Scrap crates can be removed by placing scaffolds #648
Comments
|
Game design wise it makes sense that Scaffolds should not make things disappear. We already removed the ability for Scaffolds to remove Money Crates. It would be logical to have it not remove Scrap Crates as well. The reason players use Scaffolds here is because it gives them a boost against GLA, as they avoid the enemy to get stronger units. I think this is mainly important for China, because it struggles against GLA's mobility. We would need to figure out if its detrimental to Gameplay if such bug is fixed, as it appears a few players feel very strongly in favor of Scaffold Abuse, but probably only because China is weaker without it. I do not think we need to change GameReplays fair play rules. They are unrelated to this Project. |
|
First point: 2nd point: We need to have such discussion as if fair play rules allow it and we say it shouldn't be allowed you cant do a patch for both scenarios. Also I highly think this question should be ansered by a PRO group asap. |
|
I think scrap deny should stay as part of the game, most players accept it and it does bring more fun/micro into the game. |
|
Don't you think we should ask a few Pros? |
xezon
added
Controversial
|
Most pros are fine with it. you remove this and you’ll have to start balance changes unnecessarily. IMO all changes must be necessary only |
|
Scrap-denying is a terrible mechanic for several reasons:
Scrap is a major element of GLA gameplay, and to have that element almost entirely subverted via a completely unrelated building placement mechanic feels like an insult to the players who encounter it. |
|
There are ways to counter scrap deny vs gla and USA, by placing your own scaffold to block theirs. You can also force fire and make them lose 400-600 depending what they place down. also scrap deny does require skill and is not easy unless you’ve prepared and practiced for it and have fast hands. A lot of false statements by stubbjax |
|
Actually scrap scaffolding can be punished by putting one of your units on guard mode near the scraps. If opponents puts scaffold, it will remove scrap, but unit will instantly attack building and likely kill it, because there is at least 10 frame latency until building can be cancelled. In practice, will be more frames. That is not true for GLA Demo Trap scaffold though, because that is invisible. But yeah, considering this bug has been not used until 2017 or so and no one cared for it till then, it is evidence that this is counter-intuitive and not part of game design. |
Which statements were false? The two out of six which you barely refuted? I fail to see how you can ever reliably block someone else's scrap-deny with your own scaffold without denying the scrap yourself. I also fail to see how placing a scaffold down can be considered skillful. Do you believe scrap-denying is good design?
This is probably the only good and reliable thing players can do, and even that is still only reactive rather than preventative. |
I guess you like super techs running around your base at the 3 minute mark wrecking your base, OR you don’t like that and want to nerf quads techs and marauders all to make reminding scrap deny a good move. Which it won’t coz u can’t change all those key units without pissing whole community off. If anyone touches techs quads or marauders in a big way, I probably won’t be playing anymore |
|
Rage did a pro tip topic on gamereplays once called anti scrap deny pro tip. Maybe you can find the topic |
|
|
|
I am totally against to postpone this critical decesion. Noone wants to do a 2nd Version after Putting So much effort in Version 1. |
|
It's possible to disable Scaffold Bug, so that Scraps do not disappear under scaffolds. But we will likely not be able to build a replacement feature now that allows player to remove Scraps by some other functionality. I believe. Would have to summon @alanblack166 or @commy2 to provide more qualified insight on INI possibilities. Personally I am ok with Scrap fix or no fix. It's only a handful of players that need this bug. The vast majority of players don't use this bug and will not care about it. So at the end of the day those who abuse bug will adapt to Majority or keep playing retail game. |
It seemed really easy when I've used it vs experts in 3v3. And I'm certainly nowhere near wowed or amazed when a scaffold appears out of the blue on some scrap I'm about to collect. I tend to reserve those reactions for demonstrations of actual skill, such as disabling four units with a single EMP Patriot volley, killing a Humvee with a Supply Truck, etc.
Guard mode is not preventative. I also said that it is impossible to reliably stop scrap-deny. The opponent always has the option of placing a scaffold that is roughly the size equivalent of the scrap, and in that case there is no way to stop it with your own. It also seems as if you're suggesting increasing skill level can only be a good thing, which is completely false. What if the game was changed so that players had to manually tell their supply collectors to collect again after every drop off? How about if units never automatically attacked, and each attack had to be manually ordered? In fact, what if we just straight-up removed all automation? This would surely increase the skill level, but obviously not in a good way. Why do you think that would be?
Au contraire - I like acquiring those units and wrecking my opponents' bases! But that is completely beside the point. I'm not advocating for the bug's removal as you're suggesting; I'm merely explaining why it's a terrible mechanic. |
|
So you want to remove scrap deny because you like getting a super tech at the 3 minute mark and winning a game vs china by 4-5 minutes max. Thanks for the answer! |
No. |
|
Totally agree with stubbjax, having an inaccessible exploit/bug that is being used to measure skill is nothing more than an expert monopoly that rewards whoever been playing the game the longest (+10 years) and not actual skill, we need to have a clear path that players can follow and actually learn and improve so that we can have more players, there's a lot of talented players out there, and they are being hurdled by these unintuitive bugs that they can find no reliable source of learning to get better, if we really want this game to grow, this is the right way. This is the main reason why we see less and less experts in the game, the game mechanics at the moment for a new player are not clear at all, Yes it affects ballance of techs/mauraders, but that doesn't mean those can't be fixed in a more elegant and appropriate way, i say instead of arguing to keep a bug maybe help find an alternative that would be much more reliable for ballance than scrap deny (especially when scrap spawns in an unbuildable area like china supply trucks which happens quite a lot and is a free super tech gift (cmon be reasonable you know you can't scrap deny that) i for instance liked the idea of other armies can delete scrap from the enemy by picking it up themselves. But they don't benefit from it themselves Any other suggestions? |
|
In one game I tend to drive the truck to a free field to be able to scrap deny. Otherwise you need you dozer on a key to build a gatcannon if you have money. |
|
If it was a perfect supply (how any pro player would place it) you can't fit a Gatling cannon there |
|
Oh yes, you can 100% sure. Hope we are talking about the same stuff. A China GatlingCannon for 1200$ can fit between supply dock and china supply easily. |
|
I have used gat cannon to scrap deny many times before. And usually lost the 1200 because the technical manages to one shot it instantly. Maybe when retaliation is on the technical kills it in an instant. Losing trucks and 1200 causes a loss FYI |
My bad, i wanted to test to be sure but sicne you have then that clears it, still, it doesn't take away from the fact that it's a bad move as it's quite a risk not to mention players early game would be spamming units and not float that much
THAT'S why china needs a better alternative |
|
It's not satisfying to read China needs to risk 1200 $ or let enemy get scrap, both resulting in potential loss. China shouldn't have such bad odds to begin with. Let's fix China weakness and then revisit Scrap Bug. Best case, Scrap Bug is no longer necessary for balance if China becomes better. |
|
Just thinking outside the box, but if China had prop tower available after wf, then it can also be used as tiny/cheap scaffold. |
|
Or a barricade after WF which is 50$ only which makes it quite easy. |
|
This looks really complicated to implement. Also Hackers and Lotus are potentially quite late in game, so this would impact differently. I still believe that driving over enemy scrap would be the cleanest substitute, because that mechanic already exists in original game. |
|
True, then maybe just a button that says hack detonator that you need to click, so no need for a hacker This is definitely meant to be fixed with thyme btw |
|
I suggest for the time being we go with #1680. We also fixed Quad Cannon scrap up, so GLA already needs more scraps than before. Other than that we gave China a number of perks and fixes. It is possible that we can achieve a state where China no longer needs the exploitation of salvage crates to be competitive against GLA. This would be the desired goal. |
Well like I said before, scrap deny is a huge gameplay factor that requires alot of focus and the idea to make all armies similar to GLA, where you have to chase scraps with your units all game long, is very offputting to say the least. Huge no go in my opinion as I love having differences between the factions. |
|
All linked reports are resolved. Anything else we would like to do here? |
|
We still haven't solved this, we need an Alternative to Scrap Deny We Still have Proposal 5, 9 and 10, and it seems to me that there's some agreement on 5, We need a PR for it to test 9 feels weak to me and not clear if it will help, so you can close that I really like 10 though in some way or form if it's implemented, it's the best approach we have so far, an investigation is needed to see what's possible to implement from it and maybe we can go through with it, if not with INI then maybe with thyme |
|
What is proposal 10? Make scrap visible to anyone, make source player of scrap able to select and disappear scrap via button? |
|
I wrote Proposal 10 in the opening post from what I was able to gather. I oppose this Proposal because there is no precedent for this, it is illogical and it is just slightly better than the original salvage scaffold exploit. |
|
Well, all players being able to select and delete it is certainly impossible. You'd have to have one owning player, and only that player can do stuff with it. Without having tried, making the owner of the wreck the owner of the scrap pile seems possible. So is having an action that deletes the pile. This seems very magical though. Just like conjuring up scaffolds from thin air. |
There is precedent for this, it's the same as Demo traps, logical explanation is that they can be detonated remotely through cellphone calls from anywhere, hence the Beep Sound, literal phone ringing. While it's true that it's similar to Scaffold exploit, this one's controllable, we can determine how many seconds before Scrap detonates for example.
Yeah and maybe for the enemy to get the scrap he would move on top and crush it (with no crush effects), and a dead scrap Spawns the real scrap maybe? |
|
If it is just the owning player that can detonate them then yes that is perhaps technically possible. |
|
The owning player is the player of the destroyed vehicle. Not the killer. |
|
Yes, there was error in my brain. |
|
So is this possible? |
|
I added a branch where I implemented it to the best of my ability. |
|
Regarding Proposal 10 In a way this is worse than scaffold salvage exploit, because there is no more counter play to the destruction of salvage crates. In original game the collecting player can approach the salvage crates with Guard Mode, which will make the unit auto attack the enemy scaffold when it appears in sufficient range. So at least the collecting player has a chance to punish the enemy for removing the crates. With this new implementation there is no counter play. The way it should work is that the removal of salvage crates requires effort beyond clicking a single button in the UI at no risk. It is a mistake to proceed with this feature. If salvage crate interaction is required by the victim player, then other methods need to be explored. But, Proposal 2 was marked rejected, because seeing crates by all players was deemed unacceptable. So we cannot have any interactions at all. |
|
Proposal 6 is better than Proposal 10, if salvage crates take ALLIES damage only. Reason being, it would require effort and planning to remove salvage crates. It would not be free. And the interaction would be natural, meaning all players can anticipate the outcome depending on unit presence, movement and actions. With Proposal 10 salvage crate interactions become unpredictable, because crates could disintegrate at any moment, which is bad by design. |
|
I like proposal 6, making them destructable by friendly fire only is a smart solution for a potential splash damage problem. |
|
Proposal 2 + 6 will have a side effect: USA and China will be able to drive over salvage crates with GLA units, if they managed to capture a GLA faction. There are 2 things that could happen now:
If 1, then this could be odd. If 2, then this will marginally buff USA and China factions, inconsequential in most common matches. |
|
|
That is because they don't see them, but now if they can, they should be able interact with them no? |
|
No. |
|
Most concise answer |
|
I don't like Proposal 6, it's a weak alternative to scrap deny because there are many situations that it doesn't compensate for, for example any bullet Shooting units like Gats, Quads etc, won't be able to clear scrap, not to mention that trucks, workers, dozers won't be able to clear scrap either therefore it doesn't address the imbalance with the Super tech supply Harassment i think 2 + 3 is the better choice here because it's a lot more effective and covers all Units, we just need to agree on what happens when they collect it, i think the best option is that they just crush it, like they crush cars in the game If all fails and we don't add an alternative, just add Proposal 5 and be done with it, dozers and trucks scrap give a little money, that way scrap deny is no longer needed |
Proposal 11Let scaffold Remove Crates, but scaffolds won't show up, nor the terrain is deformed until the Builder is very close to the build site, meaning no scrap deny from very far away In other words, dozers assigned to a building should give you a ghost of where their building will be built instead of a scaffold, and only set up the scaffold once the builder is there (which can still remove scrap) This will probably require thyme. |
|
Proposal 11 would be a fundamental change with side effects as it would also affect survival scaffold, pre-box scaffold, obfuscate build orders, etc. |
|
True, it would affect the surviving scaffold mechanic a little, but not completely eliminate it, however i don't understand your other two points and the issues with them. Can you elaborate? |
|
Edit: I misunderstood, the proposal is to completely change the way of how scaffolding and construction works. Doing this removes the ability to effectively deny scraps with scaffolds. Aside from scrap deny and scaffold survival etc. it's interesting to think about it. I imagine the building first appears as a green hologram (for the player himself only) before the dozer/worker starts building? |
|
Yeah something like that, also now I'm thinking about it, it should be an interactable and lingering one, meaning if you give the dozer a move order away from the building, it doesn't disappear and you can assign a different dozer to it just like you do with scaffolds |
Scrap crates can be removed by placing scaffolds on top of them. This works with all factions but is counter-intuitive, because USA and China factions cannot even see the scrap crates. GLA cannot effectively prevent the scaffold placement, but can try to kill the scaffold to at least incur a cost penalty for dropping the scaffold.
Noob and Semi players generally do not care about this exploit. Pro players use this exploit and think it helps balance China in 1.04, because China struggles versus scrapped GLA units.
ReLaX82:
Related reports:
Proposal 1 APPLIED
Leave scrap crates intact when a scaffold is put over them. Same as we did for money crates.
Proposal 2 REJECTED
Allow all factions to see scrap crates. This makes it more intuitive to interact with them.Proposal 3 REJECTED
Allow all factions to collect scrap crates. This way GLA can be prevented from picking them up naturally. When USA and China picks up the scrap with a unit, then it just disappears.Proposal 4 REJECTED
Do not drop scrap crates from China Dozer, USA Dozer and China Truck.Proposal 5
Drop different kind of scraps from different units. USA Dozer, China Dozer and China Truck drop money scraps only. Battle units drop regular scraps. Technically possible.
Proposal 6 REJECTED (by 2)
Allow scraps to be destroyed by weaponry. Could incur problems in regular battles with splash damage causing too many scraps to disappear.Proposal 7 REJECTED (by 2)
Add "Clear Scrap" ability to Dozers.Proposal 8 REJECTED (by 2)
Add "Clear Scrap" ability to China Truck.Proposal 9
Reduce Scrap timeout.
Proposal 10
Scrap crates can be seen by all players, can be selected by all players, and can be detonated by all players with a click of a button in the command set.
Proposal 11
Lets scaffold Remove Crates, but scaffolds will not spawn, nor deform the terrain until the Builder is very close to the build site.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: