Poll
Question: Should (Single) Domination be played with Runes?
Yay! - 2 (40%)
Nay! - 3 (60%)
Total Voters: 5

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: (Single) Domination and Runes  (Read 757 times)
Neon_Knight
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 49
Posts: 3762


Trickster God.


« on: November 24, 2018, 11:05:27 am »

Some days ago, this exchange of opinions about the presence of runes in took place in the gamecode repo. As for the context, the pull request I've pushed is about a better control about what's spawned on the maps, as CTF flags keep showing in FFA/TDM/1on1:

Quote from: Gig
why does the code hide the runes in Domination?
For Double Domination okay, 0.8.8 already hides them, as I can guess Guard and Scout would be OverPower there, making scoring very difficult.
But Domination is different, so I don't think there is a reason to remove them there, unless the mapper or the server admin wants so. In 0.8.8 they are there.
Futhermore, I'm not sure, but maybe "hidden" items can still be touched and grabbed...

Quote from: Neon_Knight
Domination is a base-less gametype. It doesn't make sense to have team-locked runes.

Quote from: Gig
You know that runes can be placed without team-lock, e.g. in the middle of the map. That's how I did in OACMPDM10, and IIRC you mentioned you also did it in one of your recent czest2ctf betas. So, I think in this case the choice should be left to map author.
Now that I think about it, playing Domination in ctf-based maps with team-locked runes may still be an incentive for players to roam the map even far from the Domination point, to reach their team-dedicated runes.

Also, runes (team-locked or not) spawn in other "base-less" gametypes such as FFA and TDM, why should Domination differ?

Maybe a thing could actually be checked is that team-locked runes do not appear in teamless modes (where they actually cannot be grabbed by anyone - while the opposite is possible).

Quote from: Neon_Knight
In-game, IICR, team-locked runes are only available to the team that picks them. Blue team can't pick up red runes, and red team can't pick up blue runes. This is regardless of gametype.

Quote from: Gig
If you are red, you can pick up "red-locked" runes and "team free" runes. If you are blue, you can pick up "blue-locked" runes and "team free" runes. But when you are playing in any non-team-based mode, you can pick up "team free" runes only, as you are not red and you are not blue... so maybe the game may directly hide red-locked and blue-locked runes in those gametypes, showing only those which are "team free". In team-based modes, all three kinds of runes should be shown instead (unless hidden for some other reason, such as being OP in Double Domination).

Quote from: Neon_Knight
Gig, having team-locked items in gametypes doesn't make any sense. You're NOT supposed to give a team an advantage over the other team in gamemodes where this is NOT a requirement or a good idea. Suppose the dom points are located in each team's base. If the red team picks up the point, then they have close access to a rune or set of runes only the red team can pick them up. But if the blue team captures this same point, then they are near runes they CAN'T take advantage of. This creates an unnecessary imbalance.

Quote from: Gig
You are not considering:

    That in a map like that, there would still be balancing, due to each team having an area with runes for them. Blue team would have an help near to what in other modes would be the blue base, and red team would have an help near to what in other modes would be the red base. Sometimes they may be attacking there, sometimes they may be defending there, but overall it would be balanced.
    If mappers don't like this, they have "gametype" and "!gametype" keys available.
    If server admins don't like this, they have "g_runes" cvar available.
    I have never heard someone complaining about the presence of runes in Domination mode, why do you want to fix what ain't broken? :-/

Quote from: Neon_Knight
Because Domination isn't as played as FFA, TDM, CTF or Elimination. Because the game and the serveradmins don't incentive people to go outside of the popular modes. And the fact that serveradmins don't complain about the problem doesn't mean that the problem is not there.

In Domination, areas are supposed to be neutral for both teams. I don't think I have to repeat that again nor anything I've said before, Gig. It's NOT a good idea, it will NEVER be. What could be implemented is the nullification of both RED_TEAM and BLUE_TEAM spawnflags for non-base-based modes so runes can be picked up by anyone.

Admittedly, I wasn't in the mood for a debate that day. This continued onto Discord, where Sago weighed in his opinion:

Quote from: Gig
IMHO, no team has an "advantage" over the other one, as long as both teams have the same number of runes available. When Sago removed runes from Double Domination and kept them in Domination, he would have had his reasons... My opinion is that the current (0.8.Cool behavior of Runes in Dom is correct, of course this cannot be taken as an absolute truth. Of course, hearing what other people think about is probably the right way to go. :smiley:

Quote from: sago007
I thought of Domination, I thought if a gametype primarily played on Deathmatch maps which would not have runes anyway. I don't think any DM map should have runes but I did not want waste code lines to enforce it. I considered instead to make a map-scanner that would scan maps for known errors like "not enought DM spawn points whitout restrictions", "Failure to use the correct CTF spawns", "runes without team specified", "missing camera" etc. Which would save code lines in the gamecode.

So what does the people think about the situation? Should the runes be enabled for non-base-based gamemodes? I don't think so.
Logged


"Detailed" is nice, but if it gets in the way of clarity, it ceases being a nice addition and becomes a problem. - TVT
Want to contribute? Read this.
Gig
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 45
Posts: 4367


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2018, 03:46:20 pm »

Do you want to add also the third option? Your idea of nullifying RED_TEAM and BLUE_TEAM spawnflags in Dom (making all runes available for everyone there), which might be a working compromise, although I'm not really a fan of secondary game rules working differently in different modes.
Logged

I never want to be aggressive, offensive or ironic with my posts. If you find something offending in my posts, read them again searching for a different mood there. If you still see something bad with them, please ask me infos. I can be wrong at times, but I never want to upset anyone.
Neon_Knight
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 49
Posts: 3762


Trickster God.


« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2018, 09:34:33 am »

Almost a month later, the votes are in favor of removing the runes from gameplay. The reasons are really obvious, and the idea of artificially unbalancing areas in favor of specific teams in gametypes where this doesn't make sense is totally ridiculous (as far as I'm concerned, only one person is in favor of this).

In these days I'll upload a pull request.
Logged


"Detailed" is nice, but if it gets in the way of clarity, it ceases being a nice addition and becomes a problem. - TVT
Want to contribute? Read this.
Gig
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 45
Posts: 4367


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2018, 02:10:47 pm »

Just four total votes cannot be really representative of playerbase...
However, it looks like we cannot have more feedback than this, so we have to deal with that.

By the way, if you are working on this stuff, please also try the thing which would surely be nice, if technically not too difficult:
hiding team-limited runes in non-team-based modes... as players already cannot grab them, there is no reason to see them (while non-team-limited runes are ok and should still be visible).
« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 02:18:01 pm by Gig » Logged

I never want to be aggressive, offensive or ironic with my posts. If you find something offending in my posts, read them again searching for a different mood there. If you still see something bad with them, please ask me infos. I can be wrong at times, but I never want to upset anyone.
Neon_Knight
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 49
Posts: 3762


Trickster God.


« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2018, 03:05:18 pm »

Admittedly, Domination isn't a popular gamemode because OA 0.x doesn't incentive players to venture outside of FFA. It's the game itself that should motivate people to play and discover the other modes and options.

Fortunately, I have a plan for OA3 set and running with this in mind.
Logged


"Detailed" is nice, but if it gets in the way of clarity, it ceases being a nice addition and becomes a problem. - TVT
Want to contribute? Read this.
ELR1C_C150utcast
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 11


I want to believe


« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2019, 02:20:57 pm »

A bit late an opinion, but why not just make them separate game modes or variants altogether? Sorta like how theres CTF,One flag and Elimination CTF,  why not make a version called Rune-Single Domination and another simply as single domination? That way people can either chose the vanilla experience or spice it up with something new!
Logged
Neon_Knight
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 49
Posts: 3762


Trickster God.


« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2019, 06:48:17 pm »

Quake IV has already regular CTF and Arena CTF which is CTF+Runes.

As for new gametypes, there's already too many variants and too little space for new gametypes IICR. And most of the variations could be turned into gametype-specific cvars. And there's already a cvar that enables/disables runes, but IMHO it's unnecessary considering we already have disable_ and replace_ cvars. (In fact, g_runes should be gone for good, considering this)
Logged


"Detailed" is nice, but if it gets in the way of clarity, it ceases being a nice addition and becomes a problem. - TVT
Want to contribute? Read this.
Gig
In the year 3000
***

Cakes 45
Posts: 4367


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2019, 02:59:30 am »

And there's already a cvar that enables/disables runes, but IMHO it's unnecessary considering we already have disable_ and replace_ cvars. (In fact, g_runes should be gone for good, considering this)
Well, g_runes usage is easier to use than disable_, as it's one existing cvar instead of having to create four user-defined cvars, without autocomplete (and pre-creating all disable_ cvars may use up too much precious cvar space).

Speaking about redundant things, maybe Elimination_selfdamage, which overlaps with g_frindlyfire and dmflags (8 and 1024).
Quote
elimination_selfdamage "0" // 0 = no self/team damage, 1 = damage to self, 2 damage to self and team. Notice that in Elimination/CTF Elimination game modes (\g_gametype 8 and 9), both self and team damage are controlled by \elimination_selfdamage; but when using other game types and enabling /g_elimination, it controls only damage to yourself: damage to team members is still controlled by /g_friendlyfire, as usual. Note: dmflags are stronger than elimination_selfdamage: elimination_selfdamage cannot enable selfdamage if dmflags forbids it.
Considering g_friendlyfire always existed, I don't see why elimination_selfdamage did need to also cover "damage to team" instead of just to yourself. However since the behavior is already established, I don't know if that's worth doing changes (also becase elimination_selfdamage cvar may still be useful, as easier to use than dmflags).
Ooops, I went off-topic. Please forgive me.
Logged

I never want to be aggressive, offensive or ironic with my posts. If you find something offending in my posts, read them again searching for a different mood there. If you still see something bad with them, please ask me infos. I can be wrong at times, but I never want to upset anyone.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: