, it could be moved just as quickly as you could move it now. If there are any enemy players or structures near the given area at the time, the decostruction should simply fail.
Admitedly it would be a bit complicated and unintuitive but players who decide to move important base structures should be experienced players to begin with anyway.
-
this is a quite longish post...
...and I didn't read all of it, just up to the point where it started sounding like the system already planned for the next version of Tremulous: instead of deconstructing things structures will be markable as surplus and automatically removed when their points are needed elsewhere. So malicious players could do no more harm than simply ignorant players and everyone else would have plenty of time to take administrative action if necessary.
-
instead of deconstructing things structures will be markable as surplus and automatically removed when their points are needed elsewhere.
this is just about perfect. just in case it's not already planned anyway, i'd like to suggest this addition: the list of surplus structures considered for removal should be sorted and filtered. an example: if i build a tesla generator, the first thing that would be removed would be another tesla generator, if one is marked as obsolete/surplus. turrets would come next in the sorting. a reactor or defense computer would never be removed (thus filtered out of the list), as this doesn't make any sense. the last spawn can't be removed this way either, only by building another spawn. maybe, but this might be a matter of taste, do the same for the armoury. people could still destroy their own structures by brute force, but such an action is quite visible and obvious to others, unlike an overmind suddenly popping out of existence because it was marked as surplus by someone who meanwhile is a basilisk.
for the sake of completeness, but not required reading at all (except for the terminally bored), some notes i took reading through other posts here:
> sometimes you HAVE to free up points for something
> someone wants to build somewhere else
absolutely true. but you can still do that under my simplistic boo-boo-point system. all it does is promote teamwork, e.g. you should always inform your team before you move a reactor or an overmind, and the auto-vote just is another incentive for doing that.
the rule of thumb here is: don't do things against the will of your team. recently i spectated on ATCS; one guy wanted to move the human base into the middle of the map, but couldn't even get a reactor up, because no one covered him. his teammates were either unaware of what was going on, or unwilling to support the plan. even if he had played like a pro, he would still have been perceived as a griefer by everyone else.
thus, consensus is important. if a builder accidentially triggers a kick-vote, it can just be ignored. you'd only have to vote "no" if some lamer voted "yes" without a good reason, to cancel that "yes" out. now if i, say, removed a turret to build a second spawn, i would only get kicked for that if more than half of my teammates were conspiring to unfairly boot me. not a big deal.
> and you see some guy run up to your armory and
> start deconning maybe there could be some way
> for people to stop that.. that ISN'T voting
this sounds like a very neat idea for a someday/maybe wishlist. don't put the decision making process in the HUD, but play it out right there in the space of the map -- i like that. however, as Paradox said, the easiest way to decon is still the painsaw.
> Maybe allow decon of some building, and force
> moving of important building (reactor, last
> telnode, last armoury, ...)
that's a very good suggestion. i hadn't thought of this yet: make a distinction between just a telenode and the last telenode. you could also treat a defense computer differently, depending on whether tesla generators are present.
> Maybe allow them to deconstruct things if they have been playing on the team for atleast 5 to 10 minutes
this means that in the first 5 to 10 minutes of a new map, either no one at all can deconstruct, or you make an exception for that and griefers who just connected can still wreck a game. this solution hinders bona fide necessary deconstruction and still has huge loopholes for griefers. i think it's poorly thought out.
> Another idea might be to make it take time to
> deconstruct structures the same way it takes
> time to construct them.
this wouldn't help in the least. i'm not going into details now, as this post is quite long already, but as long as no one comes up with an idea about how this delay could help more than annoy, it's not a good suggestion.
> The moving idea is fairly good but there are
> cases in which it will cause a team to loose [sic].
not really. it's true that you first have to go to the current building and then to the site of the new instance, in order to move it. but that's exactly as it already is now, thus 'the moving idea' wouldn't cause anything.
furthermore, you have to be aware that the 'reverse moving idea' is just a safeguard against a move being foiled by the enemy team. currently, this is an integral part of the game: they can attack your new, not-yet-finished reactor, but you can also attack their new overmind; it's all fair. if you are a defensive player, and it is more important to you that your base is up than that the enemy base is going down, it's understandable that you would like it to be more difficult to decon a reactor without a new one already being built. but if that was changed, gameplay would be quite a bit different, everything would have to be rebalanced again, and it would have to do nothing with laming or griefing. yes, it is a bit complicated and unintuitive, and it also doesn't change much for experienced players. for two experienced builders moving something together, it's a matter of the new structure being built one second earlier or later, with respect to the deconstruction of the old building.
-
If you decon something to free up points under the boo-boo system you get negative points.. you don't get them back for someone else using those points elsewhere to build something.
You should inform your team, and only move if you can get some cover. A lot of the time your team will just want to attack and not cover you and you'll end up deconning something and trying to move it and get killed and they will try to kick you... so if they won't cover it might just be best to leave it.
The delay might help someone notice if someone was deconning something. You couldn't just run up to something, press a key, and it dissapear... its not a great solution, just a thought... painsaw should definately get some neg points for TKing a structure.
But I think by far the best/easiest solution is to not allow immediate decon for people that switch teams... though if your a good builder who selects the wrong team, and switches over and wants to move.. sucks for you.
The only real problem with marking things for movement is if someone marks 2 turrets and moves the wrong one... or some greifer marks everything in the base and when the mover gets to the new location they can't tell what they are moving from where..... but even that isn't as annoying as someone randomly deconning things.
-
If you decon something to free up points under the boo-boo system you get negative points.. you don't get them back for someone else using those points elsewhere to build something.
thanks for the correction, i hadn't thought of that. huge gaping hole in my system. it's only a problem if two builders thought they had reached consensus about a cooperative move, but the others just didn't pay attention and afterwards vote against it despite not knowing what they're voting about. however, such people aren't exactly scarce, so i guess we can bury that idea.
of course you could get the points back if someone else finished the moving, except if the new structure is built very close to where the original one was, because that doesn't qualify as moving. however this is a very small patch for a big hole, as often when you have to rebuild something important anyways, you'll make the best of it and build it in the best possible playce, which may not be the original one.
The delay might help someone notice if someone was deconning something.
yes, but i'm not convinced it helps more than it annoys. it gives you time to get ready to rebuild the reactor. OTOH, you can only rebuild it after the original one disappeared, so if you really do want to move it quickly you're hosed, and having to rebuild it is a minor hassle compared to all structures but spawns not functioning for a while.
i'm sure the idea would make a lot of sense combined with a different approach to building/moving, just on its own it doesn't offer so much bang for the buck.
But I think by far the best/easiest solution is to not allow immediate decon for people that switch teams...
trouble is, most griefers don't switch teams before they've done major damage already. with that change, they'll just switch teams even less. basically this suggestion goes in the direction of building a trust system. however, such systems are immensely difficult to build; this would be a topic for a master's thesis, not for a couple of guys making a mod in their spare time. you have to consider that the servers themselves can't be trusted much more than the players.
or some greifer marks everything in the base and when the mover gets to the new location they can't tell what they are moving from where.....
i think i've got that pretty much covered with the addition of sorting and filtering the list of structures to be removed when building a new one (while not having enough points to just building it in addition to all others). something will only be removed if you'd have had to remove it anyways. if you'd have to remove a turrets and all are marked surplus already, you can't choose which one will be removed, but this could be countered by making the marking reversible.