Halo Wars: MP etiquette question(s)

– When I’m obviously going to lose a match [I.E. just no hope] what is the preferred response: Resign immediately, self-destruct my base so your opp. gets points, or just wait until the opponnent decides to finish you off??

– When the matchmaking service puts me [a recruit] up against a much higher ranked opponnent should I just resign or take my beatin’ like a man in the hopes that I’ll learn something??

– HW [an RTS] doesn’t seem as “chatty” as other MP games around [mostly FPS and such]. Should I just leave the headset at home in 1vs.1 matches? Is there any time that I should snag the headset??

– Is there any other etiquette points a newb should know but may not know what to ask?

P.S. Sorry for the newb questions but my search didn’t turn up much …

> – When I’m obviously going to lose a match [I.E. just no hope] what is the preferred response: Resign immediately, self-destruct my base so your opp. gets points, or just wait until the opponnent decides to finish you off??
>
> – When the matchmaking service puts me [a recruit] up against a much higher ranked opponnent should I just resign or take my beatin’ like a man in the hopes that I’ll learn something??
>
> – HW [an RTS] doesn’t seem as “chatty” as other MP games around [mostly FPS and such]. Should I just leave the headset at home in 1vs.1 matches? Is there any time that I should snag the headset??
>
> – Is there any other etiquette points a newb should know but may not know what to ask?
>
>
> P.S. Sorry for the newb questions but my search didn’t turn up much …

–It is up to you what you would like to do,if you feel you can no longer hold your own then just simply say GG and quit the game.If you feel his attck is weak then hold in there and see what happens, in the end it is up to you.

–You could resign but that would teach you nothing,that could be a moment learning some big lessons.

–Lots of people do chat…I my self do not like to talk to my opponent.I only like to chat with team mates.

If you need someone to play with just add me! Dog 0f War XD

-resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.

-I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.

-I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.

-Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.

> -resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.
>
> -I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.
>
> -I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.
>
> -Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.

I thought you stopped playing. Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders (is OP).

> > -resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.
> >
> > -I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.
> >
> > -I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.
> >
> > -Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.
>
> I thought you stopped playing. Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders (is OP).

I did. But I still know as much as the next guy about Halo Wars etiquette.

Anders is OP. -_-

> > > -resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.
> > >
> > > -I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.
> > >
> > > -I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.
> > >
> > > -Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.
> >
> > I thought you stopped playing. Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders (is OP).
>
> I did. But I still know as much as the next guy about Halo Wars etiquette.
>
> Anders is OP. -_-

Gremlins are completely ridiculous at 1 reactor. Not to mention the Arby is pretty OP now too because he now takes normal damage in rage mode. I had my friend switch to Anders and now that’s all we run. Not like it matters, because we haven’t run into anyone remotely good since the update. Oh well, crushing nubs is still satisfying, we just don’t have any bragging rights.

> > > > -resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.
> > > >
> > > > -I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.
> > > >
> > > > -I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.
> > > >
> > > > -Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.
> > >
> > > I thought you stopped playing. Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders (is OP).
> >
> > I did. But I still know as much as the next guy about Halo Wars etiquette.
> >
> > Anders is OP. -_-
>
> Gremlins are completely ridiculous at 1 reactor. Not to mention the Arby is pretty OP now too because he now takes normal damage in rage mode. I had my friend switch to Anders and now that’s all we run. Not like it matters, because we haven’t run into anyone remotely good since the update. Oh well, crushing nubs is still satisfying, we just don’t have any bragging rights.

The main problem that Halo Wars had before WayPoint destroyed the balance, was that there was not just little competition, but no varied competition. I would only face 4-6 people in 1v1 that gave a challenge and they were good friends for 12+ months. Gets too repetitive.

A game with no support, little competition, “major” balance issues, and no new strats to find just was too much for me. I might come back here and there after(if) they fix the balance issues but lately SC2 has been much more satisfying.

> > > > > -resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > -I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.
> > > > >
> > > > > -I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.
> > > >
> > > > I thought you stopped playing. Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders (is OP).
> > >
> > > I did. But I still know as much as the next guy about Halo Wars etiquette.
> > >
> > > Anders is OP. -_-
> >
> > Gremlins are completely ridiculous at 1 reactor. Not to mention the Arby is pretty OP now too because he now takes normal damage in rage mode. I had my friend switch to Anders and now that’s all we run. Not like it matters, because we haven’t run into anyone remotely good since the update. Oh well, crushing nubs is still satisfying, we just don’t have any bragging rights.
>
> The main problem that Halo Wars had before WayPoint destroyed the balance, was that there was not just little competition, but no varied competition. I would only face 4-6 people in 1v1 that gave a challenge and they were good friends for 12+ months. Gets too repetitive.
>
> A game with no support, little competition, “major” balance issues, and no new strats to find just was too much for me. I might come back here and there after(if) they fix the balance issues but lately SC2 has been much more satisfying.

Which makes it even sadder for me because I don’t have the time or computer for Star Craft. I just get on for a couple hours a week with my friends to play HW. It’s still by far my favorite Xbox game. Better than BO, and far better than Reach. Wish more console gamers played RTS. I think there’s a potential market out there, they just have to change the gameplay a little more to focus on combat (get straight to the action), and do a better job marketing it. RTS games are extremely satisfying. Someones going to get the market eventually and I think Halo is the best candidate at this point given its fan base. But alas, 343 and MS’s complete disregard for HW is a sure sign that they won’t be the ones to capitalize.

Remember how Halo was originally meant as an RTS? How friggin’ hard would you laugh if Bungie made a smash hit RTS as its first game? Remember they said there was no guarantee that they would even do an FPS. (Of course they will though, there’s no way Activision bought them out just to have them experiment.) People undersell console RTS games. They don’t have to be inferior to PC RTS games, they just have to have a different style of gameplay for a different audience. One that is less about econ and base building, and more about unit specialization, contextual commands and map control, for fast paced, action oriented gameplay.

> > > > > > -resign. Don’t waste my time and I won’t waste yours. Hitting general means nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -I 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 people all the time. Don’t resign. I play on my bros. account and hes a recruit and an idiot that resigned cost me first page and rank 6.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -I talk a lot on halo wars. Join a party or talk to teammates. Good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Kiss up to top players or at least befriend them, it helps a lot, I guess. Say “gg” if you want and never trash talk unless you’re good.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought you stopped playing. Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders Anders (is OP).
> > > >
> > > > I did. But I still know as much as the next guy about Halo Wars etiquette.
> > > >
> > > > Anders is OP. -_-
> > >
> > > Gremlins are completely ridiculous at 1 reactor. Not to mention the Arby is pretty OP now too because he now takes normal damage in rage mode. I had my friend switch to Anders and now that’s all we run. Not like it matters, because we haven’t run into anyone remotely good since the update. Oh well, crushing nubs is still satisfying, we just don’t have any bragging rights.
> >
> > The main problem that Halo Wars had before WayPoint destroyed the balance, was that there was not just little competition, but no varied competition. I would only face 4-6 people in 1v1 that gave a challenge and they were good friends for 12+ months. Gets too repetitive.
> >
> > A game with no support, little competition, “major” balance issues, and no new strats to find just was too much for me. I might come back here and there after(if) they fix the balance issues but lately SC2 has been much more satisfying.
>
> Which makes it even sadder for me because I don’t have the time or computer for Star Craft. I just get on for a couple hours a week with my friends to play HW. It’s still by far my favorite Xbox game. Better than BO, and far better than Reach. Wish more console gamers played RTS. I think there’s a potential market out there, they just have to change the gameplay a little more to focus on combat (get straight to the action), and do a better job marketing it. RTS games are extremely satisfying. Someones going to get the market eventually and I think Halo is the best candidate at this point given its fan base. But alas, 343 and MS’s complete disregard for HW is a sure sign that they won’t be the ones to capitalize.
>
> Remember how Halo was originally meant as an RTS? How friggin’ hard would you laugh if Bungie made a smash hit RTS as its first game? Remember they said there was no guarantee that they would even do an FPS. (Of course they will though, there’s no way Activision bought them out just to have them experiment.) People undersell console RTS games. They don’t have to be inferior to PC RTS games, they just have to have a different style of gameplay for a different audience. One that is less about econ and base building, and more about unit specialization, contextual commands and map control, for fast paced, action oriented gameplay.

Ya, console RTS games have potential to be great, but it is not a priority by any company right now.
You should try to get SC2 and find time for it, due to the fact it is the most competitive RTS out there and the stats are unlimited. Even if you don’t have much time or have to play only on holidays/summer it would still be nice.

