End-game Variety

[Centreri]

And it can be hard to break through the enemy's base. I've had a few epic games where we kept going back and forth. First we captured all CP's and siege them, then they get infernal and they siege us, then we get Titan and we siege them, and then they get Titan and we run around trying to kill the other's base before they kill ours. Without HB. With HB, it's pretty common. And double weapons allow you to conserve your money by not selling your weapon to upgrade it.

[Giftfinger]

well i had some really long games (much over 2h) in both teams were still 3 of 5 players and in both teams where 2titans with 5frost (upgreat) and 1ultipack. (i had titan - 3frosts, ultipack and 2 mines (big and huge).)

The host (red) who had the most kills even bought lasertowers and put frostlasers into them. I admit it was 4-5 Versions before but that was a really nice game ;-)

but more gamevarity in the endgame would be nice.

as addional shops (i could imagine a moving shop - where you can sell weapons. A Seller who walk on a defined way over the map ;-) )

[SCorpA1]

i am really interrested in making a short range weapon from psycho laser...
it shall have more dps than the frostlaser, so there is more tactic

[DerSatan]

as addional shops (i could imagine a moving shop - where you can sell weapons. A Seller who walk on a defined way over the map ;-) )

muahhahah, walking shops 8)


The Secret Arms Dealer/Black Market


appears and disappears randomly all over the map, having a random sortiment of items which he sells for 70% of their value.


so much fun :lol:

[Giftfinger]

why not a moving shop? i mean the biggest problem is to make a new shop an a fair position and that is just an idea, which is not hard to create.

As improved suggestion. It could be an AI controlled Tradershop whos way goes arround all traderpoints, where the normal trader can get his goods. Everytime he reaches a traderpoint, the good is automatically restarted, so the normal trader has to wait 20 sek till he can get this good. That would be a fair rout for the tradershop and it would weaken the trader a bit.
(not all trader points have to be his goal, maybe only the points, with the expensive goods are on his way - but that would be the decition of the mappers.)

[italyrools]

I think adding / taking away shops will take away from the feel of btanks. I like the map the way it is. Another shop would just be a pimple.

As for having double weapons, those things are just really boring. No point. Spice it up a lil and atleast change the name of the weapon instead of just DOUBLING it (big woop).

But I do agree that we need more stability in the very LONG games. Once it gets to the stereotypical frost laser stack with titan, it's really boring. And also, once most people on one team die... it's GG because of the epic-long respawn time.

[qweqqweq]

you'll notice that the map makers haven't posted on this topic casue all the ideas are so unique i think this whole topic is going to be ignored caue the suggestions are so off the wall but maybe not. if enough people brainstorm on new ideas here and come up with a good one, and then enough people say they like it, maybe it'll be integrated. one thing i know is that the map makers don't seem very interested in making recipies for weapons. and it seems that most the seasoned players (myself excluded) support not using recipies for weapons.

However, i'm going to show my support for this topic because i agree that the end game is a bit too simple. (although much better than most, if not all, wc3 custom maps).

suggestion 1:

the coolest idea i can think of for a recepie weapon that would rival the frost lazer as an end game weapon is a chaos cannon that fires at 3 different ranges with 3 different cooldowns. it would combine these items:

ion cannon (upgraded)
blaster (upgraded)
acid cannon (upgraded)

i think that would cost 38,750 gold just for the ingredients alone.

from what i've observed: when games are balanced and among seasoned players we all basically sell smaller weapons to get bigger ones and we sell smaller tanks to get bigger ones. i suggest making a strategy or two that can overcome the "u can't teleport into enemy base" challenge. i like things like trader bombing where u go invisible, spell shield, go invincible and teleport out of an enemy base but without a trader it's not easy to crack a well defended enemy base. The following suggestions are my attempt to deal with this issue.

suggestion 2 (concerning the troop comand center):

right now i rarely use the troop comander and i usually put it back in base a little bit behind the research center with a tech mech that can operate both for me. that's a good system, it works for me alright but if it had more hitpoints and could send goblin riots i might be able to use it more effectively as an end game finishing item on the front lines of battle. also, the mortar teams from that troop comand center are very dissapointing at only 1000 weapon range (i think the snipers might be that range too). if they had 1300 range it would be something to watch out for. i've tried having my whole team distract the enemy on the bottom lane while troop reinforcements and mortar teams work their way to their base top lane and even when perfectly executed it just hasn't work that well cuase the mortars got taken out by lazer towers and enemy creeps once they got to base due to their short range. i suggest making the t.c.c.'s mortars attack 1300 range to make this an effective alternative tactic.
suggestion 3:

tkf mentioned mcgyver and that got me thinking that if you controlled all the cps for 10 minutes a nuke could shoot off to a random spot in the enemy base. you could have the nuke shoot from the t.c.c. and u could give the t.c.c. an anti nuke too as a defense to it. or u could build a different nuking building like in total annihilation (the predecessor to supreme comander)

suggestion 4:

i suggest making the bomb look like a random item like a tp breaker, t.c.c. or factory in the inventory slot of the tank that has it. it's silly to know when an enemie's going to bomb you. i real life some one's not going to announce that they are about to bomb you so that u can try and kill him before he gets there.

suggestion 5:

a tp beacon. you set it in a spot and it works like a tp breaker but for allied tanks and without the stun. (works in enemy bases) ((that would help make exploder more viable which is on my regular suggestion list)


suggestion 6:

individual pilot stats: this is really off the wall and i don't think it's going to be well liked but i'll suggest it anyways cause you never know....

you could make random pilots or allow pilots to be picked wich have different buffs all throught the game and one tank that is their specialty so that when they get that tank they get another extra advantage only while in that tank. something like 10 % spell damage increase or 10% regeneration boost or 10% speed boost. some of these pilots could have an advantage more useful for early, middle, or late game.


btw: something like the idea to have a patrolling building that sells weapon recipies or sold weapons instead of the junkdealer could be cool. i liked that idea cause i'm not a big fan of the junkyard (it's too hard to get to imo). i know that ex and bob would consider that too much work for too little playing quality improvement award though if i'm not mistaken.

[Exodus]

I think its the wrong attempt to add more weapons, recipes, items or tanks for the late game. You can play in the late game with quite different strategies until a point where it's better to get Titan and Frost Lasers. Normally thats at a point which has exceeded the two hours mark. I don't think that adding additional content for that time frame will improve the gameplay.

Imo it would be better to make sure that the game will finish earlier, so there is no need and chance to get those weapons and tanks. I know there are some people who like long games. But the majority simply doesn't have the time or will to play that long. The ideal game length would be around 0:45 and 1:15 hours. But especially in a balanced game, BT tends to last very long, with more than 3 hours or so. Thats because its very difficult to siege an enemy base and additionally, most people don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.

So my suggestion would be to change something, that makes sure that the games can be finished faster. Of course, I havn't got any really good ideas, because then, they already would be impemented. I already have one idea, but I don't know how you guys will like it, but here is it:
Most of the time, the biggest problem is, to get all the way through the enemy base to their HQ and to destroy it. One solution could be, to place the building you have to destroy for winning, more in the middle of the base, and the enemies are spawning behind it, not in front of it. This would obviously make defending way harder, but would also ensure that the stronger team wins, when it pushed that far. I've played a lot of games where the enemy push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.
I really believe this could improve the overall gameplay of BT and would make suggestions for more end game content more or less obsolete.

[toob]

Most of the time, the biggest problem is, to get all the way through the enemy base to their HQ and to destroy it. One solution could be, to place the building you have to destroy for winning, more in the middle of the base, and the enemies are spawning behind it, not in front of it. This would obviously make defending way harder, but would also ensure that the stronger team wins, when it pushed that far. I've played a lot of games where the enemy push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.
I really believe this could improve the overall gameplay of BT and would make suggestions for more end game content more or less obsolete.

i think this is a very goob idea.

another way to make the games ending faster, is to forbid to build up 3 player factorys in our own base. reduce this number to only 1 (OR EVEN 0) and the other 2 (3) can only be build outside of the base.

toob (the new here)

[Giftfinger]

So my suggestion would be to change something, that makes sure that the games can be finished faster. Of course, I havn't got any really good ideas, because then, they already would be impemented. I already have one idea, but I don't know how you guys will like it, but here is it:
Most of the time, the biggest problem is, to get all the way through the enemy base to their HQ and to destroy it. One solution could be, to place the building you have to destroy for winning, more in the middle of the base, and the enemies are spawning behind it, not in front of it. This would obviously make defending way harder, but would also ensure that the stronger team wins, when it pushed that far. I've played a lot of games where the enemy push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.
I really believe this could improve the overall gameplay of BT and would make suggestions for more end game content more or less obsolete

really great suggestion =)

2 addional suggestion from me:
normaly it is especially hard to destroys the other one base because one players buys factories and they hold it for hours ^^ until you can destroy them. ->

maybe you can ensure that every player can max build 1 or 2 Factories and not all 3. Why? Because normally not all players are freely willing to invest their money in factories and so only a good cooperativ team would be able to hold that. Secondly its often a problem that 1 players builds all 3 factories behind and is not willing to build 1 or to infront of the base. But most of all i like this suggestion that this could weaken the trader too (a bit)

3. plz make more end game weapons.

i mean there are 3 1/2 shops where you can buy weapons (not adding mines, bombs, troopcomand,...) for the start and mittle game. but only 1/2 shop to buy endtime weapons. And i find it just boring that finally titan is allways comming with frostlaser. The problem is not that it is unbalanced - its just boring to play allways the same in the end.
2-3 new weapons would be enough in my opinion (one for 30k too as different choice to frost, and at least 1-2 weapons in the area of 12-27k)
maybe even a complettly new type of weapons (not only 2-3 targeds) but like the aura from the electro tank a short ranged weapon like that, which hurts all enemys in range (short-medium range) but making little damadge.

[Prog]

I can't see the problem of "end game variety" at all. Most games (intern with bt-clan members) have a duration around 1:20-1:45 (pubs mostly about 35-55 min.), in which there is a quite huge variety till ~1:15-1:20 with sky tanks, hunters, demons, frosts, infernals, with weapons from 1k-555 range (I hardly ever see any 20k+ gold weapons). Then it drifts to Infernals/Titans with max. 1-2 demons/frost and the game ends quite soon (still no 20k+gold weapons). There is nearly never the situation in which "[...]it's better to get Titan and Frost Lasers.", becouse the game ends earlier. There is nearly no bt games with teams so well balanced that the game lasts so long. I never played a single game lasting as long as 3 hours and I did play quite a lot bt: There are just no teams which are so balanced, at least i never saw such ones. I can only imagine such long games when there are a lot of passive players in it, who "[...]don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.".

Concourning attacking the enemy base there is this line from exodus: "[...]but would also ensure that the stronger team wins, when it pushed that far.". This is quite a problematic statement. It is problematic to me, becouse it uses to term "would" for something which actually is. The important thing is, as he said quite well is, that the "[...]stronger team wins[...]". It is not clear, that the team pushing that far is the "stronger team", but just if it is, it should be winning. If they don't win after pushing that far, they probably "[...]don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.", so they actually are not the "stronger team", as stronger = "the ones playing better". If you are the better team you will win by destroying the enemy base. There are no games in which you are better, but "[the] push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.". In my opinion this only happens if the attacking team makes mistakes and actually doesn't play well.

[Exodus]

There is nearly no bt games with teams so well balanced that the game lasts so long. I never played a single game lasting as long as 3 hours and I did play quite a lot bt: There are just no teams which are so balanced, at least i never saw such ones. I can only imagine such long games when there are a lot of passive players in it, who "[...]don't know how to efficiently attack and destroy the enemy base.".

The teams don't have to be exactly balanced for this situation to occur. Also, I myself saw several games which lasted that long and also played them myself, both as the first attacking and defending side.
Defending is much easier, than attacking, because you got healing and shielding from your buildings and creeps. So even if the attacking team is a little bit stronger and was able to push the other back to their base, the defending team can use the easier position of defending to stop the other team. It's not unsual that the defending team gets more hero- and more creep kills, so they just have to wait some time until they are able to push back with their stronger equipment.

There are no games in which you are better, but "[the] push stopped right in front of the HQ and the enemy was pushed back again, because of player factories and such.". In my opinion this only happens if the attacking team makes mistakes and actually doesn't play well.

I don't think that this is true. As described above, the defending side has advantages. This is nearly everytime and everywhere the case, since you got a base for a reason. But it's also quite possible that this advantage is too high, by making the destruction of the base unnecessarily difficult, which may result in longer games or even a turnaround in power and map control.

The main reason I suggested this, is to reduce the game length. I'd even say that the 1:20-1:45 games are too long. Do you think by changing the winning condition this way, there would be an unfair advantage for the attacking team, besides the possibility to end the game faster?

[Prog]

Actually in a late game fight with mostly Infernals it is easier to attack, than to defend. Before Infernals are avaible it is of course no advantage to be the attacker, but the disadvantage is rather low (can be compensated quite well if you play just a bit better than your opponents) and can be countered by a factory.

The main reason I suggested this, is to reduce the game length. I'd even say that the 1:20-1:45 games are too long. Do you think by changing the winning condition this way, there would be an unfair advantage for the attacking team, besides the possibility to end the game faster?

I didn't (or at least didn't intend to) disagree about reducing game length at all with my reply (I'm actually ok with that, but I don't think it's necessery). I just pointed out (or at least tried to) that in the avarage bt game there is enough end-game variety becouse the game ends normally earlier than the "frost laser+titan" problem occurs. The Problem which might be occuring with moving the HQ is, that it is easier to just go for the HQ and towers/barricades, so the defending team will have to rebuild them earlier and more often, which makes it quite hard to make a comback after loosing the mid cp. (Right now you have quite some time while being attacked before you have to rebuild the towers protecting the HQ, becouse it stays far behind in the base). It might tend to focus the game even more on the mid cp.

[TKF]

offmap artillery support?

[Gammagulp]

Hmmm, I think the attacking of a HQ in the middle of a base, where the player spawn behind it, is somehow too easy.
If we want to give the attacking team a better chance I would like to see the possibility to build bunker and laser towers at the outer defense ring of the enemy basen, when all force factories are destroyed.
--> so laser tower or bunker für extra HP and troop attack efficiency are possible in the enemy base.

A second thing I would like to see is the better orbital control, or artillery Item, which was suggested by TKF some time ago. A Missle launch after some seconds channeling with a good collateral Splah damage and range. Of course with quite high costs.

[qweqqweq]

this will be my last post in this topic. please refer to my regular suggestion list for further info.

I regard an enemy base as a puzzle that i have to try to find the answer to.

i propose that we not shorten the game length but increase the variety to the solutions to the problem of cracking an enemy base's defenses. decreasing the game length might seem as a solution but in my opinoin it seems more like a way to make battle tanks more boring. i suggest that we find a way to make attacking and defending enemy bases more about strategical knowledge than game time. please remember that a lot of games that take +2 hours are talked about for a long iime to come and are inspiration for many players to keep playing. (including me) i still remember a few memorable moments in my mind where it seemed like i was lost but something i did just bareley got me the win. Let's not make this like battleships where finishitn the enemy base off is just way too simple and lame.