Fixing Pres!
Koruyo
AUT Join Date: 2009-06-06 Member: 67724Members, Reinforced - Shadow
AUT Join Date: 2009-06-06 Member: 67724Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">and maybe more...</div>The more of the same lifeform is on the field, the more it will cost another player if he wants to gestate into it too.
(i think it was dghelneshi who mentioned this idea for fades in a ensl gather)
Ns2 brought us a new resource system, but still tries to be ns1.
In ns1 you didnt have so many higher lifeforms at the same time, ppl had to gorge and build rts etc.
In ns2 you can have a full team of lerks ~1-5min into the game. (you need 2 kills in your fist skulk life)
You can have a full team of fades (or a bit less, depends how many went lerk and how good they were... RFK) after the 2nd hive is up.
Either we want strong higher lifeforms, or we want more frequent weaker higher lifeforms - more frequent strong higher lifeforms is...very problematic.
Because i hear it very often, ppl say you should need 3 marines to kill a fade.
Now we have 3+ fades at the same time => marines now HAVE to deal with the fades (which are waiting for you outside of your base) => you slowly lose all your rts, well because the fades can deal with marines while a single skulk eats all rts outside of marine bases. => marines lose a lot pres, well 3marines vs a fade sounds easy - the thing is aliens are a team too. + weapons despawn faster in ns2 etc.
Also usually you stay alive pretty long as fade + rfk, very often you can just go fade again after you died...
Strong lifeforms, and upgrades are good and fun - ppl like and want to keep that... so this idea sounds pretty good to balance this.
There are many possible ways to implement this idea, also for a lot other things than just lifeforms.
You can prevent/balance all sorts of spam with it without the need of hard limits of placeable structures. (mines, sentrys, macs, arcs, hydras, etc.)
e.g. mine pres costs increases by 5pres for every 6mines that are on the field.
You can have stuff increase in cost slowly per unit, or you can have it in steps or after an amount of X, or you can have a hard limit of only X at the same time...
(it would even work for things like medpacks, if there are X medpacks on the floor pres cost increases to Z... if you place another X (and the first ones are not yet despawned) it increases cost further etc etc.)
(i think it was dghelneshi who mentioned this idea for fades in a ensl gather)
Ns2 brought us a new resource system, but still tries to be ns1.
In ns1 you didnt have so many higher lifeforms at the same time, ppl had to gorge and build rts etc.
In ns2 you can have a full team of lerks ~1-5min into the game. (you need 2 kills in your fist skulk life)
You can have a full team of fades (or a bit less, depends how many went lerk and how good they were... RFK) after the 2nd hive is up.
Either we want strong higher lifeforms, or we want more frequent weaker higher lifeforms - more frequent strong higher lifeforms is...very problematic.
Because i hear it very often, ppl say you should need 3 marines to kill a fade.
Now we have 3+ fades at the same time => marines now HAVE to deal with the fades (which are waiting for you outside of your base) => you slowly lose all your rts, well because the fades can deal with marines while a single skulk eats all rts outside of marine bases. => marines lose a lot pres, well 3marines vs a fade sounds easy - the thing is aliens are a team too. + weapons despawn faster in ns2 etc.
Also usually you stay alive pretty long as fade + rfk, very often you can just go fade again after you died...
Strong lifeforms, and upgrades are good and fun - ppl like and want to keep that... so this idea sounds pretty good to balance this.
There are many possible ways to implement this idea, also for a lot other things than just lifeforms.
You can prevent/balance all sorts of spam with it without the need of hard limits of placeable structures. (mines, sentrys, macs, arcs, hydras, etc.)
e.g. mine pres costs increases by 5pres for every 6mines that are on the field.
You can have stuff increase in cost slowly per unit, or you can have it in steps or after an amount of X, or you can have a hard limit of only X at the same time...
(it would even work for things like medpacks, if there are X medpacks on the floor pres cost increases to Z... if you place another X (and the first ones are not yet despawned) it increases cost further etc etc.)
Comments
Think about this: in a 6v6 you might have enough for going Fade as 6th alien (ignoring how stupid it might be to do so) to cost maybe, what, 100 res? 80 res? Point is: it's doable but expensive. Now take a 12v12: going Fade as 12th Alien costs twice as much more.
6v6 games can have all fade teams
12v12 games can't afford to do so because of increasing costs
^that's the definition of non-scaling gameplay right there. Now, if you want it to scale, you could always do it by %s, but that still won't scale fluidly, and shares the original suggestion's problem of arbitrarily punishing good players who aren't "first" to evolve.
Also, marines haven't got any good counter against fades yet, best chances is the shotgun(20 pres) vs fade (50 pres).
Obviously fade should win most of those combats, but due to Frenzy a fade can slaughter the whole team without being forced to pull back and heal.
