Spam
posted on March 21st, 2010, 7:29 pm
Something IS being done about the spam problem.
It's called BALANCING
. You just laid out a whole shpeal about why you don't think balancing fixes it, but I disagree. Balancing a spammable ship by figuring out WHY it's so spammable and adjusting that to make other ships more useful is the way to eliminate spam.
And when that happens, people will still spam, but there will be counters for it. Spam is not inherently a bad thing, only when the ship being spammed is out of balance
.
It's called BALANCING
. You just laid out a whole shpeal about why you don't think balancing fixes it, but I disagree. Balancing a spammable ship by figuring out WHY it's so spammable and adjusting that to make other ships more useful is the way to eliminate spam.And when that happens, people will still spam, but there will be counters for it. Spam is not inherently a bad thing, only when the ship being spammed is out of balance
.
posted on March 21st, 2010, 7:38 pm
Yup, Boggz couldn't have said it better Ray. The Devs have spent the last 2 months adjusting the balance (in addition to setting up the race redoes ets) - they aren't lazy you know 
posted on March 21st, 2010, 11:58 pm
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 1:02 am
Last edited by tom on March 22nd, 2010, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 4:22 am
Lol @ Tom: the fun-ruiner .
I think what Prof J meant by Cap = More Starbases is that if you have a cap on total units per starbase, you will HAVE to see more structures and thus more turrets as well. People will inherently try to turtle with Turrets because they'll know that a capped fleet can't overcome a critical mass of turrets.
.I think what Prof J meant by Cap = More Starbases is that if you have a cap on total units per starbase, you will HAVE to see more structures and thus more turrets as well. People will inherently try to turtle with Turrets because they'll know that a capped fleet can't overcome a critical mass of turrets.
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 4:32 am
...And then of course you get what's lovingly known as the "turret walk" . Weee, way to make Mayson win again
So what, we're gonna have caps for ships AND turrets. Oh wait, then we get the (harder) Starbase walk. So lets have caps for ships, turrets, AND starbases. That'll show them spammers
So what, we're gonna have caps for ships AND turrets. Oh wait, then we get the (harder) Starbase walk. So lets have caps for ships, turrets, AND starbases. That'll show them spammers
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 5:02 am
After that, we can spam scouts, the only ship that doesn't have a cap. 500 scouts WILL take down a star base. 
We can call it Star Trek Armada 2: Capped Fleet and spammable scout operations! 
We can call it Star Trek Armada 2: Capped Fleet and spammable scout operations! 
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 6:01 am
Mal wrote:After that, we can spam scouts, the only ship that doesn't have a cap. 500 scouts WILL take down a star base.
that's actually a good idea!
but you would need x amount of starbase to build x amount of ships to build x amounts of turrents to build x amount of starbase to build x amount of ships to build x amount of turrents, and so on.
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 10:47 am
as boggz said, i ruined the fun already so shut up and no more playing >:(
jk
i dont know if u guys actually read my posts. cap, turtling and spam -> those 3 things have nothing to do with each other. unless, of course, somebody is an rts noob
jk
i dont know if u guys actually read my posts. cap, turtling and spam -> those 3 things have nothing to do with each other. unless, of course, somebody is an rts noob
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 3:24 pm
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on March 22nd, 2010, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't ever read posts Tom. When I see that there's a thread by you, or a post, I just post the first thing that comes into my head. Sometimes I'm told it's pretty amazing when it's actually on topic. It's even cooler when I've addressed what they've said. 
So how's that icecream sandwich?
Caps, turtling, and spam have everything to do with each other. Lets take Dawn of War I. When the game shipped, you had an overall cap, but few of the major units were capped (I think for instance, just the top Tier was capped - that is to say, your standard '21 guns of hell', Land Raider, etc. Then people started complaining about OP strategies. Such as turtling till you could rush out Terminators, and sending all your normal Marines to their death, just so you could get 4 squads of Terminators. So how did the balancing team fix that? Well, they capped Terminator squads. Then people discovered they could spam Predators. So Predators were capped. Then people spammed Space Marine squads. Capped. And so on and so forth. What we ended up with is that every single unit in the game has both a squad cap and a maximum population cap. There is only one type of army you want for each faction. One type of strategy, one type of army. No spam anymore of course, and you can't really turtle (after the Tau were capped every which way too). Needless to say, it's a fantastic game which we should all
EDIT: hm, turns out Dawn is spelled with an A, who knew
So how's that icecream sandwich?
Caps, turtling, and spam have everything to do with each other. Lets take Dawn of War I. When the game shipped, you had an overall cap, but few of the major units were capped (I think for instance, just the top Tier was capped - that is to say, your standard '21 guns of hell', Land Raider, etc. Then people started complaining about OP strategies. Such as turtling till you could rush out Terminators, and sending all your normal Marines to their death, just so you could get 4 squads of Terminators. So how did the balancing team fix that? Well, they capped Terminator squads. Then people discovered they could spam Predators. So Predators were capped. Then people spammed Space Marine squads. Capped. And so on and so forth. What we ended up with is that every single unit in the game has both a squad cap and a maximum population cap. There is only one type of army you want for each faction. One type of strategy, one type of army. No spam anymore of course, and you can't really turtle (after the Tau were capped every which way too). Needless to say, it's a fantastic game which we should all
EDIT: hm, turns out Dawn is spelled with an A, who knew
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 4:57 pm
The only way I've seen to successfully counter spam is through AOE. And yes, one has to deal with spammable AOE units (wait, where have we seen that before? 
). That means the AOE units need limitations (short range, slow, linear AOE and/or other) and the AOE units also must be counterable.
). That means the AOE units need limitations (short range, slow, linear AOE and/or other) and the AOE units also must be counterable.posted on March 22nd, 2010, 8:29 pm
@DN:
dow 1 was a balance hell and yes there was a lot of caps but thats primarily cuz relic sucks. they released coh and didnt care much about dow 1 any more so caps were the simplest solution.
i will elaborate on my point of view.
cap:
i dont see it as good or bad, to me it has noting to do with units being OP. if a unit just rips everything apart one way to stop ppl from spamming it is to cap it. imo not v good solution as i dont like god-like units. the fact is that ppl will still build as many unit of that type as they can.
does caps promote spam? no. i have a cap of 200 in sc. i would build as many 'casters' as i can control because they need micro to be useful, then i would build 2 groups of some kind of harassment units and fill up the rest of cap with combat units from 2-3 types. if sc would have no cap my army composition would be the same with one exception. i would build more combat units as i cant control more casters and dont need more harassment groups. that means that thanks to cap there is less 'spam' ('spam' is not a good word here but u should get what i mean). please point out a flaw in this reasoning instead of just saying im stupid. thx.
does cap make ppl turtle? no if the balance if good. i have no idea why ppl insinuate that when u reach cap u will start to build turrets. i would just build more starports to replenish my losses faster that way i can attack more.
spam:
its not a problem imo. the problem is units being to strong, have no weakness, too cost efficient, ... as i said b4, mixed fleet should come from game balancing and design, not from some idea that its just better to have them because cool kids dont 'spam'
turtling:
it should just fail as a strategy to win a game. u can turtle at some point but its usually to tech fast. after that u should push the enemy from the map with ur high tech units and expand and if ur push fails or is to late u just lose. best way to deal with hardcore turtling opponent is to let him mine out his resources and die. unlimited res moons, artillery range turrets, powerful star base in main, maps with only one expansion for each player are all bad ideas imo.
have fun not-reading DN
dow 1 was a balance hell and yes there was a lot of caps but thats primarily cuz relic sucks. they released coh and didnt care much about dow 1 any more so caps were the simplest solution.
i will elaborate on my point of view.
cap:
i dont see it as good or bad, to me it has noting to do with units being OP. if a unit just rips everything apart one way to stop ppl from spamming it is to cap it. imo not v good solution as i dont like god-like units. the fact is that ppl will still build as many unit of that type as they can.
does caps promote spam? no. i have a cap of 200 in sc. i would build as many 'casters' as i can control because they need micro to be useful, then i would build 2 groups of some kind of harassment units and fill up the rest of cap with combat units from 2-3 types. if sc would have no cap my army composition would be the same with one exception. i would build more combat units as i cant control more casters and dont need more harassment groups. that means that thanks to cap there is less 'spam' ('spam' is not a good word here but u should get what i mean). please point out a flaw in this reasoning instead of just saying im stupid. thx.
does cap make ppl turtle? no if the balance if good. i have no idea why ppl insinuate that when u reach cap u will start to build turrets. i would just build more starports to replenish my losses faster that way i can attack more.
spam:
its not a problem imo. the problem is units being to strong, have no weakness, too cost efficient, ... as i said b4, mixed fleet should come from game balancing and design, not from some idea that its just better to have them because cool kids dont 'spam'
turtling:
it should just fail as a strategy to win a game. u can turtle at some point but its usually to tech fast. after that u should push the enemy from the map with ur high tech units and expand and if ur push fails or is to late u just lose. best way to deal with hardcore turtling opponent is to let him mine out his resources and die. unlimited res moons, artillery range turrets, powerful star base in main, maps with only one expansion for each player are all bad ideas imo.
have fun not-reading DN
posted on March 22nd, 2010, 8:51 pm
Ok, so I didn't read that at all (;)), and I think you're correct - it's just that we're picking at bones here .
In Starcraft caps make sense now, but if you played SC when it first came out and things were not balanced (changing cost, offense, defense) according to the caps, casters were damn powerful. In fact, you could spam them.
It's a combination of changing costs, health/offense, and caps that makes a game balanced. You can do it without capping just fine - or you can do it without changing costs, health/offense like you said. Doing it without caps is usually just a bit harder at times as it relies on the players to set their own caps (in the sense that by ending games earlier and not just building up etc so that they have more units than they can control accurately).
Your point about building more Starports to replenish losses faster is exactly the problem with implementing caps in Fleet Ops though (and in Starcraft in my opinion). That doesn't stop spam. Whoever can replenish losses the fastest wins to simplify it enormously.
That's all I think that's I should say.
. In Starcraft caps make sense now, but if you played SC when it first came out and things were not balanced (changing cost, offense, defense) according to the caps, casters were damn powerful. In fact, you could spam them.
It's a combination of changing costs, health/offense, and caps that makes a game balanced. You can do it without capping just fine - or you can do it without changing costs, health/offense like you said. Doing it without caps is usually just a bit harder at times as it relies on the players to set their own caps (in the sense that by ending games earlier and not just building up etc so that they have more units than they can control accurately).
Your point about building more Starports to replenish losses faster is exactly the problem with implementing caps in Fleet Ops though (and in Starcraft in my opinion). That doesn't stop spam. Whoever can replenish losses the fastest wins to simplify it enormously.
That's all I think that's I should say
.posted on March 22nd, 2010, 9:44 pm
Dominus_Noctis wrote:Your point about building more Starports to replenish losses faster is exactly the problem with implementing caps in Fleet Ops though (and in Starcraft in my opinion). That doesn't stop spam. Whoever can replenish losses the fastest wins to simplify it enormously.
i see it as having strong economy
. if u have too many production facilities u will lose because u could have buy units for that money u spend on buildings, if u have too few u will lose because u can rebuild ur units fast enough. having the right amount of production facilities that ur economy can support is part of rts skill to simplify it enormously . it doesnt relate to spam because spam is about OP units or ur opponent unable to counter ur spam.posted on March 22nd, 2010, 10:00 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests