Mod proposals.

[Pikachu]

Yalts Edge had the Armageddon vote which randomly destroyed certain amount of defensive structs on both sides. It would be nice to have this so we won't be forced to draw long games.

I propose some other ideas:
1. Time should keep giving evos and creds after SD to keep the game moving.
2. A second stage SD could be added that would disallow rebuilding of RC/OM. Again this is for the extreme cases where progress seems to have halted completely. It could be a vote or could be enabled after certain time limit (eg 1.5h).
3. Automatic locking of a team that has no more spawns.

Thoughts?

[TheMuffinMann]

1. To enforce more camping
2. 1.5h - barely any games last that long without being drawed
3. To immediately tell the opposition that there are no spawns?

[nalf]

Another idea I heard from someone: Make S4 (much harder to achieve than S3) after which the whole team gets constantly maximum $/evos. This would mean instant win, if the team is capable even a bit, as the whole team can rush repeatedly. With this, we even wouldn't need SD any more.

[Weed]

Another idea I heard from someone: Make S4 (much harder to achieve than S3) after which the whole team gets constantly maximum $/evos. This would mean instant win, if the team is capable even a bit, as the whole team can rush repeatedly. With this, we even wouldn't need SD any more.

No, players will harder camp to get S4.

[nalf]

Another idea I heard from someone: Make S4 (much harder to achieve than S3) after which the whole team gets constantly maximum $/evos. This would mean instant win, if the team is capable even a bit, as the whole team can rush repeatedly. With this, we even wouldn't need SD any more.

No, players will harder camp to get S4.

This could be combined with another idea - don't count $/evos gained near base to stage advancements.

[Pikachu]

1. To enforce more camping
2. 1.5h - barely any games last that long without being drawed
3. To immediately tell the opposition that there are no spawns?

1. You're saying killing buildings without creds/evos is easier?
2. 1.5h is just a proposal. And yeah, there are the 2 hour games also.
3. It's more obvious than half the opposing team instantly quitting or shouting no spawns in the public chat?

[Fang152]

1. To enforce more camping
2. 1.5h - barely any games last that long without being drawed
3. To immediately tell the opposition that there are no spawns?

1. You're saying killing buildings without creds/evos is easier?
2. 1.5h is just a proposal. And yeah, there are the 2 hour games also.
3. It's more obvious than half the opposing team instantly quitting or shouting no spawns in the public chat?

1. Did you forget that basi-bomb exist or that dretches can bite rets?
2. Not any more.
3. Its not as obvious as you may think. For example on a game I was playing it had lasted 50 mins so far and 4 players from the human team left. There were still many nodes left.

[Pikachu]

1. To enforce more camping
2. 1.5h - barely any games last that long without being drawed
3. To immediately tell the opposition that there are no spawns?

1. You're saying killing buildings without creds/evos is easier?
2. 1.5h is just a proposal. And yeah, there are the 2 hour games also.
3. It's more obvious than half the opposing team instantly quitting or shouting no spawns in the public chat?

1. Did you forget that basi-bomb exist or that dretches can bite rets?
2. Not any more.
3. Its not as obvious as you may think. For example on a game I was playing it had lasted 50 mins so far and 4 players from the human team left. There were still many nodes left.

1. Did you forget that basi-bombs require evos (the things you would get) and dretches can only bite rets and no other (actual important) buildings!!!??? (fucking wink smilies, i hate em! GAAARGH)
2. Okay okay, I was just proposing for the odd case where it might still happen. It's intended as a last resort mechanic, not a frequent one.
3. You're reversing my argument, I'm not saying players leaving a team mean no spawns, I mean dead players on a team with no spawns will just go spectator anyway since it's more interesting to see the battle play out that way. I think if there's no spawns then the team has already screwed up enough to warrant a swift death, is that such a radical point to take? I don't buy that locking a team would give the other an unfair advantage at such a point in the game. As for making it clear to the other team, in my experience it's pretty bloody obvious 90% of the time anyway. I don't see it being a big deal. How would they know anyway? Try swapping teams? Or would the specs tell them? Since that's against server policy

[Fang152]

1. To enforce more camping
2. 1.5h - barely any games last that long without being drawed
3. To immediately tell the opposition that there are no spawns?

1. You're saying killing buildings without creds/evos is easier?
2. 1.5h is just a proposal. And yeah, there are the 2 hour games also.
3. It's more obvious than half the opposing team instantly quitting or shouting no spawns in the public chat?

1. Did you forget that basi-bomb exist or that dretches can bite rets?
2. Not any more.
3. Its not as obvious as you may think. For example on a game I was playing it had lasted 50 mins so far and 4 players from the human team left. There were still many nodes left.