We even have Metabolize coming, and regen is already in the game, Frenzy needs removal, or be made skulk-only.
That's the real problem.
And btw. you only need 2 marines to instakill a fade.
Oh yeah 12lerks, every structure down in 1s. Thats a whole other problem.. if you address this you can do the same with my idea added.
Ns2 has a sweet spot 6v6... 8v8 might be still fun - everything above wont work anymore. (current maps)
So yes the whole point of the idea is to have limits and balance the game around the sweet spot of players. (even if you sometimes either have to wait, or spend a higher amount of pres to also gestate into lifeform X)
@swalk
Ofc we can make upgrades and lifeforms a lot weaker... (again "Either we get strong higher lifeforms but in lesser numbers at the same time, or we get more frequent weaker higher lifeforms at the same time)
Oh yeah 12lerks, every structure down in 1s. Thats a whole other problem.. if you address this you can do the same with my idea added.
Ns2 has a sweet spot 6v6... 8v8 might be still fun - everything above wont work anymore.
So yes the whole point of the idea is to have limits and balance the game around the sweet spot of players. (even if you sometimes either have to wait, or spend a higher amount of pres to also gestate into lifeform X)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can address that.
12 lerks = 12 marines = murdered lerks. No buildings get destroyed. Additionally, 6 lurks = 6 marines = murdered lurks. Alternatively, you can have x lerks = x marines = murdered marines who can't defend their base = everything is destroyed anyway, so how long things take to die is irrelevant.
More players rushing means more players defending; that's how NS2's Pres system works, and how it (theoretically, though it's flawed elsewhere) scales with players.
Marine =/= Fade
12 Lerks vs 12 marines = <u>murdered CC</u> and murdered X Lerks = game over marines.
Are you serious? Have you played Build 193 for more than 10 minutes? Aliens dominate if they're worth their salt, whereas marines can be total FPS pros and not gain any ground (assuming aliens actually push the main base, like they should).
Back on topic, reducing the number of fieldable high level units would definitely slow down lerk and fade rushes. Obviously, the idea is to create a resource sink where going fade may cost 60 res, or even 70 if enough people are fade, thus wasting 10-20 more resources. Warcraft 3 has a similar feature called upkeep where you the more units you have, the less resources you receive.
So, maybe upkeep could be a potential facet?
Of course, the simplest direct counter point is this: buff the marines.
I wouldnt have a problem with my system - but i can see ppl whining, because they wont understand why they have to spend more res - why there is kinda a limit to lifeforms, and how unfair this is - i want to play lifeform X now not Z until somebody dies - blablabla.
But upkeep wouldnt really solve the mass high lifeform overkill rushes - but at least it means, that if this attack fails, there will be a longer pause until it can happen again.
Maybe im only overcomplicating everything, and it is possible to balance everything fine without drastic stuff like this.
(but now that we have kinda a 80%/20% for aliens balance in this patch... my idea seemed to fit so well for a lot of stuff at first.)
<!--quoteo(post=1897015:date=Jan 24 2012, 12:49 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Jan 24 2012, 12:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1897015"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either we want strong higher lifeforms, or we want more frequent weaker higher lifeforms<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The latter.
(And/or some equivalent involving cheap soft-counters.)
If we must have the former, then... it has to be in a way that the more expensive the unit, the less the team can genuinely afford.
The following is just for illustration and is not a suggestion.
- Every alien/marine gains resources individually (as it is now) but it goes straight to a pool, e.g. 10 res per player per minute.
- The kham/comm deals out the lifeforms/weapons.
- Lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 costs 20, 40, 100 resources respectively.
There are 3, 6 and 12 aliens/marines on the team, for 3 different games.
After 1 minute,
> Game 1: 3 players, 30 resources, team can afford: 1.5/0.75/0.3 of lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 respectively, or 0.5/0.25/0.1 per player.
> Game 2: 6 players, 60 resources, team can afford: 3/1.5/0.6 of lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 respectively, or 0.5/0.25/0.1 per player.
> Game 3: 12 players, 120 resources, team can afford: 6/3/1.2 of lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 respectively, or 0.5/0.25/0.1 per player.
After 4 minutes,
> Game 1: 3 players, 120 resources, team can afford: 6/3/1.2 of lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 respectively, or 2/1/0.3 per player.
> Game 2: 6 players, 240 resources, team can afford: 12/6/2.4 of lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 respectively, or 2/1/0.3 per player.
> Game 3: 12 players, 480 resources, team can afford: 24/12/4.8 of lifeform/weapon 1/2/3 respectively, or 2/1/0.3 per player.
Notice that the number of lifeforms/weapons per player at a certain point in time doesn't change from game to game. It scales perfectly.
Also notice that the number of higher lifeforms/weapons that a team can field is significantly less than the number of players on the team. That's the key.
