TRes cap per RT?

ZurikiZuriki Join Date: 2010-11-20 Member: 75105Members
I was thinking about how TRes just stacks and stacks and in some long games teams can end up with 100/200 TRes and nothing to spend it on.

Perhaps having a TRes cap per RT (resource tower) could help limit how much TRes can be stacked whilst not being to harsh if an RT is lost. Essentially, each RT can stack 30 TRes and each TP (tech point) can stack another 20.

If you start with a default of 50 carbon you're at max capacity. Taking the natural expansion opens up another 20 (giving a total of 70, but the 20 cost for a CC means the expansion area is 40). Taking another RT gives a max TRes of 100. No TRes will be lost if you loose an RT except if you are above the next lowest "ceiling" of TRes, then you loose all overflow*

<i>*Better explanation: You have 2 TPs and 2RTs giving you a max TRes of 100, which you've stacked to capacity. You loose 1 RT, your TRes capacity drops to 70, the 30 TRes overflow is lost.</i>

<b>Benefits/Real-world Effects</b>
How does this improve gameplay? Well, having additional RTs brings in more TRes p/s but it also raises the cap, meaning you need to grab more RTs if you want to stack your TRes for base defenses and contingency if you loose a TP or RT.

Also it means that taking out RTs has a much greater impact on the teams progression rather than just a minor inconvenience.

Plus, with the numbers I have provided, given a team has more than 20 TRes, loosing all RTs and all but 1 TPs will still allow the team to make a recovery by constructing an RT.

If they have more than 1 TP and more than 40 TRes, they can make an even quicker recovery - giving an incentive to keep TPs; which I noticed Marines don't really do currently (they build, upgrade main CC then sell the 2nd CC for res).

<b>Thanks for reading, tell me what you think and give some suggestions on how it could be improved or problems you see.</b>

Comments

  • Pat (GER)Pat (GER) Join Date: 2010-12-13 Member: 75646Members
    edited February 2011
    you mean that there should be a limit for res?

    you cant have enough res lol. fast expand at alien expansion with new cc armory and stuff easily cost 50 res or more so at the end of the game you should have much res to attack effectively.

    IMHO...
  • ZurikiZuriki Join Date: 2010-11-20 Member: 75105Members
    It doesn't really affect early game expansion. It's only effect is to prevent stacking loads of TRes and then flushing it all on sentry spam or crag/whip spam etc. A tighter constraint on finances means commanders will be more conservative about the structures they've built and how many they build.
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    Actually, I could see this encouraging sentry/whip spam as commanders would want to spend their TRes before they hit their cap. At least, that's what I would do if there was a cap.
  • ZurikiZuriki Join Date: 2010-11-20 Member: 75105Members
    edited February 2011
    <!--quoteo(post=1834331:date=Feb 22 2011, 06:58 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Feb 22 2011, 06:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834331"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, I could see this encouraging sentry/whip spam as commanders would want to spend their TRes before they hit their cap. At least, that's what I would do if there was a cap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I feel that's what commanders do anyway. So really, it would limit their spamming. Plus you wouldn't want to spend all your TRes only to loose all your RTs and then be stuck without RTs or Res and thus irrecoverable.
  • LazerLazer Join Date: 2003-03-11 Member: 14406Members, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester
    Too much team res? lol, did the team not have a commander?
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1834332:date=Feb 22 2011, 11:07 AM:name=Zuriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zuriki @ Feb 22 2011, 11:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834332"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel that's what commanders do anyway. So really, it would limit their spamming. Plus you wouldn't want to spend all your TRes only to loose all your RTs and then be stuck without RTs or Res and thus irrecoverable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Actually, you want to keep your TRes as close to 0 as possible for as much of the game as possible. This is a core principle of good RTS play. Accumulating resources is basically being wasteful with them. TRes is more valuable as structures and upgrades then as the number at the top of your screen.

    Also, the only times I see teams accumulate TRes is when
    1.) There is no comm or
    2.) The comm is new or bad and doesn't know what he is doing

    I don't see how a cap would stop spamming in either situation. All it would do is penalize the team with no comm or a bad comm further.
  • IeptBarakatIeptBarakat The most difficult name to speak ingame. Join Date: 2009-07-10 Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
    The only res cap the game needs is a personal res cap.
  • Simon493Simon493 Join Date: 2011-02-20 Member: 82724Members
    edited February 2011
    o.O really?
    If spam is a problem then item cost needs to adjusted or counters added to other team. If a team saves up a ######load of resources to be able to offensively spam turrets/w/e then good for them. Its a tactic, if its OP nerf through costs or counters not some lame artificial caps.

    I don't really have anything to add to what everyone else said.
  • spellman23spellman23 NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
    edited February 2011
    No need.

    Good commanders should be using their TRes as it comes in. Similar to SC2 macro. Good players keep as little as possible in the bank (storing up for big jumps obviously proper strategy as well). Bad commanders will let it stockpile and go to waste.
  • ShiloriusShilorius Join Date: 2011-01-14 Member: 77445Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1834356:date=Feb 22 2011, 01:27 PM:name=IeptBarakat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (IeptBarakat @ Feb 22 2011, 01:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834356"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only res cap the game needs is a personal res cap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    This

    Maybe in the way Zuriki described.
    So the team would actually care if I tell 'em that a RT is under attack .. and maybe follow my order to protect it.


    But there is no need to cap Carbon imho.
  • SquidgetSquidget Join Date: 2003-06-13 Member: 17334Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1834353:date=Feb 22 2011, 03:12 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Feb 22 2011, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834353"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, you want to keep your TRes as close to 0 as possible for as much of the game as possible. This is a core principle of good RTS play. Accumulating resources is basically being wasteful with them. TRes is more valuable as structures and upgrades then as the number at the top of your screen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Well, to be nitpicky, for Aliens you want to keep it as close to 15 as possible. Dipping below that opens you up to harvester suicide rushes. Just sayin'.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    edited February 2011
    Personally I think the solution is to increase the variety, number of uses, and cost of late-game expenditures, instead.

    I do agree with a personal res cap though. Whatever the highest personal expenditure is in the game, e.g. buying onos (75) - maybe double that (150), and that should be the cap.
    <b>One</b> <u>fully upgraded</u> resource tower will yield 10 resources a minute (2 every 12 seconds), so it will take 15 minutes to hit the cap without spending anything with just one tower.
  • SkieSkie Skulk Progenitor Join Date: 2003-10-18 Member: 21766Members, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited February 2011
    I don't like the res cap idea.

    It would mean that if the enemy team does a coordinated attack to all enemy res nodes (think of a 16v16 server) and manages to get them all, that would mean the res for that team drops to 0 - 20, if I understood your suggestion. Why I don't like that is that you wouldn't be able to have 30 res in store to build 2 harvesters, for example, to get the economy running again.

    There should be no res caps. If you're not using your res, whether carbon or plasma, you're just a bad player.

    From the title of the topic I first thought you were suggesting there to be a limit how much resources total can you harvest from a RT before it depletes, but that wouldn't work too well for the marines I guess.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    On the contrary, if you're a bad player, you will die often, and so you will spend all your personal res.
  • SkieSkie Skulk Progenitor Join Date: 2003-10-18 Member: 21766Members, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1834541:date=Feb 23 2011, 03:15 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 23 2011, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834541"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the contrary, if you're a bad player, you will die often, and so you will spend all your personal res.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Rushing in a couple of times with a shotgun and killing a res tower/some other towers, I wouldn't say is a waste of resources. It's an appropriate sacrifice despite you die a couple of times and lose your personal res.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    So what you're saying is, good and bad players are indistinguishable in terms of deaths and personal expenditure.
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    <!--quoteo(post=1834545:date=Feb 23 2011, 05:26 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 23 2011, 05:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1834545"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you're saying is, good and bad players are indistinguishable in terms of deaths and personal expenditure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    The main distinguishing factor is points, rather than PRes or deaths.
  • HarimauHarimau Join Date: 2007-12-24 Member: 63250Members
    What's that got to do with a PRes cap? Give it a cap, and there will be real costs to purchasing (and dying), and people will think it through a bit.
  • spellman23spellman23 NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
    PRes cap is fine. NS1 had Aliens only able to store up 100 res, and the costly Onos was 75, and it made perfect sense. No reason to become an Onos and die. You better do some serious damage for all that res.

    I don't think we should bind it to number of res towers though. Just adds an extra unnecessary layer of complexity.
Sign In or Register to comment.