Tiering and Overall Gameplay Discussion

Alright so this discussion has been going on for a while in kong chat and apparently in heated email debates. I thought I'd record it so that we aren't repeating the same arguments and we can move on in the development towards the solution. So, let us begin.

Terms:

Tiering System - The gameplay where weapons are free but one must go to their respective tiers to get them.

Tier-less [For lack of a better term] - The gameplay where weapons cost money but you can buy them at any tier.

Combo - A new solution-idea to combine the two systems. It would have weapons cost money but you can buy weapons at any tier. Here's the catch: If you buy the weapons at their respective tiers, you get a major discount.

The Problem:

Can't figure out which system [not limited to the above] is the most effective, enjoyable, and popular.

Argument 1: Against Tiering

The tiering system makes players walk all the way to their second and third tiers and back just to get a better weapon. Usually players will skip doing this and go straight for cannon/rocket/castle, but these weapons make it difficult to finish off an opponent. What follows is a series of body-flinging standoffs in which no one wins. Sure every now and then a suicidal run will destroy the first tier and possibly send the dino back to the second tier, but the other dino will just come back with 2nd tier weapons and take back his base... then the cycle continues. This can continue even after 3rd tiers are compromised, because of the sheer power of the 3rd tier weapons. Also, by this stage, resources are dwindling and one cannot dominate the map quickly. This makes for a very long game. Reports of staggering 20-30 minute games have filled the chat room. Boredom ensues. Kongregators ditch their dinos for flamboyant little racing avatars reminiscent of easter eggs with legs [platform racing].

Argument 1: Solution

Some of those against tiering call for a plain out tier-less system. Others seek a balance between the two, and might find refuge in the combo system. Still others are just unsatisfied and expect Intuition to live up to their intuitive name by creating something entirely new.

Argument 2: Strategy Needed

Though not necessarily pro-tiering, these debaters find the tier-less system to lack an important aspect of this genre of gaming: strategy. By just handing out the "last resort" weapons to those willing to stand still for a bit, one can skip tactics entirely and just fire away without care [think of an atom bomb and Bush without proper supervision]. The strategists call for a system that will give players multiple roads to take toward victory, some being better and more difficult than others, and definitely multiple evenly matched ones. This would most certainly result in an exciting game, where people can feel like they are actually accomplishing something, rather than back and forth massacring and mutilating of dinosaurs [sounds fun in text, but unfortunately dinowaurs is not that detailed].

Argument 2: Solution

The strategists have always been a difficult lot. There is no definite solution to their plight, but some ideas have been offered. One solution could be a decking system: players choose their weapons before the match begins, forcing one to create the most powerful combinations. <<I have forgotten the other offered solutions, will update this later>>

During further discussion I'll update this. I know I had more to write, but it isn't coming to mind at the moment. Please post comments and ideas, the more the better.

Update:

Combo System has been implemented! So far it has been well liked [by what I have heard] and no more arguments! woot.

So what makes the Combo System work?

Quick facts:

You can buy any weapon at any tier.
Weapons are most expensive at first tier.
Weapons are least expensive at third tier, with a huge discount.
The choice in strategy here is that the dino can either risk an attack on his first tier for cheaper weapons, or spend most of his cash on first tier at the risk of not having enough money to defend himself.

Here is an example of the Combo System in action:

Cpasley's Charles Bronson starts a round with Pachuco's Stegfro. Charles Bronson wants to secure a strong, early foothold in the map and heads straight for Stegfro's base using weaker weapons. He decides he will save his resources for later so that he can finish off Stegfro in one go. Stegfro had decided to retreat to second tier to get a bit of a discount and picks up a powerful weapon. He comes back just in time to confront Charles Bronson.

Stegfro has 2 problems:

His expensive weapon has left him without room for many shots.
If he fails to take his base back he will be further in a rut with resources.

Charles Bronson has 2 problems as well:

Though his cheap weapons allow him to fire more shots, they will be less effective.
He must avoid dying under the power of the expensive weapons.

Both have disadvantages, but both also have advantages. Charles Bronson has more shots to spare, and Stegfro packs a harder punch. In the end it all comes down to skill and a bit of luck, but one can avoid such an even standoff with a different strategy. Charles Bronson can come back next time with a medium power weapon and a cheap weapon for a fairly powerful combination. Stegfro can skip Charles Bronson altogether and take out the bases behind him.

The result of this little example will always be a humiliating defeat for cpasley.

Pachuco's Official Critique of the Combo System:

All in all, this new system proves to be the best answer, as it provides for the most strategy and enjoyment. Every match I have been in called for a different strategy because of the many different strategies that can be made. Though 20-30 minute standoff matches can still occur, it only really happens when both sides are very equally matched.

-pachuco