SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
the idea of depleting resource nodes is not bad, but then you have to make a) teching up time adjusted b) resource required adjusted for those c) adjust map size and avaible resource nodes. for such a system you have at map design stage already in mind, that battlefields should shift. thats not a problem in a pure rts (1 player controls 1 army) but in NS2? im not sure this could work. people would stick with the same battlefield, even if all res nodes where already depleted there (in public games).
so yeah, at a first glance it sounds like a great idea, it fits also to the "dynamic environment" theme that uwe advertised, but honestly i doubt it would work. either there would pop up more serious balancing issues (we already have enough) or serious map issues (not enough battlefields to shift around). maybe you have in your minds games like starcraft, where when one base is "burned out" you can effort losing it, since defending and acquiring a new one brings much more benefit. but thats not the case in ns2, its also an fps game and people will stick with routes they go and with common places (already set up bases).
i like every idea that adds in more depth and strategie (we need more currently for sure!) but not when its causing more problems rather then solving some
I like your idea, Harimau, but I think it may be too confusing to new players -- you'd have to create some sort of visual distinction not only for the res nodes, but also for the resource towers as well. Otherwise, everything looks the same, but it generates different types of resources, and some people may not know what produces what.
Since tech points are generally farther away from the team start than individual res nodes, I think you may see too much of a crunch on team resources. Players would have crazy amount of PR since they're better able to protect the nodes closer to their base (that aren't at tech points), but commanders don't have enough TR to research upgrades on which the players could spend their PR.
This idea would make controlling tech points for both sides a priority, which is a good, but I fear it's overly complicated and may result in resource imbalance between TR / PR -- excessive PR, not enough TR.
As an avid RTS player, I can say with some confidence that in most cases this is an absolutely godawful concept that causes the game to grind to a halt when all the resources are dried up.
The only game to ever pull it off is Starcraft. And that's only because the game moves at a very fast pace and there are plenty of expansions available. Games where combat is pretty much constant and games tend to have quite a bit of back and forth are not well suited to depleting resources. At the end of the day, everybody is starved for cash and fighting with rocks and sticks. Or, more typically, one side wins because the other side was denied new resources.
NS2 shouldn't be an absolute chore in the late game, nor a ultra-competative "one mistake loses the game" Starcraft wannabe. It's NS. Resources are fought over, but losing a tower to the enemy for a few minutes won't decide who wins and who loses.
In my opinion, what really needs to happen is bigger maps, limitations on turret placement, and not make alien research completely dependent on hives.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
The simplest thing one could do to put a limit on turrets (and structures in general) would be to have a maintenance cost on them - the more sentries you build, the less income you get.
<!--quoteo(post=1855966:date=Jun 23 2011, 10:52 PM:name=hf_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hf_ @ Jun 23 2011, 10:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855966"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree with you ScardyBob, and I think you'll see less games where marines are stuck in their base clinging to life while aliens control the entire map if marine tech is tied to comm chair expansion. Onos will definitely help solve part of this, but I think more changes should be implemented. Marines are never penalized for base turtling at the end of games. Thus, aliens must really coordinate their attacks to bring down marine bases. You don't see the converse scenario because aliens only have access to skulks, lerks, and gorges, so they aren't nearly as effective at keeping marines out of their final hive. If they could still have fades, I think you'd see a lot more end games similar to the marine demise experience that currently plagues gameplay. I've had to switch teams to jump in the comm chair to recycle marine structures several times just to start a new game because it drags on for 30-40+ minutes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hope you will get banned for that...that's just unfair! I had great games, that were 30min basecamping but Suddenly changed because of a PG at hive and unlinking DI so around 16 Alienstructures died!
Marines just don't build a CS. It is tooo big, gives much cover to Aliens and defending such a hughe Building is Horror! PG,AA and some Sentrys in a Blindspot is more efectiv than Having a CS.
I really think as soon as Player get more expirience as Marine Com we will se more expansions. I still can remember my 1. NS game. I went Gorge and Build a Sens and got kicked for that (did not know it's locked on 1. Hive then) Same is NS2 com. Nobody (new players) wants to go com but one has to...so no Expansion! I only know a Handfull of players, that actually can Com and they expand the Base. But smal Teams (6vs6) have problems to hold more than 2 Bases in 10vs10 you can handel 3 Bases.