With the current resource system, if everyone saves, then everyone gets MAX.LEVEL at some point in time, all at the same time. Essentially you're considering a Siege scenario for different time points.
With this resource system, it depends on your team strategy, and there's trade-offs - you could all be poor for three minutes and save up for one exo, or you could all run around with shotguns after four minutes but have to wait another three minutes for one exo.
There are other things to consider, though. Some beneficial to the current resource system, some beneficial to the other resource system.
Saving up needs to be a genuine risk, or put another way, spending needs to be encouraged. If you choose to save up, then you must be foregoing some significant advantage to do so. If the other team chooses to spend and not save up, then they should have a significant temporary advantage over you. The way you'd achieve this is:
- by having many useful, even necessary, consumables (e.g. one-time use items/abilities, or time-limited buffs)
- by having costs increase significantly with "tiers" (e.g. 5, 10, 20, 40, 80)
- by having the power differential between "tiers" decrease at higher "tiers" (e.g. lerk ~ 1.5skulk, but onos ~ 1.1fade)
Another thing that would help with balance and encourage spending is for the highest tier unit to cost the same as the resource cap. Why?
- It means you have to spend time saving up that significant amount - and if you lose that amount straight after, you've lost <b>all</b> of your resources. There is a considerable risk involved.
- It means that once you reach that price point, waiting to make the purchase will only cost you any spill-over. You may be only 1 tier under, but you may prefer to keep going with your current tier until you die, rather than spend (and risk) all your resources on the next tier in the current life - but if you do so, you are foregoing any excess resources.
Which is a good thing.
Do i want lots of good units, or do i want to tech faster?
Even right now people claim you need a combo of fade/lerk/gorges to push into a base, and thats a GOOD thing. (ok maybe lerk is not needed... )
I wouldnt have a problem with my system - but i can see ppl whining, because they wont understand why they have to spend more res - why there is kinda a limit to lifeforms, and how unfair this is - i want to play lifeform X now not Z until somebody dies - blablabla.
But upkeep wouldnt really solve the mass high lifeform overkill rushes - but at least it means, that if this attack fails, there will be a longer pause until it can happen again.
Maybe im only overcomplicating everything, and it is possible to balance everything fine without drastic stuff like this.
(but now that we have kinda a 80%/20% for aliens balance in this patch... my idea seemed to fit so well for a lot of stuff at first.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Upkeep was just an example. It came to mind since it would penalize the team expanding too fast i.e. the aliens (as of 193 of course). Most of the bad games go like this: aliens skulk rush marine start to no end, forcing marines to never leave their base; aliens overtake entire map; marines hold 1-2 RTs for the entire 30min - 1hr game to their ultimate demise when fades become practically free for aliens.
Upkeep would incur a penalty, especially early on when RTs are scarce, and resources are at a premium.
But... I agree, it's definitely a more complicated concept and would easily confuse new commanders.
The reality is that if the marines could actually get out of their base (AKA no skulk madness), then aliens would NEVER HAVE the personal resources to evolve to a higher form. This would lead me to off-topic territory...
Maybe the simplest solution would be to make the fade more expensive?
Even right now people claim you need a combo of fade/lerk/gorges to push into a base, and thats a GOOD thing. (ok maybe lerk is not needed... )<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Counters are great for the RTS-side of things, but pretty terrible from an FPS perspective.
It essentially means that every time you meet an enemy, you play rock-paper-scissors to determine who lives and who dies.
The same argument can be applied to high-cost super-units: great for the RTS-side, terrible from an FPS perspective.*
It essentially means that every time you meet an enemy, your relative wealth determines who lives and who dies. <b>It's just like the real world!</b>
*Note that NS2's high-cost super-units are not even great from an RTS side because the only requirement for getting a high-cost super-unit is to... save up. <b>Yeah, <i>that</i> was risky</b>. And everyone on the team can do that. Now... if you lost PRes upon death on the other hand...
There are ways that we can have high-cost super-units (relatively speaking, that is - nothing like a 2k effective hp alien that can take a marine out of the game instantly, however) but keep the game fun at the ground-level.
- The first suggestion is to always have a fail-safe for every player - a way that, with some difficulty, they can fight on an equal footing, or, failing that, they can live to fight another day. Running away tends not to be very fun, though, so I'd prefer ways that they can fight on an equal footing. Requiring an entire(!) rifle magazine to take down a fade isn't exactly what I would call balanced.
- The second suggestion is to have soft-counters like so: Between a low-cost low-tier unit and a high-cost high-tier unit, there is a middle-tier medium-cost unit that mitigates the advantage that the high-tier unit has over the low-tier unit - that is, it levels the playing field. For example, lerk spores could do the opposite of what they do now; that is, they could eat away at armour and do little damage to health - countering the increasing effective HP that marines get with armour upgrades (and later the exo). Another example, the flamethrower (or perhaps the effect of being on fire) could do a tiny base damage + a percentage of current health - it would do little damage to lower health aliens like the skulk and there would be far better options (in the rifle and shotgun) against them, but it would be quite devastating against higher health aliens like the onos.
