Give the resources a name.
Shilorius
Join Date: 2011-01-14 Member: 77445Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2011-01-14 Member: 77445Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">Saying "I have 20 resources" is like saying "I have 20 mon</div>While I was writing my post <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113258&st=480&start=480" target="_blank">here</a> I got an Idea. What about naming the resources?
It would add a lot to the atmosphere, I think.
The resourcetowers got names, so why not give the resource a name too?
Granted, "carbon" and "plasma" are not self-explanatory. But we can still say team-something or personal something.
Maybe "Gas units" (short GUs) or some name made up name like "Etarium" (I checked google, this name don't exist.)
It would fit better in the whole backgroundstory. There is even the possibility to have another reason what for the 2 species are fighting, because both want the Etarium for themselves (..to survive). Let's say Etarium is a gas which powers nanites and is also a essential gas for aliens, because they need it to evolve. (Because: Drifters evolve into buildings, so it makes sense)
What do you think about that idea?
If there are ennough responds I will post it on getsatisfaction.
It would add a lot to the atmosphere, I think.
The resourcetowers got names, so why not give the resource a name too?
Granted, "carbon" and "plasma" are not self-explanatory. But we can still say team-something or personal something.
Maybe "Gas units" (short GUs) or some name made up name like "Etarium" (I checked google, this name don't exist.)
It would fit better in the whole backgroundstory. There is even the possibility to have another reason what for the 2 species are fighting, because both want the Etarium for themselves (..to survive). Let's say Etarium is a gas which powers nanites and is also a essential gas for aliens, because they need it to evolve. (Because: Drifters evolve into buildings, so it makes sense)
What do you think about that idea?
If there are ennough responds I will post it on getsatisfaction.
Comments
force of habit
I was very glad they removed those disorienting crappy names.
The ns1 player base will always call resources res and thus cause confusion among new players who aren't familiar with ns 1.
Etarium, short would lead to Eta? Estimated time of arrival.?
Resources, res & RT's are already part of the NS atmosphere.
If It were up to me the harvester & extractor names would return to resource tower. Self-explanatory.
you are right!
something like "Restarium" or "Resturion" or whatever.
Does someone have an Idea for a fitting name?
Like "personal" and "team" plasma. So, you could use the same term, but its context would be based on what you are talking about. e.g. You have 50 plasma, but your team doesn't have any plasma.
The first is the metal/mineral structure building type. Carbon makes some sense while still trying to be original. Everything is mostly made up of carbon. Carbon nanotubes are "the future" so I've heard. Carbon fiber, carbon steel, etc (carbohydrates! Now I'm getting silly). Carbon may be slightly ambiguous, but I guess it's a decent fit for a resource type used to build things in general. Metal or minerals would have been ok with me (I'm not someone who complains about unoriginality).
For the other resource...it seems to be NOT metal or mineral (solid in it's natural state), right? We could use a fluid...like liquid (yes, metal could be liquid :P) or gas (some games have gas extractors), but another somewhat ambiguous name was chosen -- plasma. Plasma could be like...what the Sun is made of...I think of it like energy, I suppose (even though it's like not to far from gas). It could also mean the biological fluid...which associates itself with alien stuff, possibly, but I don't think that was the idea. Plasma doesn't make a whole lot of sense and "energy" is already used for structure ability... so I think this is where a lot of confusion came in.
I don't mind TRes and PRes, but it really makes it lose the uniqueness for the resource. Take StarCraft (which I've just tried for the first time recently -- I see some influences now, yes -- I don't mind the inspiration from it though). You lose a bit of the character as soon as it something that isn't crystal/mineral and gas (vespane?). I'd like to see some character in NS2's resources.
Changing it back to another name would be tedious as they just removed all the references -- but I hope in the future they can add names for the 2 resources again. Something that is straightforward and no nonsense.
1.) Minerals
2.) "insert secondary resource" -- much harder since it allows aliens to transform and at the same time can create marine weapons
Maybe the secondary can be called something different for each respective team. Plasma fits well for aliens. I'm not sure about marines. Alloy, carbon, nanites?!. It could be a specific mineral, element, or chemical compound. Maybe a specific or mix of a science/engineering terms.
I can't believe I typed so much on something like this :P.
I generally call resources money anyway, because that's what they are. They'll still be money if you call it plotdeviceum.
Here is my suggestion. Since Marines, in the story, run almost entirely off nanites name the resources after them.
Personal Nanites.
Team Nanites.
This way it is clear which one is your own reserve and which one is the teams, but still gives it the immersion and personal factor.
Coupled with the fact that the T.Res symbol looks like 3 P.Res symbols, I think this would make it a lot easier to distinguish the two.
Here is my suggestion. Since Marines, in the story, run almost entirely off nanites name the resources after them.
Personal Nanites.
Team Nanites.
This way it is clear which one is your own reserve and which one is the teams, but still gives it the immersion and personal factor.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like that!
But then the Aliens still need a name for res. It sounds just wrong iff aliens collecting nanites as well.
<u>Credit</u> is generally associated with money, representational currency, personal expenditure (credit cards), something you <u>buy</u> things with - <b>personal</b> expenditure.
<u>Resource</u> is generally associated with extraction, "real" worth, abundance, and things on the corporate and national level, something you <u>make</u> things with - that's the bigger picture, the <b>team</b>-level picture.
KuBaN does, however, make a good point on/suggestion with the number scale - it'll just serve to really drive the point home.
Credit can both be a personal object and an impersonal object. It is no different than saying there is one dollar. That dollar could belong to me or it could belong to the government, but until I mark it with an adjective it isn't clear to the reader which one it is. Now if I say federal dollars and personal dollars, it clearly marks a difference in ownership; there is money that belongs to the federal government and there is money that belongs to me.
Anyone can have resources. Resources isn't a impersonal pronoun unless you signify it to be. I have resources in my backyard right now. I can go in my backyard, chop down my trees, and make myself a table. Does that mean that wood and table belongs to everyone in my neighborhood?
You're relying on a subjective understanding of the terms credit and resources to make your argument. Not everyone, even native English speakers including me, are automatically going to associate credits as a personal noun and resources as an impersonal noun.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I have a degree in composition, write for a living, and teach writing at a college, and if I put both credits and resources up and asked my class which one is personal and which one is impersonal/collective, they wouldn't be able to clearly tell me. It would be a guess based off of their subjective understanding of both terms which easily leads to confusion.
The problem isn't the name of the terms. It's that they aren't clearly marked as either a personal noun or an impersonal noun. We could call it whatever we wanted, but until you clearly make the distinction between the two, that is label who owns what, people are going to still be confused.
As one quick example: In this sentence tell me who the noun belongs to. "The dog ran down the street." It isn't clear is it because I haven't marked who the dog belongs to. You're doing the same thing.
Words mean nothing without context. You would never say "resources" when you speak about a tree in your back yard. Yes, the potential exists; but given the context, it takes a large stretch of the imagination to use the word "resources" to describe that tree over any other word, like, for example, "tree".
Given the context of NS, and given the <b>implications</b> of "resource" and "credit", by relating the two there is little doubt as to what these things refer to. If there is <b>any</b> doubt at the beginning, it'll only be for the split second that it takes to register that credits (currency) are for your personal expenditure and resources (raw material) are for team consumption. After that, it won't matter how learning-challenged anyone is, they'll know what "credits" and "resources" refer to.
You're taking the strange view that words are never recognised for <b>what they imply</b>, especially with regard to the context, or with regard to each other; but only ever for their broad and general meanings (and thus require the denotion of ownership, or adjectives). The issue isn't even that one is impersonal and the other is personal, they're both owned by someone. Credits are owned by you, Resources are owned by your team, or more accurately, your commander.
I'll bow to your knowledge of language and structure, but humans are subjective beings and will always treat things subjectively. It just so happens that there is actually a common pool of knowledge and shared experience from which most of us would draw, so despite the fact that all our interpretations are subjective, we'll tend to come to the same conclusion; ergo, subjectivity is not an issue.
More than that, as I said before, only those truly incapable of learning would be unable to put two and two together after giving it a second of thought.
But more than even that, adding an adjective just makes what can be simple terms ("resources"/"credits") into things far too long-winded - far more long-winded than they need to be. As unnecessarily long-winded as your post and mine.
A marine on the ground has and earns Credits; it is the only "resource" he ever sees. The commander has "Resources" as well as "Credits", but simply due to his prior experience as a marine on the ground and what he understands about the two words and their differences, he understands that they function differently.
Really, it's even simpler than that - it's intuitive; and this is all just intellectual masturbation.
If this is the case, they wouldn't of had the previous problem with new players being confused about the different currency.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Really, it's even simpler than that - it's intuitive<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It might be intuitive to you, but you're making a fallacy of hasty generalization.
I agree with your statement that a certain population might understand the difference automatically based off of their understanding of the words. And I agree with you, the percentage that doesn't will learn the difference pretty quickly. But this is very similar to what was happening with the old names. Some people understood it easily. The ones that didn't learned it pretty quickly. However, you still had a percentage of new players coming in completely confused for their first game. This is frustrating and can be a quick turn off.
If you agree that there is a percentage of players who still won't understand the difference between credits and resources instantly, which I'm understanding you do, then we're right back where we started with the original currency names, new players coming into the game and feeling confused about how the economy of the game works at first. It doesn't matter if they will learn it. From a development perspective, you never want players confused about how the game they're playing operates. Even from the very start. They want to know the rules so they can maneuver through them.
More than that, as I said before, only those truly incapable of learning would be unable to put two and two together after giving it a second of thought.
A marine on the ground has and earns Credits; it is the only "resource" he ever sees. The commander has "Resources" as well as "Credits", but simply due to his prior experience as a marine on the ground and what he understands about the two words and their differences, he understands that they function differently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to disagree here. If all of this were true, players wouldn't be as confused as they are with the current naming convention. Given the context that there are resources and team resources, it's pretty obvious that one is owned by your team, while the other would presumably be yours; I think even more obvious universally/understood than the equally-ambiguous-and-more-culturally-overloaded "credits vs. resources" idea.
"A marine on the ground has an earns Resources; it is the only "resource" he ever sees. The commander has Team Resources as well as Resources, but simply due to his prior experience as a marine on the ground and what he understands about the two words and their differences, he understands that they function differently."
Sounds great in theory, but suffers the same problem in practice.
It is not the only resource they'll ever see, because they will at some point attempt to Command, and if that is before the point where they understand the Res/T.Res or Credits/Resources paradigm, they are going to run into the same confusion they did previously.
The game is also still pretty buggy; It's pretty unreasonable to expect players to establish confidence in a system that does not provide consistent results.
<!--quoteo(post=1849328:date=May 31 2011, 09:06 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ May 31 2011, 09:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1849328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're taking the strange view that words are never recognised for <b>what they imply</b>, especially with regard to the context, or with regard to each other; but only ever for their broad and general meanings (and thus require the denotion of ownership, or adjectives). The issue isn't even that one is impersonal and the other is personal, they're both owned by someone. Credits are owned by you, Resources are owned by your team, or more accurately, your commander.
I'll bow to your knowledge of language and structure, but humans are subjective beings and will always treat things subjectively. It just so happens that there is actually a common pool of knowledge and shared experience from which most of us would draw, so despite the fact that all our interpretations are subjective, we'll tend to come to the same conclusion; ergo, subjectivity is not an issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can only go so far on pure assumption. If our suspicions are not confirmed or denied by the point we feel would be reasonable, we start to lose confidence in the system. That reasonable point in time is different for each individual, so the objective is to reduce that duration of confusion as much as possible. Leaving things to assumption does the exact opposite.
In recognizing this, I try as often as I can to communicate as literally as possible and refrain from subjective interpretations where I can. They can be useful, but when people just start relying on everyone to, "Know what I mean," and this becomes the rule instead of the exception, we are INVITING miscommunication.
Both teams build their resource towers on the same resource node. Both teams are collecting the same resource.
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->2<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->There is nowhere near as large an assumption to be made for the words "credits" and "resources".
Most English-speakers do know what "credit" is because they know of: credit at the bank, credit cards, and mobile phone credit; most people would already associate "credit" with currency - and not merely currency, but currency represented by a number.* And if they've ever played Counter-Strike, they'll be familiar with the concept of purchasing weapons.
Most English-speaking gamers do know what "resources" mean because it's a fair assumption that they've had a year 7 education and have occasionally watched the news; for most people, some of the first implications that comes to mind for "resources" are 'natural resources', extraction, a larger sense of scale, and the fact that you make things from resources. The audience of NS would probably have a gaming background - possibly in RTS games, and so they would even better understand what "resources" means in the context of NS2.
Every word we ever use assumes the other party has the necessary degree of understanding about that word, otherwise we'd be caught in a never-ending sequence of explanation.
It's one thing to try to not be confusing<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->1<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->, but it's another to assume that everyone is completely stupid<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->2<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->. It's about being optimal.
*The marine on the ground, <b>while as a marine</b>, <u>will</u> only ever see "credit". There is no learning curve for him. Ostensibly, there is a learning curve for him when he steps into the command centre since he now has to distinguish between two types. But assuming that things are labelled correctly with the proper symbols, this will not be an issue.
The only issue I can see with "credit" is the same one that Shilorius pointed out; does not work for aliens.
Still, I think it'd be interesting if the two sides had a different name for what is functionally the same resource.
For me resources can be:
-Metal
-Plasma
-Carbon
-Money
-Credit
-Gold
-Everything you need to build, grow, create whatever.
Oh, credit & money have a serious -1 from me.
Sound childish and unreal in a situation where humanity is getting overrun by aliens.
Most English-speakers do know what "credit" is because...
Most English-speaking gamers do know what "resources" mean because...
Every word we ever use assumes the other party has the necessary degree of understanding about that word, otherwise we'd be caught in a never-ending sequence of explanation.
It's one thing to try to not be confusing<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->1<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->, but it's another to assume that everyone is completely stupid<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->2<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->. It's about being optimal.
*The marine on the ground, <b>while as a marine</b>, <u>will</u> only ever see "credit". There is no learning curve for him. Ostensibly, there is a learning curve for him when he steps into the command centre since he now has to distinguish between two types. But assuming that things are labelled correctly with the proper symbols, this will not be an issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, Carbon and Plasma are not an issue so it seems like you are comparing them against credits and resources erroneously.
Also, you're depending on a lot of assumptions, ifs, and shoulds. You're probably right in most cases about these word associations, but that doesn't mean someone coming into a game is at all likely to assume that a similar context exists; we're in an entirely different universe, so most people will be ready to suspend disbelief in many areas.
Yes, it is one thing to try not to be confusing, and another to assume that everyone is completely stupid; the latter not being mutually exclusive of the former. Have you ever developed software? Provided Tech Support? Maybe not in Perth, AUS but here in the USA people generally ARE pretty stupid.
And there is still a learning curve, regardless of what you call the resource, because there are plenty of other things in game that can a player can be confused about; namely the tendency for players to think the points they are awarded for kills are actually resources.
Yes, at first glance most players may draw the conclusion that credits are personal and resources are a more raw, less workable... um.... resource, but I don't really think that this is much of an improvement from resources and team resources as far as ease of understanding. They're both going to take a little bit of brainpower to figure out. And I guess that's my point.
1. Make coloured icons! The UI:s blueish theme feels a bit outdated really... more colours please. This isn't just a aesthetic thing, making icons (such as resource-icons and build menu options) stand out more from each other will help new players to understand the game.
2. Plasma value = carbon value/10. So shotguns would come at 200 plasma instead of 20. Newcomers quickly learn the price of a shotgun. If they ever confuse plasma and carbon, they'll remember that whatever resource they have the most of is their personal resource.
I don't really mind if they decide to call the resources something else, but team-res and personal-res doesn't sound very good IMO.
<u>Credit</u> is generally associated with money, representational currency, personal expenditure (credit cards), something you <u>buy</u> things with - <b>personal</b> expenditure.
<u>Resource</u> is generally associated with extraction, "real" worth, abundance, and things on the corporate and national level, something you <u>make</u> things with - that's the bigger picture, the <b>team</b>-level picture.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could actually get behind this idea. These terms are fairly self-explanatory that it wouldn't take long for people to figure them out.
There is a middle ground, an optimum point. I believe that Credits/Resources (or something like it), is that middle ground.
If people get lazy (and they will), they could refer to credits as 'cred' and resources as 'res'. It's simple and efficient.
People are stupid, yes, but people are commonly stupid. They're stupid about the same things. Global Warming, Nuclear Power, Economics, Science - most people are stupid about all the important things. But I'm pretty sure people who are able to install a game of NS2 are smart (or familiar) enough to understand the terms Credits and Resources and what they imply, and how they might apply to a game like NS2.
But honestly, ScardyBob summarises this whole debate perfectly... it's fairly self-explanatory.
It's a valuable change because it sets out to solve the problem that the OP has stated: "Resources" and "Team Resources" are boring. It also solves the other problem I pointed out - that the two resources, both being called Resources, are not distinct enough. Possibly even confusing - not so much to the player as he's experiencing it, but to the other players as he's attempting to communicate it.