It also depends on your own Strategy. For example. I was Marine com and desided to do a SG/Upgrades Round. I sent 1 Guy with LMG to scout Heli/Cross/SA. As soon as he saw a Hive all Rines went to it and killed it! And that 3 Times in a Row. When I did all the Upgrades a Marine asked for Order and I answered: Kill the Hive. 8 Rines running to Alien start supportetd by the biggest Medspam ever seen on NS2 and voila!
It depends on what you want (Upgrades,2. Base) and what you have (Res,Marine Teamplay, Peoples Aimingskills) 8 Pros don't need Expansions ( Marines are the RTs). 8 "Noobs" do (RTs are the RTs) but they often can't handel it. (Whoops drifted to RFK)
<!--quoteo(post=1856997:date=Jun 28 2011, 07:08 PM:name=SgtHydra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SgtHydra @ Jun 28 2011, 07:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856997"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 shouldn't be an absolute chore in the late game, nor a ultra-competative "one mistake loses the game" Starcraft wannabe. It's NS. Resources are fought over, but losing a tower to the enemy for a few minutes won't decide who wins and who loses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Limiting resources (before even specifying the degree) suddenly makes the game an ultra-competitive and unforgiving StarCraft clone? I'm sorry, but that is so absurd I can barely muster a response...
As an avid RTS player, I can say with some confidence that in most cases this is an absolutely godawful concept that causes the game to grind to a halt when all the resources are dried up.
The only game to ever pull it off is Starcraft. And that's only because the game moves at a very fast pace and there are plenty of expansions available. Games where combat is pretty much constant and games tend to have quite a bit of back and forth are not well suited to depleting resources. At the end of the day, everybody is starved for cash and fighting with rocks and sticks. Or, more typically, one side wins because the other side was denied new resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're jumping to conclusions based on generalizations, assumptions, and a bit-for-bit comparison of two games that are only partially comparable.
No one's even proposed a value for the cap, which would decide when the game could <i>potentially</i> "grind to a halt," and to some degree determine how damaging the denial of resources is to the other team.
There are plenty of expansions in NS2 maps (8 - 10 nodes per map), and it doesn't cost nearly as much (relatively) to 'expand' in NS as it does in SC. Is suggesting that a team gather 4 - 5 full Nodes worth of resources in order to unlock THE ENTIRE TECH TREE (I'm talking everything maxed out) really that unreasonable as an INITIAL suggestion?
Also please note I suggested that P.Res should NOT be capped, which is the instance wherein players could potentially become resource-starved.
Still though, are you seriously suggesting that a team shouldn't be rewarded an advantage for gathering resources while denying the other team that resource? Because if that's the case why the hell are we gathering any to begin with? I mean, isn't controlling the economy a PRIMARY STRATEGY of the genre?
If you view overcoming a challenge as a chore, I wouldn't suggest multiplayer games. They are by their nature competitive, and therefore challenging.
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited June 2011
NS2 has a different resource model to traditional RTS games. Rifle Marines and Skulks respawn for free, so even if all resources are exhausted, there would never be a shortage of units.
However, if the late game siege breaker units cannot be built due to resource starvation on both teams, then the game would favour the team with the stronger defense, which would be a problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1857056:date=Jun 29 2011, 12:20 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jun 29 2011, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 has a different resource model to traditional RTS games. Rifle Marines and Skulks respawn for free, so even if all resources are exhausted, there would never be a shortage of units.
However, if the late game siege breaker units cannot be built due to resource starvation on both teams, then the game would favour the team with the stronger defense, which would be a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both teams can invest heavily in defense. Infestation is a defense investment in that it shows the marines and heals the aliens.
The point of causing the resources to exhaust would be prevent the SPAM of both turrets and infestation. Both sides would start to look at everything with that when is the right time to buy attitude.
