Peaceful time at multiplayer game

Comments

• DanWarrior Member

  March 2018

  truly a good idea, i hope devs know that average game lasts for 8-12 minutes and it must be fixed
  
• tka4nik Member

  March 2018

  Very good idea, this problem was even on developer's streams. And it will fix this problem!
• Maristerial Member

  March 2018

  I fully support this proposal
  this will improve the network game and make it more diverse
• CharlieF Member

  March 2018 edited March 2018

  I think the Host should be responsible for the peace time duration.
  0-5-10-15-20-30-40-60 min would be just fine i guess
• kravtsovoleg Member

  March 2018

  CharlieF said:

  I think the Host should be responsible for the peace time duration.
  

  I wonder how he can be responsible for everyone, random connected player?
  We do not have the ability to kick the player out of the game or some other punishment
  And yet, a player who was guilty in the last battle, can change the nickname and spoil the game to you further, we do not have a blacklist.

  CharlieF said:

  
  0-5-10-15-20-30-40-60 min would be just fine i guess

  I think that 30 or more minutes, it's too long.
  In 30 minutes, four players can collect all the resources from the entire map.
  More than 20 minutes of peaceful time, in my opinion is not appropriate.
  Long delay will not help for weak players, and an experienced player will be bored
• CharlieF Member

  March 2018

  If you don't like certain host's preferences you can find another one. Your game - your rules.
  60 min just in case...doesn't matter...it could be usefull for castle builders
• CharlieF Member

  March 2018 edited March 2018

  "should be responsible" for the feature that you asked to add... i DIDN'T mean the Host should be responsible for peaceful time in present version (without ability to set the certain peace time)
• HalberdGuard Member

  March 2018

  I like this idea! I think that 0-5-10-15 would be fine, and adding 30 and 60 minute increments would still make sense for less experienced players, or matches that intentionally involve, you know, actually building Castles in the game called Castle Story! X D
  I personally much prefer longer games, where the castles are tall, and the Bricktrons are many! Which is why I changed my cap to be higher. (I find, by the way, that in my online conquest games that last a satisfying amount of time, 30 would be a more appropriate cap, and still hopefully not ruin the game speed.)
  One issue here, though, is that several methods of causing damage are dynamic, or physics-based, in nature. Because Castle Story is awesome like that. It might be difficult to find a way to keep players from using catapults, bombs, explosive barrels, etc. to harrass and hamper their enemies without simply disabling damage and voxel manipulation, which have their own undesirable repercussions... I see, and agree with, what is wanted here, but I don't know how it can be done. Making units invulnerable (except by falling into the void) for the prescribed length of time would work except for the physics damage issue, but that would remove a portion of the usefulness of several units, like the Halberdier, and to a lesser extent the Archer:
  The Halberdier is a VERY popular and effective unit right now, due to its cheapness and utility for rushing, harrassing, and rapid reaction/flanking abilities. If you remove its usefulness in early-mid game harrassing then you counter the infamous Halberdier rush, but also almost elminate their usefulness.
  The Archer is also an effective early harrassment unit, as well as being good for early/mobile defenses, but is overshadowed (but not replaced, still much quicker/cheaper!) by the Arbalist in the later game. Removing the need for early defense, or early ranged offense, would also greatly undercut the Archer's usefulness.
  
  So, in conclusion, it looks like what we need, at least for balance sake, is an option that somehow allows for harrassment and other forms of early engagement, but that keeps the players from wanting to invest too heavily, perhaps by eliminating the possibility of an early win? Maybe a time in which the Crystal is invulnerable, and Bricktron respawns are much shorter or instant, to discourage players from going all-in in their early attacks...
  
  However! Until such a change can be made, and even if it were, I think a peace-timer like you have suggested is a wonderful idea! Hal approves : )
• kravtsovoleg Member

  March 2018

  HalberdGuard said:

  I like this idea! I think that 0-5-10-15 would be fine, and adding 30 and 60 minute increments would still make sense for less experienced players, or matches that intentionally involve, you know, actually building Castles in the game called Castle Story! X D
  I personally much prefer longer games, where the castles are tall, and the Bricktrons are many! Which is why I changed my cap to be higher. (I find, by the way, that in my online conquest games that last a satisfying amount of time, 30 would be a more appropriate cap, and still hopefully not ruin the game speed.)
  

  I think the most important thing is that there should be a mechanism of the peaceful time, and after that time limits can be made so that everyone will like it.

