Builders in 1.2

[resta247]

Hi,

I usually like to play the builders. I tried out the 1.2 gameplay preview and I noticed that build points are not available immediately when something got destroyed by an opponent. This is good and bad at the same time:

Good: A base cannot be re-built immediately which makes it a little bit easier for the attackers. Bad: When you leave your base to re-built it somewhere else, it can happen, that you are lacking build-points to build up a powerful defensive. Suggestion: When a whole base has been destroyed, build points should be given back quicker. When just 2-3 buildings have been destroyed, they should be given back slower.


I also noticed that buildings cannot be removed anymore. They are now marked for removal and they are instantly removed when something else is built. This is also good and bad in some situations:

Good: It makes it much easier to move the reactor (and other buildings) with one person. It also prevents people from deconning the entire base. Bad: There are situations in which you want to remove a specific building immediately. I can think of situations in which a player is stuck. But the blocking building is only removed when all build points have been spent already. Suggestion: A marked building should be removed immediately when a new one is built - even if there are enough build points to keep both of the buildings (the marked and the new one).

What do you think?


Just my 2ct.

[Scimitar]

no way man, that was at least a quarter's worth.  i agree with this.

[Kriegsgott]

build points will gradually leave the queue to become available again, at a rate proportional to the amount of points in the queue

The bp queue already behaves similarly to how you suggested.  I do believe however, that the proportional rate change should be increased i.e. faster return than current for greater amounts in the queue.  The base rate appears to be fine.

As to your second point, instead of marked buildings being deconstructed prior to using available build points, I'd prefer to include a second build point counter that shows how much bp is used up in marked buildings. Your suggestion would be my second choice.

Additionally, I've noticed that marked repeaters can only be used to build a different repeater - the build points do not go back into the central queue unless it is destroyed rather than marked.

[David]

IMO a decon option is needed to allow removing of blocking buildings, and to get the BP back quicker when moving.  Better to decon the old than have it eaten and have to wait ages for the BP.
Removing buildings early would get annoying, but could work for unpowered stuff.

The developers know about the repeater thing, so it should be getting fixed.

[kevlarman]

IMO a decon option is needed to allow removing of blocking buildings, and to get the BP back quicker when moving.  Better to decon the old than have it eaten and have to wait ages for the BP.
Removing buildings early would get annoying, but could work for unpowered stuff.

The developers know about the repeater thing, so it should be getting fixed.

unpowered buildables can be deconned immediately already (and iirc when they're destroyed, you don't lose bp since they weren't counted against you in the first place, but i haven't grepped the code to make sure).

[A Spork]

A force decon option would be nice.....

[Bissig]

On our (1.1) server you have the option to either /mark the building or decon it directly, oldschool style by pressing "e" when looking at it. I think it is called semi-marked decon and I find it to be very useful.

[Paradox]

Semi-mark, as the patch is called, is perhaps one of my favorite features.

[A Spork]

Personally, I think 1.2 should default to mark, but you should be able to have a /forcedecon command(renamed as you wish)

[Norfenstein]

Personally, I think 1.2 should default to mark, but you should be able to have a /forcedecon command(renamed as you wish)

I agree. It hasn't been strictly necessary for as long as we've had marked decon, but I don't see any reason not to do it. And I suppose it'd get rid of the small annoyance of not being able to mark human structures when you're moving the reactor (because it wants to decon when there's no power but won't let you because you have a build timer).

[David]

I'd suggest 3 commands:  /mark and /decon to do the obvious, and /smartdecon or whatever to do what happens now with the mark unless unpowered stuff.

[Thorn]

What was all this stuff about mark decon deterring deconners if there is a way to force a decon anyway?

[Bissig]

What was all this stuff about mark decon deterring deconners if there is a way to force a decon anyway?

These days, admins have powerful tools to "haha" at griefers and also, the preferred method should be configurable via cvars anyways.

[Thorn]

Actually, admins had very powerful tools to "haha" at griefers back then just as much. Really no reasoning behind it.

[KillerWhale]

These days, admins have powerful tools to "haha" at griefers

Not officially, !revert isn't getting trunked for some incomprehensible reason.

[A Spork]

Why the heck not?

[Paradox]

/mark and /decon are all the commands that are needed, you dont need smartmark or whatever. That should just be basic functionality of mark.

That, or automark structures that havn't had power for a cvar configurable amount of time, eg 90 seconds

[David]

But then how do I mark an unpowered structure?

[mooseberry]

Why the heck not?

Because it's written poorly. Or something like that.

[Paradox]

David, with mark. I probably misunderstood something and perpetuated this misunderstanding with my post.

/mark marks everything. /decon decons everything.

This is probably full of holes, so someone will post a detailed list of problems. Im posting this just before i go to bed, so...

[David]

The current behaviour is that it marks unless the building is unpowered, in which case it decons.  This is often what you want, and only one key, so IMO would be nice to keep.

[kevlarman]

why would you ever want to mark an unpowered buildable? it doesn't cost any bp so marking is meaningless.

[David]

If you have a turret that's in a shit location so need moving, but the RC is currently moving.  EG start of game you move the RC quickly, want to mark the old base (that's still in range) but no point destroying it too soon.

Lots of maps have good moves where the new base is in range of the old.

[Winnie the Pooh]

@Kev how was the unlimited telenode thing handled, then?

[kevlarman]

@Kev how was the unlimited telenode thing handled, then?

by goons showing up at the unlimited node and getting their whole team up to 9 frags.

[Winnie the Pooh]

by goons showing up at the unlimited node and getting their whole team up to 9 frags.

I am forming a strategy using unlimited nodes, and lazy aliens.

[UniqPhoeniX]

What about having nodes just outside RC range, but still covered by turrets? Possibly behind the base. Wouldn't that give extra bps?

[Winnie the Pooh]

Yes. Just build a repeater and use its bp for nodes, then decon that repeater. Voila, two free nodes.

[Norfenstein]

Yes. Just build a repeater and use its bp for nodes, then decon that repeater. Voila, two free nodes.

...which will self-destruct after 90 seconds because they have no power.

/mark marks everything. /decon decons everything.

This is probably full of holes, so someone will post a detailed list of problems. Im posting this just before i go to bed, so...

Only problem I can think of is you need two buttons, but these aren't buttons you need quick and comfortable access to and you wouldn't really need decon very often anyway.

What was all this stuff about mark decon deterring deconners if there is a way to force a decon anyway?

marked deconstruction

Marked deconstruction has nothing to do with griefing and was never meant to. I'm sorry you thought otherwise. Admins have to be on call constantly in any case.

[resta247]

I also noticed that buildings cannot be removed anymore. They are now marked for removal and they are instantly removed when something else is built. This is also good and bad in some situations:

And something that happened in a game today: Player 1 marked the entire base to move into another place. Before the move took place Player 2 built an additional turret. BPs were taken from the reactor which got removed. Result: Base down, everyone confused. Nobody in a proper place to build a new reactor. Game lost a minute later.

To make the game a liitle bit more noob-resistant, reactors should be only removed when a new one is built. They should never be removed for turrets, telenodes, .... this just does not make any sense and the game could support the players in not allowing them to do such suicidal stuff.