Right now games progress until all basic structures are up and then the commander is overflowing with resources to spend at mid to late game....and there is no end to the resources. Why wait to build that ARC ...build a couple turrets now ...and a minute or two later you can buy the ARC. Why build an advance base ....I build infestation to my hearts content ...and a minute or two later buy that Crag and Whip.
If the resources EXPIRED such a thought process would be a GAMBLE.
Again such a system would have to inform the commander that resource node was almost depleted.
I can think of two RTS games that have neverending resources. Battle for Middle Earth -> Which results in long drawn out painful games. Company Of Heroes -> Which has an algorithm which declares a winner based on MAP ownership. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes#Victory_Point_Control" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_He...y_Point_Control</a>
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1857056:date=Jun 28 2011, 09:20 PM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jun 28 2011, 09:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 has a different resource model to traditional RTS games. Rifle Marines and Skulks respawn for free, so even if all resources are exhausted, there would never be a shortage of units.
However, if the late game siege breaker units cannot be built due to resource starvation on both teams, then the game would favour the team with the stronger defense, which would be a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
In traditional RTSs, limited resources affects all aspects of the game (i.e. you can't build anything). In NS2, it would only restrict TRes (since you could still get PRes through kills). I think the end result would be longer stalemates, rather than a quick end. If you tied spawning to resources (i.e. it cost X TRes to spawn), then it would work more like a traditional RTS like SC.
<!--quoteo(post=1856947:date=Jun 29 2011, 02:38 AM:name=hf_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hf_ @ Jun 29 2011, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like your idea, Harimau, but I think it may be too confusing to new players -- you'd have to create some sort of visual distinction not only for the res nodes, but also for the resource towers as well. Otherwise, everything looks the same, but it generates different types of resources, and some people may not know what produces what.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure how that's the case. Tech nodes (CC, Hive) produce TR, resource nodes (extractors, harvesters) produce PR.
<!--quoteo(post=1856947:date=Jun 29 2011, 02:38 AM:name=hf_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hf_ @ Jun 29 2011, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since tech points are generally farther away from the team start than individual res nodes, I think you may see too much of a crunch on team resources. Players would have crazy amount of PR since they're better able to protect the nodes closer to their base (that aren't at tech points), but commanders don't have enough TR to research upgrades on which the players could spend their PR.
This idea would make controlling tech points for both sides a priority, which is a good, but I fear it's overly complicated and may result in resource imbalance between TR / PR -- excessive PR, not enough TR.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I get this, but I've always considered this to just be a case of balancing the numbers. You certainly can't use the current numbers to balance the game around my proposed resource model. TR costs would have to go down, or TR income would have to go up. TRFK would also be a contributing factor (no PRFK). PR costs would have to go up, or (preferably) PR income would have to go down. In order to consistently field high-cost units (equipment, evolutions), you'd need to hold more resource nodes.
<!--quoteo(post=1857056:date=Jun 29 2011, 12:20 PM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jun 29 2011, 12:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 has a different resource model to traditional RTS games. Rifle Marines and Skulks respawn for free, so even if all resources are exhausted, there would never be a shortage of units.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Realms" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Realms</a> Though, technically, it's non-traditional, and the units you do produce for free are just peasants. Also... I don't think there was resource depletion in this, so it's kind of a bad example. Regardless, if we're talking about free basic units, then Battle Realms is an example of an RTS with them.
Comments
so yeah, at a first glance it sounds like a great idea, it fits also to the "dynamic environment" theme that uwe advertised, but honestly i doubt it would work. either there
would pop up more serious balancing issues (we already have enough) or serious map issues (not enough battlefields to shift around). maybe you have in your minds games
like starcraft, where when one base is "burned out" you can effort losing it, since defending and acquiring a new one brings much more benefit. but thats not the case
in ns2, its also an fps game and people will stick with routes they go and with common places (already set up bases).
i like every idea that adds in more depth and strategie (we need more currently for sure!) but not when its causing more problems rather then solving some
(tech points for Tres, res nozzles for Pres)
I do like KuBaN's idea of resource depletion, though. Hard to say why I like it, but I do.
Since tech points are generally farther away from the team start than individual res nodes, I think you may see too much of a crunch on team resources. Players would have crazy amount of PR since they're better able to protect the nodes closer to their base (that aren't at tech points), but commanders don't have enough TR to research upgrades on which the players could spend their PR.
This idea would make controlling tech points for both sides a priority, which is a good, but I fear it's overly complicated and may result in resource imbalance between TR / PR -- excessive PR, not enough TR.
Ummm... no thank you...
As an avid RTS player, I can say with some confidence that in most cases this is an absolutely godawful concept that causes the game to grind to a halt when all the resources are dried up.
The only game to ever pull it off is Starcraft. And that's only because the game moves at a very fast pace and there are plenty of expansions available.
Games where combat is pretty much constant and games tend to have quite a bit of back and forth are not well suited to depleting resources. At the end of the day, everybody is starved for cash and fighting with rocks and sticks. Or, more typically, one side wins because the other side was denied new resources.
NS2 shouldn't be an absolute chore in the late game, nor a ultra-competative "one mistake loses the game" Starcraft wannabe.
It's NS. Resources are fought over, but losing a tower to the enemy for a few minutes won't decide who wins and who loses.
In my opinion, what really needs to happen is bigger maps, limitations on turret placement, and not make alien research completely dependent on hives.
on them - the more sentries you build, the less income you get.
Hope you will get banned for that...that's just unfair! I had great games, that were 30min basecamping but Suddenly changed because of a PG at hive and unlinking DI so around 16 Alienstructures died!
Marines just don't build a CS. It is tooo big, gives much cover to Aliens and defending such a hughe Building is Horror! PG,AA and some Sentrys in a Blindspot is more efectiv than Having a CS.
I really think as soon as Player get more expirience as Marine Com we will se more expansions.
I still can remember my 1. NS game. I went Gorge and Build a Sens and got kicked for that (did not know it's locked on 1. Hive then)
Same is NS2 com. Nobody (new players) wants to go com but one has to...so no Expansion!
I only know a Handfull of players, that actually can Com and they expand the Base.
But smal Teams (6vs6) have problems to hold more than 2 Bases in 10vs10 you can handel 3 Bases.
It also depends on your own Strategy.
For example.
I was Marine com and desided to do a SG/Upgrades Round. I sent 1 Guy with LMG to scout Heli/Cross/SA. As soon as he saw a Hive all Rines went to it and killed it!
And that 3 Times in a Row. When I did all the Upgrades a Marine asked for Order and I answered: Kill the Hive.
8 Rines running to Alien start supportetd by the biggest Medspam ever seen on NS2 and voila!
It depends on what you want (Upgrades,2. Base) and what you have (Res,Marine Teamplay, Peoples Aimingskills)
8 Pros don't need Expansions ( Marines are the RTs). 8 "Noobs" do (RTs are the RTs) but they often can't handel it. (Whoops drifted to RFK)
It's NS. Resources are fought over, but losing a tower to the enemy for a few minutes won't decide who wins and who loses.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Limiting resources (before even specifying the degree) suddenly makes the game an ultra-competitive and unforgiving StarCraft clone? I'm sorry, but that is so absurd I can barely muster a response...
<!--quoteo(post=1856997:date=Jun 28 2011, 07:08 PM:name=SgtHydra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SgtHydra @ Jun 28 2011, 07:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856997"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Depleting resources?
Ummm... no thank you...
As an avid RTS player, I can say with some confidence that in most cases this is an absolutely godawful concept that causes the game to grind to a halt when all the resources are dried up.
The only game to ever pull it off is Starcraft. And that's only because the game moves at a very fast pace and there are plenty of expansions available.
Games where combat is pretty much constant and games tend to have quite a bit of back and forth are not well suited to depleting resources. At the end of the day, everybody is starved for cash and fighting with rocks and sticks. Or, more typically, one side wins because the other side was denied new resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're jumping to conclusions based on generalizations, assumptions, and a bit-for-bit comparison of two games that are only partially comparable.
No one's even proposed a value for the cap, which would decide when the game could <i>potentially</i> "grind to a halt," and to some degree determine how damaging the denial of resources is to the other team.
There are plenty of expansions in NS2 maps (8 - 10 nodes per map), and it doesn't cost nearly as much (relatively) to 'expand' in NS as it does in SC. Is suggesting that a team gather 4 - 5 full Nodes worth of resources in order to unlock THE ENTIRE TECH TREE (I'm talking everything maxed out) really that unreasonable as an INITIAL suggestion?
Also please note I suggested that P.Res should NOT be capped, which is the instance wherein players could potentially become resource-starved.
Still though, are you seriously suggesting that a team shouldn't be rewarded an advantage for gathering resources while denying the other team that resource? Because if that's the case why the hell are we gathering any to begin with? I mean, isn't controlling the economy a PRIMARY STRATEGY of the genre?
If you view overcoming a challenge as a chore, I wouldn't suggest multiplayer games. They are by their nature competitive, and therefore challenging.
However, if the late game siege breaker units cannot be built due to resource starvation on both teams, then the game would favour the team with the stronger defense, which would be a problem.
However, if the late game siege breaker units cannot be built due to resource starvation on both teams, then the game would favour the team with the stronger defense, which would be a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both teams can invest heavily in defense.
Infestation is a defense investment in that it shows the marines and heals the aliens.
The point of causing the resources to exhaust would be prevent the SPAM of both turrets and infestation.
Both sides would start to look at everything with that when is the right time to buy attitude.
Right now games progress until all basic structures are up and then the commander is overflowing with resources to spend
at mid to late game....and there is no end to the resources.
Why wait to build that ARC ...build a couple turrets now ...and a minute or two later you can buy the ARC.
Why build an advance base ....I build infestation to my hearts content ...and a minute or two later buy that Crag and Whip.
If the resources EXPIRED such a thought process would be a GAMBLE.
Again such a system would have to inform the commander that resource node was almost depleted.
I can think of two RTS games that have neverending resources.
Battle for Middle Earth -> Which results in long drawn out painful games.
Company Of Heroes -> Which has an algorithm which declares a winner based on MAP ownership.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Heroes#Victory_Point_Control" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_He...y_Point_Control</a>
However, if the late game siege breaker units cannot be built due to resource starvation on both teams, then the game would favour the team with the stronger defense, which would be a problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.
In traditional RTSs, limited resources affects all aspects of the game (i.e. you can't build anything). In NS2, it would only restrict TRes (since you could still get PRes through kills). I think the end result would be longer stalemates, rather than a quick end. If you tied spawning to resources (i.e. it cost X TRes to spawn), then it would work more like a traditional RTS like SC.
Nothing makes people scuttle to the finish like a deadline.
I'm not sure how that's the case. Tech nodes (CC, Hive) produce TR, resource nodes (extractors, harvesters) produce PR.
<!--quoteo(post=1856947:date=Jun 29 2011, 02:38 AM:name=hf_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hf_ @ Jun 29 2011, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856947"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since tech points are generally farther away from the team start than individual res nodes, I think you may see too much of a crunch on team resources. Players would have crazy amount of PR since they're better able to protect the nodes closer to their base (that aren't at tech points), but commanders don't have enough TR to research upgrades on which the players could spend their PR.
This idea would make controlling tech points for both sides a priority, which is a good, but I fear it's overly complicated and may result in resource imbalance between TR / PR -- excessive PR, not enough TR.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I get this, but I've always considered this to just be a case of balancing the numbers. You certainly can't use the current numbers to balance the game around my proposed resource model. TR costs would have to go down, or TR income would have to go up. TRFK would also be a contributing factor (no PRFK). PR costs would have to go up, or (preferably) PR income would have to go down. In order to consistently field high-cost units (equipment, evolutions), you'd need to hold more resource nodes.
<!--quoteo(post=1857056:date=Jun 29 2011, 12:20 PM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jun 29 2011, 12:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857056"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 has a different resource model to traditional RTS games. Rifle Marines and Skulks respawn for free, so even if all resources are exhausted, there would never be a shortage of units.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Realms" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Realms</a>
Though, technically, it's non-traditional, and the units you do produce for free are just peasants. Also... I don't think there was resource depletion in this, so it's kind of a bad example. Regardless, if we're talking about free basic units, then Battle Realms is an example of an RTS with them.