Oh, I already have SC2. The problem is that my computer is below the operating requirements and I lag and freeze constantly, so I can’t really play online. I’d need a new computer. I’m thinking about getting one once I graduate.

I’ve played it. I know how awesome it is. But Halo Wars is just much more fast paced; good for lighthearted fun. It isn’t as much of a pain in the *** to manage your buildings and production, which I know is usually the mark of a player’s skill, but it still isn’t the fun part of the game. Star Craft is a lot more intense. Plus I’d have to get my friends to play it online too. I’m not against the idea, I just don’t see it happening for me.

> Oh, I already have SC2. The problem is that my computer is below the operating requirements and I lag and freeze constantly, so I can’t really play online. I’d need a new computer. I’m thinking about getting one once I graduate.
>
> I’ve played it. I know how awesome it is. But Halo Wars is just much more fast paced; good for lighthearted fun. It isn’t as much of a pain in the *** to manage your buildings and production, which I know is usually the mark of a player’s skill, but it still isn’t the fun part of the game. Star Craft is a lot more intense. Plus I’d have to get my friends to play it online too. I’m not against the idea, I just don’t see it happening for me.

That is fine if you don’t want to play SC2 over Halo Wars, I would rather play Halo Wars but my favorite leader has been massively screwed up for my favorite game type.

SC2 is more intense because every match your playing someone on your level while Halo Wars can go dozens of games without that intensity.

> > Oh, I already have SC2. The problem is that my computer is below the operating requirements and I lag and freeze constantly, so I can’t really play online. I’d need a new computer. I’m thinking about getting one once I graduate.
> >
> > I’ve played it. I know how awesome it is. But Halo Wars is just much more fast paced; good for lighthearted fun. It isn’t as much of a pain in the *** to manage your buildings and production, which I know is usually the mark of a player’s skill, but it still isn’t the fun part of the game. Star Craft is a lot more intense. Plus I’d have to get my friends to play it online too. I’m not against the idea, I just don’t see it happening for me.
>
> That is fine if you don’t want to play SC2 over Halo Wars, I would rather play Halo Wars but my favorite leader has been massively screwed up for my favorite game type.
>
> SC2 is more intense because every match your playing someone on your level while Halo Wars can go dozens of games without that intensity.

Well, that and it’s usually pretty clear who’s going to win after 5 minutes in Halo Wars. All the base building in SC is really annoying when you realize you’ve just wasted your time. It’s more work before you get into combat. I like the fast pace. Though you’re quite right about skill level; it’s a crap shoot in Halo Wars.

> Oh, I already have SC2. The problem is that my computer is below the operating requirements and I lag and freeze constantly, so I can’t really play online. I’d need a new computer. I’m thinking about getting one once I graduate.
>
> I’ve played it. I know how awesome it is. But Halo Wars is just much more fast paced; good for lighthearted fun. It isn’t as much of a pain in the *** to manage your buildings and production, which I know is usually the mark of a player’s skill, but it still isn’t the fun part of the game. Star Craft is a lot more intense. Plus I’d have to get my friends to play it online too. I’m not against the idea, I just don’t see it happening for me.

SC2 is on a near equivalent pace as Halo Wars for the beggining of the game, but once you start multi bases in SC, then your actions per minute (APM) increase significantly when compared to Halo Wars.

I agree so much that Halo Wars is a great game, and by far the best RTS on a console. I think waht it could use is a little more complexity, which may be hard to balance, but would at least give the game some more options. There are INFINITE possibilities in SC, but a limited amount in Halo Wars.

-SC 2 is also alot of fun because it has 3 very different races (SC 1 as well), that are all so different and well balance. While Halo Wars does have 6 leaders, its only 2 races which really limits the combinations and innovation you can have.
-SC also allows you to build where ever you want, which I dont would work in Halo Wars, but it makes the gameplay far more dynamic.

if you play against generals and you are loosing with no comeback opportunity then resign
i my self am not a general and always get so pissed when somebody resigns just after I destroyed his army since I would love to get those juicy base points

I still don’t understand why a capitulation request is not standard in RTS games …

Unless I’m mistaken if you blow your bases before resigning the opponnent should get the building points. I’ve started to do that recently when I’m 1000% sure I’ve lost. When things are blown then I resign if the game doesn’t end immediately.