  HalberdGuard said:

  
  One issue here, though, is that several methods of causing damage are dynamic, or physics-based, in nature. Because Castle Story is awesome like that. It might be difficult to find a way to keep players from using catapults, bombs, explosive barrels, etc. to harrass and hamper their enemies without simply disabling damage and voxel manipulation, which have their own undesirable repercussions... I see, and agree with, what is wanted here, but I don't know how it can be done. Making units invulnerable (except by falling into the void) for the prescribed length of time would work except for the physics damage issue, but that would remove a portion of the usefulness of several units, like the Halberdier, and to a lesser extent the Archer:
  The Halberdier is a VERY popular and effective unit right now, due to its cheapness and utility for rushing, harrassing, and rapid reaction/flanking abilities. If you remove its usefulness in early-mid game harrassing then you counter the infamous Halberdier rush, but also almost elminate their usefulness.
  The Archer is also an effective early harrassment unit, as well as being good for early/mobile defenses, but is overshadowed (but not replaced, still much quicker/cheaper!) by the Arbalist in the later game. Removing the need for early defense, or early ranged offense, would also greatly undercut the Archer's usefulness.
  
  So, in conclusion, it looks like what we need, at least for balance sake, is an option that somehow allows for harrassment and other forms of early engagement, but that keeps the players from wanting to invest too heavily, perhaps by eliminating the possibility of an early win? Maybe a time in which the Crystal is invulnerable, and Bricktron respawns are much shorter or instant, to discourage players from going all-in in their early attacks...
  
  However! Until such a change can be made, and even if it were, I think a peace-timer like you have suggested is a wonderful idea! Hal approves : )

  I agree that peaceful time is one way to solve the problem, but not the only one.
  Since peaceful time is already used in the championship, it would be nice to include it in game mechanics
• CastleBuilder Member

  April 2018

  Hmmm, I'm so used to playing with civil people that I forget that Halberdier rushes are a very common and possible thing. Usually since the peeps I play with agree to a peaceful timer we focus on building knights and walls among other units instead. Posting to bump this rather important topic.
• HappyBodi Member

  April 2018

  HalberdGuard said:

  I like this idea! I think that 0-5-10-15 would be fine, and adding 30 and 60 minute increments would still make sense for less experienced players, or matches that intentionally involve, you know, actually building Castles in the game called Castle Story! X D
  I personally much prefer longer games, where the castles are tall, and the Bricktrons are many! Which is why I changed my cap to be higher. (I find, by the way, that in my online conquest games that last a satisfying amount of time, 30 would be a more appropriate cap, and still hopefully not ruin the game speed.)
  One issue here, though, is that several methods of causing damage are dynamic, or physics-based, in nature. Because Castle Story is awesome like that. It might be difficult to find a way to keep players from using catapults, bombs, explosive barrels, etc. to harrass and hamper their enemies without simply disabling damage and voxel manipulation, which have their own undesirable repercussions... I see, and agree with, what is wanted here, but I don't know how it can be done. Making units invulnerable (except by falling into the void) for the prescribed length of time would work except for the physics damage issue, but that would remove a portion of the usefulness of several units, like the Halberdier, and to a lesser extent the Archer:
  The Halberdier is a VERY popular and effective unit right now, due to its cheapness and utility for rushing, harrassing, and rapid reaction/flanking abilities. If you remove its usefulness in early-mid game harrassing then you counter the infamous Halberdier rush, but also almost elminate their usefulness.
  The Archer is also an effective early harrassment unit, as well as being good for early/mobile defenses, but is overshadowed (but not replaced, still much quicker/cheaper!) by the Arbalist in the later game. Removing the need for early defense, or early ranged offense, would also greatly undercut the Archer's usefulness.
  
  So, in conclusion, it looks like what we need, at least for balance sake, is an option that somehow allows for harrassment and other forms of early engagement, but that keeps the players from wanting to invest too heavily, perhaps by eliminating the possibility of an early win? Maybe a time in which the Crystal is invulnerable, and Bricktron respawns are much shorter or instant, to discourage players from going all-in in their early attacks...
  
  However! Until such a change can be made, and even if it were, I think a peace-timer like you have suggested is a wonderful idea! Hal approves : )

  Maybe a way to stop players from catapulting each other to death would be to make it so that each player would have a portion of the map(quarter,third or half depending on the amount of players)that they can build on,and preventing any players' bricktrons from leaving their respective "zones",making the building of catapults next to enemy buildings or the sending of troops to destroy enemy buildings impossible until peaceful time is over,without having to disable damage to buildings and bricktrons altogether. These borders can be drawn by the maker of the map and can be customized by the host.
• Monotony Member

  February 2022

  HappyBodi said:

  Maybe a way to stop players from catapulting each other to death would be to make it so that each player would have a portion of the map(quarter,third or half depending on the amount of players)that they can build on,and preventing any players' bricktrons from leaving their respective "zones",making the building of catapults next to enemy buildings or the sending of troops to destroy enemy buildings impossible until peaceful time is over,without having to disable damage to buildings and bricktrons altogether. These borders can be drawn by the maker of the map and can be customized by the host.

  It would take 100 blocks from your base to your neighbor's borders for them to not be able to catapult you. This flat catapult range doesn't include additional range from height of catapult built, and the expansion of your base/territory. Imo - catapults are overpowered, makes heavy units more useless, have no counters besides other catapult, or suicide and/or bug abusage. Depending on map and skill there's also minimum 25 range cata can't shoot, but you can build another one, or build one in the corner so attacker cannot hide in it's blind spot