Unvanquished
Unvanquished copied to clipboard
Unvanquished
bp: Always allow using marked buildables to rebuild things.
Even if overall BP is negative, allow using marked buildables to rebuild things.
This has been tested in Sweet's server and the Gameplay Experiments server and feedback has been positive.
I tested this with changes in sg_buildpoints.cpp, see https://github.com/Unvanquished/Unvanquished/commit/d78fcc3b9f24ca2c8996a095b4dda77939b603fe
These seem to be missing here. I don't know if that is a problem.
Squashed or not, i have this: https://github.com/sweet235/Unvanquished/blob/map-testing/src/sgame/sg_buildpoints.cpp#L163
Yes, I reverted that. That function isn't used anywhere in our code base and I actually don't end up using it in the final fixed patch.
That function was originally used https://github.com/Unvanquished/Unvanquished/commit/397949555deea8959fb0021d278001dba76cfcf8#diff-edacce121b4ccf14dd35c046375ea6233fb6dae58e5bca508059d20fc0b7c5baL1474, but then replaced here: https://github.com/Unvanquished/Unvanquished/commit/494e547d6ed1f5e0e516d704679cc71d978558f9#diff-edacce121b4ccf14dd35c046375ea6233fb6dae58e5bca508059d20fc0b7c5baL1474
I don't like how this could prolong the end game phase. The build point recovery rate decay is meant to implement to make it difficult to rebuild things late in the game. This change undermines that by allowing people to freely swap, say, two turrets for an armoury.
This has been tested in Sweet's server and the Gameplay Experiments server and feedback has been positive.
I think this is not very meaningful because only the builder would easily notice when the feature is used. The builder thinks yay, this feature is awesome since it helped me survive, while the other team doesn't know this is happening and has no chance to form a negative reaction to it.
This change undermines that by allowing people to freely swap, say, two turrets for an armoury.
I think thats a good thing. Its frustrating with negative bp, no armory and no means to rebuild it despite a otherwise compete base. And with this its possible to trade some defense in for the chance to counterattack.
A problem i see here may be that one could create a additional BP pool. By building many miners and spending all BP and then lategame with negative BP using the additional buildings to rebuild the base.
I don't like how this could prolong the end game phase.
While this is a side effect, I think it's far more meaningful to improve the feelings of frustration of losing your arm/medi and then basically playing a losing match for the next 10 min than being able to have a fighting chance. I think we have better opportunities to shorten the game.
I think this is not very meaningful because only the builder would easily notice when the feature is used.
I mean...what would be considered meaningful testing? To me, that is having quality games all around, regardless of who the feature affects directly.
A problem i see here may be that one could create a additional BP pool. By building many miners and spending all BP and then lategame with negative BP using the additional buildings to rebuild the base.
Perhaps. We could make it so that unpowered marked buildables don't give any BP?
I don't like how this could prolong the end game phase.
While this is a side effect, I think it's far more meaningful to improve the feelings of frustration of losing your arm/medi and then basically playing a losing match for the next 10 min than being able to have a fighting chance. I think we have better opportunities to shorten the game.
If the game really lasts another 10 minutes after an armoury was permanently lost, it does seem bad. But surely aliens ought to be able to win faster than that.
I think this is not very meaningful because only the builder would easily notice when the feature is used.
I mean...what would be considered meaningful testing? To me, that is having quality games all around, regardless of who the feature affects directly.
Right. I assumed that players were not watching the overall course of the games and comparing but rather just reporting their experience using the feature directly.
A problem i see here may be that one could create a additional BP pool. By building many miners and spending all BP and then lategame with negative BP using the additional buildings to rebuild the base.
Perhaps. We could make it so that unpowered marked buildables don't give any BP?
Good idea.
Perhaps. We could make it so that unpowered marked buildables don't give any BP?
Would that not negate the desired effect of this change? if there are negative BP buildings become unpowered and its again not possible to rebuild. Or at least harder, i don't know how unpowering works in detail.
For me both versions are ok to merge. Maybe its in praxis not that big of a problem.
For the record, making recycling BP work only with powered buildables sounds weird/confusing and frustrating from a gameplay point of view. But I'm not definite about this without a test, though. Maybe that would work.
I agree. Also to be fair, recycling unpowered buildables doesn't mean they'll become powered again unless they build something worth using. All in all, I think this makes the game less frustrating. I think we should come up with better ways to prevent abuse.
I don't think this is for 0.54 yet. While I think it's a good idea, I think we might want to test this on other servers for a bit more...