> > Oh, I already have SC2. The problem is that my computer is below the operating requirements and I lag and freeze constantly, so I can’t really play online. I’d need a new computer. I’m thinking about getting one once I graduate.
> >
> > I’ve played it. I know how awesome it is. But Halo Wars is just much more fast paced; good for lighthearted fun. It isn’t as much of a pain in the *** to manage your buildings and production, which I know is usually the mark of a player’s skill, but it still isn’t the fun part of the game. Star Craft is a lot more intense. Plus I’d have to get my friends to play it online too. I’m not against the idea, I just don’t see it happening for me.
>
> SC2 is on a near equivalent pace as Halo Wars for the beggining of the game, but once you start multi bases in SC, then your actions per minute (APM) increase significantly when compared to Halo Wars.
>
> I agree so much that Halo Wars is a great game, and by far the best RTS on a console. I think waht it could use is a little more complexity, which may be hard to balance, but would at least give the game some more options. There are INFINITE possibilities in SC, but a limited amount in Halo Wars.
>
> -SC 2 is also alot of fun because it has 3 very different races (SC 1 as well), that are all so different and well balance. While Halo Wars does have 6 leaders, its only 2 races which really limits the combinations and innovation you can have.
> -SC also allows you to build where ever you want, which I dont would work in Halo Wars, but it makes the gameplay far more dynamic.

I think a lot of complexity could be added to the existing HW template without slowing down the pace. My general suggestions for HW 2 would be:

  1. Make bases larger like the E3 2007 models with walls, but still use the socketed system, just add more sockets. This would give bases a more base like feel, and would make beginning/early rushes much more of a gamble.

  2. Add terrain bonuses and give maps more complex topography. (i.e. a unit on a hill gets added range of sight, etc.)

  3. Add support structures, (artillery, anti-air, bunkers etc.) that can be free built across the map in certain areas (make them all round or automatically rotational so the player doesn’t have to rotate them). This in combination with #2 would make the game much more about map control.

  4. Add branching unit specializations that you can research then switch later. Call these weapon/armament upgrades. They give certain boosts to units (anti-infantry, anti-air, added range, etc.) I think this would drastically increase depth, yet still keep things quite simple. It would also encourage people to combine types of units because of the synergy of their bonuses.

  5. Add general abilities to units, like ‘Fortify’ (increased damage and defense, but cannot chase enemies/ cannot move until unfortified), ‘Charge’ (go to area with increased speed, but take more damage), ‘Recon Mode’ (for scout units only: do not engage enemy, but remain invisible until units pass within a certain radius, other scouts and leaders can spot them more easily). You get the idea.

I think all of this would add a lot more depth, but could still work quite well on the controller (you just press and hold the left bumper when a unit is selected for the special orders menu then press the appropriate button {A, X, Y, B}, let go and order the unit, it shouldn’t take more than a split second and it would be very hard to mess up).

> 1) Make bases larger like the E3 2007 models with walls, but still use the socketed system, just add more sockets. This would give bases a more base like feel, and would make beginning/early rushes much more of a gamble.

I like this idea. Lets say you still have the base sockets around the map like it is now. Except each base gives you an area to build in, not pre placed sockets. Each base will only be able to support 7-10 buildings (and 4-6 turrets) in its area.

> 2) Add terrain bonuses and give maps more complex topography. (i.e. a unit on a hill gets added range of sight, etc.)

Brilliant. Starcraft ledges are perfect example.

> 3) Add support structures, (artillery, anti-air, bunkers etc.) that can be free built across the map in certain areas (make them all round or automatically rotational so the player doesn’t have to rotate them). This in combination with #2 would make the game much more about map control.

Im on teh fence about this. I have often thought about how halo wars would be if you could build turrets everywhere. Not sure what i think.

> 4) Add branching unit specializations that you can research then switch later. Call these weapon/armament upgrades. They give certain boosts to units (anti-infantry, anti-air, added range, etc.) I think this would drastically increase depth, yet still keep things quite simple. It would also encourage people to combine types of units because of the synergy of their bonuses.

I dont like this. Every unit can become a coutner to another.

> 5) Add general abilities to units, like ‘Fortify’ (increased damage and defense, but cannot chase enemies/ cannot move until unfortified), ‘Charge’ (go to area with increased speed, but take more damage), ‘Recon Mode’ (for scout units only: do not engage enemy, but remain invisible until units pass within a certain radius, other scouts and leaders can spot them more easily). You get the idea.

I like the general idea. Maybe just give all units 2-3 ‘Y’ abilities, all on the same cooldown.

> > 1) Make bases larger like the E3 2007 models with walls, but still use the socketed system, just add more sockets. This would give bases a more base like feel, and would make beginning/early rushes much more of a gamble.
>
> I like this idea. Lets say you still have the base sockets around the map like it is now. Except each base gives you an area to build in, not pre placed sockets. Each base will only be able to support 7-10 buildings (and 4-6 turrets) in its area.

I don’t know if that would make much of a difference. If you can’t build everywhere and you just have limited space then you’re really just forcing the player to rotate things. Unless you’re going to have a complex building system to match I think it’s much easier to have preset slots.

However, I also had the idea to put in a lot of slots, but have different buildings take up different amounts. A supply pad is 1, a reactor is one, but when upgraded takes two (it would cost less, but the downside would be that if the one building gets destroyed you lose two reactors).

I think in general it’s best to steer the strategy away from economic and base management and towards units. SC is already the master of the former, so there’s no real point to make a poor imitation. Plus placing and rotating things on a controller would be a little cumbersome. (At least that’s what Ensemble said in the dev blogs, and I’m inclined to agree with them.)

We’re good on #2 I think.

> > 3) Add support structures, (artillery, anti-air, bunkers etc.) that can be free built across the map in certain areas (make them all round or automatically rotational so the player doesn’t have to rotate them). This in combination with #2 would make the game much more about map control.
>
> Im on teh fence about this. I have often thought about how halo wars would be if you could build turrets everywhere. Not sure what i think.

They wouldn’t be turrets. The idea was that the structures can’t operate by themselves, and can actually be captured. They would basically function like the extra stuff currently in Halo Wars (a group of infantry occupies them). They would have their own health, but the infantry would generally die first, so one could also have the opportunity to destroy them once they’re captured if you think you can’t hold the territory. You could even have an option to ‘Scuttle’ once you occupy it, so you could capture an undefended one with just an anti-infantry squad and destroy it, which would keep people from just spamming them.

> > 4) Add branching unit specializations that you can research then switch later. Call these weapon/armament upgrades. They give certain boosts to units (anti-infantry, anti-air, added range, etc.) I think this would drastically increase depth, yet still keep things quite simple. It would also encourage people to combine types of units because of the synergy of their bonuses.
>
> I dont like this. Every unit can become a coutner to another.

No, no, no, no, no. They wouldn’t be equal counters. A squad of marines with the anti-air upgrade wouldn’t be nearly as powerful as a wolverine, but building them would give you the advantage if your enemy has a bunch of cobras and air. But if you’ve upgraded anti-vehicle marines, and your enemy has tanks with canister shell, they’re still going to win. You’ll just do more damage to them than you normally would. In other words, the weapon upgrades would only be slight advantages.

In addition to this, I would make it so existing units would need to have a pelican/spirit drop off a weapons crate in order to receive the bonus, which is a leader power that has a cool down. (The normal upgrades would still apply automatically). This way people couldn’t automatically change large groups of units at once.

Just to clarify, you would have to research these too. Once you’ve researched one, you can choose to research another, but you will lose it and have to research it all over again if you want to change back. This coupled with the field drops would mean that if a player committed to building a large army of something they can’t just switch at the last moment.

> > 5) Add general abilities to units, like ‘Fortify’ (increased damage and defense, but cannot chase enemies/ cannot move until unfortified), ‘Charge’ (go to area with increased speed, but take more damage), ‘Recon Mode’ (for scout units only: do not engage enemy, but remain invisible until units pass within a certain radius, other scouts and leaders can spot them more easily). You get the idea.
>
> I like the general idea. Maybe just give all units 2-3 ‘Y’ abilities, all on the same cooldown.

Well, I think different things would require different cooldowns, but yes.

Here, to give an example: The ‘Recon’ ability really wouldn’t need that much of a cooldown because when the scouts are discovered, they’re probably going to die very quickly. I would however, make it so one can’t put too many scouts in one place. I feel this was implied, but the scouts would lie down and be stationary in recon mode, and they can only move when they come out of it. I think this seems pretty balanced, and would take some of the annoying micromanagement out of scouting. Of course you couldn’t put scouts by bases, but I think that’s a given. However, scouts would have extra range of sight, so if you saw something slow coming, you could go into recon until it passes, and then come back out. Considering you’d have to predict where the enemy is headed, this would be tricky, but fun and suspenseful. I’d just give the cooldown around two to three seconds because the ability isn’t that powerful.

I also think this and other abilities would work better if the terrain system was more dynamic. For instance, scouts would be the fastest infantry unit, and would move equally fast on hills. However, vehicles would move slower on hills and would thus automatically pathfind a route that weaves in-between them. You could also have ‘swamp’ and ‘high grass’ terrains, in which the radius of visibility for scouts in recon mode is drastically reduced or even eliminated, and possibly reduced for all infantry. Vehicles would travel much slower in swamp terrain, and one can’t build tactical buildings there (e.g. no bunkers or artillery).

I’ve been writing these ideas down, and I might post them at some point in a giant thread.

> > > 1) Make bases larger like the E3 2007 models with walls, but still use the socketed system, just add more sockets. This would give bases a more base like feel, and would make beginning/early rushes much more of a gamble.
> >
> > I like this idea. Lets say you still have the base sockets around the map like it is now. Except each base gives you an area to build in, not pre placed sockets. Each base will only be able to support 7-10 buildings (and 4-6 turrets) in its area.
>
> I don’t know if that would make much of a difference. If you can’t build everywhere and you just have limited space then you’re really just forcing the player to rotate things. Unless you’re going to have a complex building system to match I think it’s much easier to have preset slots.

I dont think rotation would be an issue. Make all building be rotatable 4 times (every 90 degrees, not that this would matter if every building is a 3x3. if they are 2x3 or 1x3, then give the rotation option). Then just have squares like in starcraft, giving you a little freedom in your design, but not rediculous. The space provided by the base would be more than big enough to fit all your buildings. Imagine placing all supply pads at th front arc of your building area, to make a sort of wall to put units behind, and other important buildings.

> > > 4) Add branching unit specializations that you can research then switch later. Call these weapon/armament upgrades. They give certain boosts to units (anti-infantry, anti-air, added range, etc.) I think this would drastically increase depth, yet still keep things quite simple. It would also encourage people to combine types of units because of the synergy of their bonuses.
> >
> > I dont like this. Every unit can become a coutner to another.
>
> No, no, no, no, no. They wouldn’t be equal counters. A squad of marines with the anti-air upgrade wouldn’t be nearly as powerful as a wolverine, but building them would give you the advantage if your enemy has a bunch of cobras and air. But if you’ve upgraded anti-vehicle marines, and your enemy has tanks with canister shell, they’re still going to win. You’ll just do more damage to them than you normally would. In other words, the weapon upgrades would only be slight advantages.
>
> In addition to this, I would make it so existing units would need to have a pelican/spirit drop off a weapons crate in order to receive the bonus, which is a leader power that has a cool down. (The normal upgrades would still apply automatically). This way people couldn’t automatically change large groups of units at once.
>
> Just to clarify, you would have to research these too. Once you’ve researched one, you can choose to research another, but you will lose it and have to research it all over again if you want to change back. This coupled with the field drops would mean that if a player committed to building a large army of something they can’t just switch at the last moment.

I like this idea a little more now. It would make infantry far more viable as a unit. I think the whole system can be simplified and made like Warhammer 40k’s if you ahve ever played that. Once you want to upgrade your squad of marines, you simply click them and choose 1 of a few options(options are changed to represent halo wars): anti vehicle, anti air, anti infantry. This upgrade costs money to do, and can be changed at any time, but will cost full price. Actually, now that i think about it, it is the exact sytem that turrets use in halo wars. Just make infantry just like turrets and itd be great.

Is there any etiquette involved when you know [at least strongly suspect] that you’re matched against a noob or at least someone who can’t compete with you???

Do you just end the game quickly, keep scouting and hit them if they start getting a little dangerous, etc., take all of the map locals as your own and then hit them once they’ve built up some forces, …

The only reason I’m asking is I’ve been playing a lot of guys with either low TrueSkill scores or guys that are brand new to MP and usually don’t do very well.