1. Did you forget that basi-bombs require evos (the things you would get) and dretches can only bite rets and no other (actual important) buildings!!!??? (fucking wink smilies, i hate em! GAAARGH)
2. Okay okay, I was just proposing for the odd case where it might still happen. It's intended as a last resort mechanic, not a frequent one.
3. You're reversing my argument, I'm not saying players leaving a team mean no spawns, I mean dead players on a team with no spawns will just go spectator anyway since it's more interesting to see the battle play out that way. I think if there's no spawns then the team has already screwed up enough to warrant a swift death, is that such a radical point to take? I don't buy that locking a team would give the other an unfair advantage at such a point in the game. As for making it clear to the other team, in my experience it's pretty bloody obvious 90% of the time anyway. I don't see it being a big deal. How would they know anyway? Try swapping teams? Or would the specs tell them? Since that's against server policy

1.
2.
3.

[Weed]

Yalts Edge had the Armageddon vote which randomly destroyed certain amount of defensive structs on both sides. It would be nice to have this so we won't be forced to draw long games.

I propose some other ideas:
1. Time should keep giving evos and creds after SD to keep the game moving.
2. A second stage SD could be added that would disallow rebuilding of RC/OM. Again this is for the extreme cases where progress seems to have halted completely. It could be a vote or could be enabled after certain time limit (eg 1.5h).
3. Automatic locking of a team that has no more spawns.

Thoughts?

1 No, more camp.
2 No, the game ends anyway.
3 if there are no spawns the game will end fast.

[[{USATREM}] !Gunther!]

Yalts Edge had the Armageddon vote which randomly destroyed certain amount of defensive structs on both sides. It would be nice to have this so we won't be forced to draw long games.

I propose some other ideas:
1. Time should keep giving evos and creds after SD to keep the game moving.
2. A second stage SD could be added that would disallow rebuilding of RC/OM. Again this is for the extreme cases where progress seems to have halted completely. It could be a vote or could be enabled after certain time limit (eg 1.5h).
3. Automatic locking of a team that has no more spawns.

Thoughts?

Actually, Nalf's server had this first on 1.2; Yalt just stole Rotacak's and Nalf's work. (Why anyone would ever get on his server(s) is beyond me)

1) Although the current system is a bit annoying, it helps in the long run. Instead of having a team that says "oh, we can just chill and camp for 20 minutes and go full rush", you have a tam that says "well, we can't really do anything sitting in the base", which gives them evos for killing (or they feed; whatever) and game ends.
2) OM/RC rebuild kept a lot of good (fun) games going. And it's just adds to the "chase" factor.
3) Why? Anyone that joins can't spawn anyway, and I've haven't really been in a game where people outright tell the other team where the last player is. (Unless they've glitched or something)

[Pikachu]

Yalts Edge had the Armageddon vote which randomly destroyed certain amount of defensive structs on both sides. It would be nice to have this so we won't be forced to draw long games.

I propose some other ideas:
1. Time should keep giving evos and creds after SD to keep the game moving.
2. A second stage SD could be added that would disallow rebuilding of RC/OM. Again this is for the extreme cases where progress seems to have halted completely. It could be a vote or could be enabled after certain time limit (eg 1.5h).
3. Automatic locking of a team that has no more spawns.

Thoughts?

Actually, Nalf's server had this first on 1.2; Yalt just stole Rotacak's and Nalf's work. (Why anyone would ever get on his server(s) is beyond me)

1) Although the current system is a bit annoying, it helps in the long run. Instead of having a team that says "oh, we can just chill and camp for 20 minutes and go full rush", you have a tam that says "well, we can't really do anything sitting in the base", which gives them evos for killing (or they feed; whatever) and game ends.
2) OM/RC rebuild kept a lot of good (fun) games going. And it's just adds to the "chase" factor.
3) Why? Anyone that joins can't spawn anyway, and I've haven't really been in a game where people outright tell the other team where the last player is. (Unless they've glitched or something)

1) I disagree, when you have stalemate situations where both sides are overall devoid of creds/evos. Yes these do occur eventually on maps where the distance is large enough, I've seen this happen plenty of times on rotcannon garbage and niveus. The lack of evos is much more problematic than the incentive to actually save up. This saving up can be especially problematic if it takes a long time and attacking the enemy structures is a near certain suicide attack. There seems to be a ripple effect in the game dynamic of attacks transfering credits to the defending team which in turn can mount a new attack. When both sides have a really strong base wich are hard to get into the overall amount of credits will drain and the exchange of attacks vs defence waters down into tiny stings on both sides. Neither team will have the majority of credits and because of defensive structures killing players the overall amount goes down. This is when the game slows down enough such that all sense of progress can be lost.

Do you think SD stops camping because time stops giving credits or because building stops?
It's all building. Destroyed structs cannot be rebuilt, this gives incentive to attack. Building cannot continue, this gives builders incentive to attack. I'm not even sure why the time credit halts during SD.
SD seems like the vanilla awnser to end a game before the stalemate is reached, but on RCZ there is no automatic stalemate, so it seems only natural that during SD there's automatic processes to keep the game moving forward. In itself SD is agnostic to camping or feeding, so I don't know why time credit should stop.

2) Okay, I agree.

3) Anyone that joins can't spawn anyway. Well that's exactly the point.
Anyway, this just seems common sense to me, I wasn't expecting so much resistance. Meh.