The weapons or lifeforms synergizes with each other, so that its always better to have a mixture than a team of 1 particular weapon/lifeform.
I think thats what I was really looking for.
So against a team of fades, I am not recommending a team of shotties, but perhaps a mixture of shotties + 1 flamer + pistol usage etc.
Against a team of Onos however, its prolly ideal to just 'counter' it with jetpacks :p
We want strong rare higher lifeforms/weapons. Simply because it increase the perceived value (desirability) of the lifeforms/weapons, such that players enjoy more to get one. Rarity should increase with cost and tier.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... He cited a study by Worchel et al. (1975)in which experimental subjects found scarce cookies more desirable than abundant ones and cookies that became scarce by apparent demand even more desirable. More recently, Lynn (1991)conducted a meta-analysis of the literature, finding strong support for the proposition that scarcity enhances value, but that the effect was small.
Brock hypothesized that people might prefer scarce commodities over comparable available commodities because the possession of scarce commodities would enhance the possessor's sense of personal uniqueness. Lynn addressed this issue and found a positive correlation between scarcity's enhancement of value and people's need for uniqueness. However, the studies he reviewed showed great variability, suggesting that not all scarce commodities can convey uniqueness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726819700084X" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artic...16726819700084X</a>
Additionally I would like to see lifeforms untied from amount of hives(fade, onos).
My thoughts leads me to; does marines need the same? Upkeep on weapons/outfit?
The weapons or lifeforms synergizes with each other, so that its always better to have a mixture than a team of 1 particular weapon/lifeform.
I think thats what I was really looking for.
So against a team of fades, I am not recommending a team of shotties, but perhaps a mixture of shotties + 1 flamer + pistol usage etc.
Against a team of Onos however, its prolly ideal to just 'counter' it with jetpacks :p<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There really shouldn't be teams of fades or teams of oni, though. <b>Team</b> resource scarcity* and a first-come first-serve basis would alleviate this issue.
* What I'm saying here is that the cost of a high-tier unit must be much higher than the <b>average</b> "wealth" of each player on the team (total wealth / number of players). That means that the number of high-tier units that the team can field is always much less than the number of players on the team.
@Yuuki:
As has been established by the OP and myself, there is no rarity, currently. Given enough time, everyone can get oni at exactly the same time - in fact, by endgame they are highly likely to. This needs to change.
Here's another suggestion, it's practically the same as my example from before, but gives individual players the spending power. It is a complete re-working of the resource system.
Features:
+ The <i>team</i> gains "x" <u>resources</u> <b>per player</b> per tower.
+ Each <i>individual player</i> gains "y" <u>credits</u> per tower, where e.g. "y"=0.4*"x". (A player "keeps" 40% of what he obtains from welfare. This portion is just an example.)
+ The <i>team</i> gains "m" <u>resources</u> per kill.
+ Each <i>individual player</i> gains "n" <u>credits</u> per kill, where e.g. "n"=0.6*"m". (A player "keeps" 60% of what he earns for himself. This portion is just an example.)
+ The <i>commander</i> spends only out of the <u><i>team's resources</i></u> (he effectively has infinite <u>credits</u>).
+ Each <i>individual player</i> spends out of both the <u><i>team's resources</i></u> and <u><i>their own credits</i></u>.
+ There is an opportunity for supportive/cooperative actions (e.g. healing teammates, following orders) to reward <i>individual players</i> with <u>credits</u> but NOT <u>resources</u>, because <u>credits</u> only represent <b>spending power</b>, and NOT <b>true wealth</b>.
Notes:
- If there is an overall surplus of <u>credits</u> and the <i>team</i> then runs out of <u>resources</u>, even though <i>players</i> have <u>credits</u>, they cannot afford to purchase anything as they don't have <b>true wealth</b> (<u>resources</u>), only <b>spending power</b>.
- Because all resources are pooled (common wealth), manipulating the timing of the <b>first</b> unit of some type (e.g. the timing of the first fade) must essentially involve an unlocking requirement, because increased player count means increased income.
- However, it must be noted that the relative effectiveness of a single e.g. fade actually decreases with increased player count, so it can be said to be balanced. Larger player counts simply means the team has greater resource/expenditure flexibility, but the "time" to obtain a team e.g. 1/3-full of fades is the same in a game with 6 players a side as one with 15 players a side.
This could be very problematic. This rewards players for being the first back to the armory after a weapon unlock. Oh wait, did you get there last? Tough luck!
Personally, I think pres should be revisited after Gorilla since it's not a terrible issue right now. In fact, I think it works alright.
Just my $0.02.