Why some one that has mexes , expand need to provide metal to camper at starting position making deff not on front lines ? I started playing again but still i see the same problem again and again.... If that camper has less meatal he starts maby thinking maby i expand or get another mex from enemy or overdrive. I just dont get it why good players or normal need to sufer becouse of that ppl?
+0 / -0
|
|
|
There are basically 3 solutions: - Play 1v1s only (or solo vs chickens/bots) where you only rely on yourself. - If you don't want to do the above just don't play with randoms. Find a clan, invite some rl buddies to play with you that sort of jam. - Code proper matchmaking and find 200 more active players to join the playerbase. Abolishing communism would make the problem even worse considering "I will sit in a corner and make eco only to make that super gun" type of people.
+1 / -0
|
A fourth option exists: exercise your social capital and have people host a widely popular CAPITALIST GAMES -- ALL WELCOME host 24/7, with no air players because they won't have income.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
why good players or normal need to sufer becouse of that ppl? |
You don't suffer. Those players usually have ~1200 elo, so you will get super good teammates and/or enemies will get super weak players.
+1 / -0
|
Dunno why 1 clan with 1 noroved thinking responded but you are simple telling me that "team mate" that builds deff at starting position is better then have another room "All Welcome" with option turn ON all the time that change economy of mexes ? In first place i wonder why waste metal there having 1-2 mexes ( When enemy will be so close it is end of game they have 90% of map) Why dont build it close to another mexed that he retreved :) No air player have starting mexes + overdrive + com income + reclaim i so were good air players that take advantage of they constuctors to reclaim fast to build more before enemy apears again.
+0 / -0
|
Dont bother. They are socialists. They seriously believe that removing personal responsibility and forcefully sharing a player's income will not at all affect his motivation. Dont tryhard, dont play for the win - such things will only lead to frustration. Play for fun, do whatever. Learn to find fun in things other than winning. There is no penalty for being bad, there is no reward for being good.
+6 / -1
|
Yogzototh If what Licho writed some time ago is true, http://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/3925#44841I get it that economy shared equally is just not needed :)
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Why some one that has mexes , expand need to provide metal to camper at starting position making deff not on front lines ?
|
quote:
[...] but you are simple telling me that "team mate" that builds deff at starting position is better then [...]
|
quote:
There is no penalty for being bad, there is no reward for being good.
|
The common thread is not that sharing metal is bad, but that sharing metal with bad players is bad. Capitalism won't solve your problem, low-variance matchmaking will.
+1 / -0
|
If ZK maps had no safe back mexes and all mexes were front-line things that had to be aggressively taken and defended, I'd agree with pure capitalism. But otherwise? The race to grab the safe back-mexes determines which player gets the most power. That's silly.
+0 / -0
|
I once solved this problem by using a Vindi to transport commanders of porcers to empty metal spots near my teams front. Then     Licho muted me, which iirc included markers. I had to resort to spelling out my disapproval with this action using LLT-nanospam. [Spoiler]I think that happened on the southern end of Victoria Crater. Aah how I miss those days..
+2 / -0
|
|
|
quote:
Why wont individual income solve this? Simple: Glaive Fortress guys get separate income so they are still being useless. |
Nope, they only get as much as they have mexes in base which is most likely less than in communism.
+0 / -0
|
Let me elaborate: it weakens the effect but the problem is not solved.
+0 / -0
|
quote:
Dont bother. They are socialists. They seriously believe that removing personal responsibility and forcefully sharing a player's income will not at all affect his motivation. |
I think it's quite clever to design a game which is inherently less appealing to people who weight personal gratification far higher than that of others. Might have a positive effect on the community.
+2 / -0
|
quote:
I think it's clever to force people to share instead of letting them do that voluntarily |
+0 / -0
|
Pretty much, yes. If you don't like it there are other games you could play. It will tend to annoy the kind of people who wouldn't share given the choice, which as far as I'm concerned is a plus.
+3 / -0
|
quote:
If you don't like it there are other games you could play. |
I already do. I only come to ZK for FFAs, 1v1s and small well-arranged teams. Which is a pity, i wish i could play it more without having 70% of my economy spent on sending the enemy metal donations. The fact the competent players on the other team are suffering the same fate does not bring me any solace.
+1 / -0
|
If you already have that view then what do you expect to get out of capitalist large teamgame? Is private economy a method of tricking the best player on the opposing team into 1v1ing you (once your teammates become irrelevant)? In general, all arguments against communism seem to have at least one of these problems:
-
The argument would also justify kicking worse players and taking their stuff.
-
The issue in the argument does not seem to be solved by removing communism. The actual solution would be to play games with more uniform skill level.
+2 / -0
|
|
|
