Hard Caps
Locklear
[nexzil]kerrigan Join Date: 2012-05-01 Member: 151403Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, WC 2013 - Shadow
[nexzil]kerrigan Join Date: 2012-05-01 Member: 151403Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, WC 2013 - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">And why they should be considered.</div>I don't like to limit creativity as much as the next creative person. I like art/music and I believe creativity is great. I know some folks think capping structures or units or whatever kills it but here's my idea of why the game could use at least some hard caps.
Spam - It leads to really big landslides in matches. No ability to really come back due to FPS player skill. Examples are situations where the Khammander has had so much res for so long that he has 4+ crags that can outheal with the heal wave any marine assault as long as the alien lifeforms are somewhat competent.
This is also in turn leads to inconsistencies in performance. If you want a game that can rock 60 FPS you can't have situations where you walk into a room and find 400 cysts and 20 crags and 30 whips. I realize most matches don't include this mess but some do because of resource buildup and no hard caps on certain structures per room.
So I think this is actually something to be considered between performance and balance/gameplay. Otherwise we'll be continueing to get some games where your frame rate goes down to 20 because of a billion structures and the game lasts 2 hours because no one can end it with the building spam.
I realize in 6v6 competitive play this is far less likely to happen. But I'm looking out for the pub players here when I say that a hard cap system would not hurt the game if it was implemented well. It would only help performance and aid gameplay imo.
Players can still have creativity in where they place structures and how their base is designed, it just won't be open to spam tactics that make the game boring, the frame rate drop, and overall a crappy experience.
Now you may ask, well then what can Commander spend res on once bases are "complete"?
Micromanagement of troops, using drifters for the 3res enzyme boost. Doing more upgrades like Echo and putting eggs on the frontlines for 1 res a pop from Shifts. Using ink on Shades.
For the Marine Commander, it's quite obvious.. meds/ammo/shields.
And I also believe in ARCs/MACs/Drifters eventually getting a cap at some stage also. Many servers will just absolutely tank whenever you move 10+ of those AI units. You see the tick rate just plummet.
Spam - It leads to really big landslides in matches. No ability to really come back due to FPS player skill. Examples are situations where the Khammander has had so much res for so long that he has 4+ crags that can outheal with the heal wave any marine assault as long as the alien lifeforms are somewhat competent.
This is also in turn leads to inconsistencies in performance. If you want a game that can rock 60 FPS you can't have situations where you walk into a room and find 400 cysts and 20 crags and 30 whips. I realize most matches don't include this mess but some do because of resource buildup and no hard caps on certain structures per room.
So I think this is actually something to be considered between performance and balance/gameplay. Otherwise we'll be continueing to get some games where your frame rate goes down to 20 because of a billion structures and the game lasts 2 hours because no one can end it with the building spam.
I realize in 6v6 competitive play this is far less likely to happen. But I'm looking out for the pub players here when I say that a hard cap system would not hurt the game if it was implemented well. It would only help performance and aid gameplay imo.
Players can still have creativity in where they place structures and how their base is designed, it just won't be open to spam tactics that make the game boring, the frame rate drop, and overall a crappy experience.
Now you may ask, well then what can Commander spend res on once bases are "complete"?
Micromanagement of troops, using drifters for the 3res enzyme boost. Doing more upgrades like Echo and putting eggs on the frontlines for 1 res a pop from Shifts. Using ink on Shades.
For the Marine Commander, it's quite obvious.. meds/ammo/shields.
And I also believe in ARCs/MACs/Drifters eventually getting a cap at some stage also. Many servers will just absolutely tank whenever you move 10+ of those AI units. You see the tick rate just plummet.
Comments
Spam - It leads to really big landslides in matches. No ability to really come back due to FPS player skill. Examples are situations where the Khammander has had so much res for so long that he has 4+ crags that can outheal with the heal wave any marine assault as long as the alien lifeforms are somewhat competent.
This is also in turn leads to inconsistencies in performance. If you want a game that can rock 60 FPS you can't have situations where you walk into a room and find 400 cysts and 20 crags and 30 whips. I realize most matches don't include this mess but some do because of resource buildup and no hard caps on certain structures per room.
So I think this is actually something to be considered between performance and balance/gameplay. Otherwise we'll be continueing to get some games where your frame rate goes down to 20 because of a billion structures and the game lasts 2 hours because no one can end it with the building spam.
I realize in 6v6 competitive play this is far less likely to happen. But I'm looking out for the pub players here when I say that a hard cap system would not hurt the game if it was implemented well. It would only help performance and aid gameplay imo.
Players can still have creativity in where they place structures and how their base is designed, it just won't be open to spam tactics that make the game boring, the frame rate drop, and overall a crappy experience.
Now you may ask, well then what can Commander spend res on once bases are "complete"?
Micromanagement of troops, using drifters for the 3res enzyme boost. Doing more upgrades like Echo and putting eggs on the frontlines for 1 res a pop from Shifts. Using ink on Shades.
For the Marine Commander, it's quite obvious.. meds/ammo/shields.
And I also believe in ARCs/MACs/Drifters eventually getting a cap at some stage also. Many servers will just absolutely tank whenever you move 10+ of those AI units. You see the tick rate just plummet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that the current system is just fine. Whips are limited by their minimum distance mechanic and if there are 4 crags healing an alien... shoot the crags. AFAIK they don't heal each other, only lifeforms.
The reason that cysts are sometimes spammed is b/c the current cyst chain mechanic is a pain in the neck. There is no possibility for strengthening the chain or backing it up by any methods. The only method atm is to spam cysts so that you have to take out 2-3 instead of 1 to cut the chain. Even then, the cysts themselves have a minimum distance mechanic similar to the whips (although the minimum distance is definitely less than whips). Just remember, if the khamm is spamming buildings, that's a LOT of tres being used. 15 for each whip, 1 for each cyst, and 10-15 for each support building. Grab a GL or FT and kill them off and that's a ton of tres you've just taken out.
I think this problem is related to how difficult it is for aliens to break marine bases, because if they have enough res to really spam structures, the marines probably lost 10 minutes ago, but the aliens just can't seal the deal.
Who wants to fight a ton of static defense anyways?
At post#1, shows what you know, Crags heal each other and everything around them. Not just lifeforms.
FPS skill is only suppose to take you so far when you're fighting 10 extractors to 1.
Part of the fun in RTS games has always been pushing the limits of what you can do along creative lines, especially when it comes to excess in a particular area.
Although games like company of heroes do have softcap systems of upkeep that allow the weaker side a chance at making a comeback if they can skillfully hold on with what they have, but that deals with direct combat power (combat units) being a part of upkeep and not merely supportive infrastructure.
I still feel that there should be some hard caps per room. Is it really necessary to have 15 whips in one room or sometimes more? If they can actually fix the performance issues when there are tons of structures and AI units on the map, then I might be okay with this stuff.
But as it is now, public play can really get lame with that stuff. Bad framerate, and a really difficult time for Aliens/Marines to clear a spammed out base.
As I said before, I favor 6v6 competitive play and it's what I enjoy most. I'm just trying to think of ways to get public play more consistent and less laggy.
As it is now, if a server has like 15 MACs or Drifters moving on it at the same time, the tick rate tanks so hard it can crash it (crash occurs at like 50+)
I've always been a fan of a global cap, based on number of tech nodes captures, in which each structure/AI uses up some of the cap (think unit caps in traditional RTSs).
A big problem with the current system is that it is 1) prone to spam and 2) that spam doesn't usually help you end the game faster (think crag/whip or sentry/armory spam). Usually one side gets to the point where their victory is assured, but they don't have any effective offensive weaponry that can be used to end the game quick (ARC trains used to be able to do this, but they have been nerfed into oblivion).
The other alternative is to give the winning team an effective siege-breaking offensive weapon/ability that the comm can endlessly spend TRes on to end the game quicker, but requires map dominance to use (i.e. think of instant-ARC train-level siege blast that can only be used once three technodes are captured and it is researched, in which you can use it over and over until you either win or run out of res).
Static defense spam I think will be helped next patch, if just a little, because I saw Flayra giving out tidbits in the livestreams and Commanders will be able to drop life-forms and weapons with t-res.
Agreed.
<!--quoteo(post=1963710:date=Aug 16 2012, 12:20 AM:name=rantology)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rantology @ Aug 16 2012, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1963710"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Static defense spam I think will be helped next patch, if just a little, because I saw Flayra giving out tidbits in the livestreams and Commanders will be able to drop life-forms and weapons with t-res.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It sounds like a good change, but I doubt it will help much on publics -- which is where the structure spam is happening in the first place.
Basically, you can dump tres into making sure you don't lose ( defensive stuff, extra hives/ CCs)
You CANNOT dump tres into making sure you win. Maybe this will change next patch when you can spend tres on eggs / equipment.
15 whips in a room can be dealt with. It's not a game breaking issue.
Hard caps are never the answer unless it's a game breaking issue that can't be resolved by adjusting the units themselves.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I said before, I favor 6v6 competitive play and it's what I enjoy most. I'm just trying to think of ways to get public play more consistent and less laggy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You never want to use hard caps just to lower the curve of unpredictability from a competitive standpoint. You'd be stifling tactics and the unexpected just to suit your own conveinence then.
The result of what happens when you let someone build up an area too much is what creates the incentive for the other team to be aggressive to prevent that.
The unintended consequence of removing the ability to build up an area to the hilt is that you remove the need to be aggressive and keep the enemy off balance to prevent that.
Just because gameplay tends to settle down into a median standard of expected behavior doesn't mean we don't want and even need those extremes as options for when the enemy is slack enough to allow it.
Because building a whip forest / crag train + 60 cysts in the same room is a super stratergy :3 I'm really going to miss that tactic.
If anything having less ability to spam makes you think more about placement and where you need certain structures as a Commander. Instead of just loading up every single room with the same spammed out garbage.
Because building a whip forest / crag train + 60 cysts in the same room is a super stratergy :3 I'm really going to miss that tactic.
If anything having less ability to spam makes you think more about placement and where you need certain structures as a Commander. Instead of just loading up every single room with the same spammed out garbage.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I'm Khamm the only time i spam structures in a room is if it seems to be a constant target by rines. Normally i place whips and shades at key choke points and crag+shift+shade packages near marine base entries when we are assaulting their turf. Cutting down on spam or putting in supply caps wouldn't bother me as long as it is balanced correctly for both sides.
as a player, i never want to be told "no" because i hit an arbitrary number. and i think a lot of people would agree.
as a player, i never want to be told "no" because i hit an arbitrary number. and i think a lot of people would agree.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you should probably stop playing games because they are all full of arbitrary numbers. I'm not sure why structure cap arbitrary numbers are bad, but spawn times, damage values, and structure cost arbitrary numbers are ok?
Putting in caps to maintain performance is fine.
It is a problem, but its not a balance problem. It generally indicates a gap between the win conditions (i.e. when one team has achieved all-but-assured victory) and the round's end condition. This happens in lots of game (think Chess, SC1/2), but the key is that the losing player resigns, because there's little point in playing through a match you've lost.
Limits are not ALL bad things. All games have rules and this is just one of them. You need to consider though if this ADDS to the game and the experience or if it DETRACTS. I feel it has enough value to warrant trying and it could be a very positive addition to the NS2 experience.
ok it was an asinine comment i made i admit, but if i may clarify:
yes all those numbers are fine because they have been very carefully (we hope) balanced to make the game fair.
when you set a limitation on numbers of buildings that can be made, the player is basically just figuring out how to more efficiently to work within such limitations, rather than just expanding. adds a bit of fiddling i could do without.
Except for you know, fun.
It's extremely rare that you can place defensive structures indescriminately. Usually that indicates the enemy has already experienced a massive failure, to allow you to have such a glut of resources.
Either that or you are desperate to hold an area and invest heavily in it, in which case there's nothing wrong with that because it's not like the enemy is unable to breach your defenses.
A personal dislike of having to face large whip farms is not a valid reason for removing them.
They aren't difficult to destroy, it just slows the marines down and requires combined arms in some cases. That's the whole point of building them, to slow you down.
Putting in caps to maintain performance is fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Caps done right don't limit strategy, they change strategy.
It's extremely rare that you can place defensive structures indescriminately. Usually that indicates the enemy has already experienced a massive failure, to allow you to have such a glut of resources.
Either that or you are desperate to hold an area and invest heavily in it, in which case there's nothing wrong with that because it's not like the enemy is unable to breach your defenses.
A personal dislike of having to face large whip farms is not a valid reason for removing them.
They aren't difficult to destroy, it just slows the marines down and requires combined arms in some cases. That's the whole point of building them, to slow you down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with just having res (keep in mind the resource nodes do not exhaust) is that the snowball effect is too exaggerated. Once one team has the clear advantage it is near impossible to come back. With no supply limit they keep snowballing to a ridiculous degree. Yes, the team that has the advantage at that point should still win, but there should be that chance they can still be outplayed or make that critical mistake that can give the losing team a chance. Without a supply cap you are really never going to lose that advantage. There is not a point where the opposing team can catch up even if you have the better economy.
Take SC2 as a relevant example. You have 2 players. One is able to harass the other and suppress their expansions while expanding behind it. They now have the advantage. If there is no supply cap they can keep building units. Eventually they will have so many units the other player has no chance in hell. If there is a supply cap the player with the advantage has to press that advantage to keep it. If he lets the other player reach the supply cap that heads up he had wil dissapate. Granted he still has the better economy but with smart play from the other player who now matches in strength he can make that economic advantage not matter or end it before that economy can be flexed. Granted this is unit supply vs a structure based supply but I still feel it is relevant with the fact that these structures give clear advantages and buff your units (healing, defensive deterrents, ammo etc).
I have the most fun playing games I can win. I don't think that's out of the ordinary for a competitive online multiplayer game.
Take SC2 as a relevant example. You have 2 players. One is able to harass the other and suppress their expansions while expanding behind it. They now have the advantage. If there is no supply cap they can keep building units. Eventually they will have so many units the other player has no chance in hell. If there is a supply cap the player with the advantage has to press that advantage to keep it. If he lets the other player reach the supply cap that heads up he had wil dissapate. Granted he still has the better economy but with smart play from the other player who now matches in strength he can make that economic advantage not matter or end it before that economy can be flexed. Granted this is unit supply vs a structure based supply but I still feel it is relevant with the fact that these structures give clear advantages and buff your units (healing, defensive deterrents, ammo etc).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think your analogy is a good fit. A little harass is one thing, but over whelming res advantage is something else. Losing an RT, or two over the course of the early-mid game, that is harassment. The situations where a structure cap would come into play is more like you have 5-6 rts to the enemies 1-2.
The SC2 analogy would be, if you were running on 3-4 basses, and the enemy had 1, but you couldn't destroy their last base because the game balance favors defense is too strongly. this doesn't actually happen in SC2, but happens constantly in NS2.
It would be like if SC2 let you spend unlimited res on structures, but only only 500 minerals per minute on troops. You would see a lot of stale mates. This is effectively what is going on in NS2, because you can only invest about 700-800 (this is a guess) total team res in offensive capabilities, with the possible exception of ARCs, and the total p-res income is quite low over all.
There are quite a few things that really need some sort of cap (e.g. sentries, MACs, ARCs, Armories, hydras, cysts, whips, crags) that it always seemed like the best way to solve all at one time is with the global cap solution I've proposed.
<!--quoteo(post=1984312:date=Sep 29 2012, 01:06 AM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Sep 29 2012, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1984312"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is a fine idea, but did you have anything specific in mind? Ie, which entities should be limited and what should the numbers be?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not just adjust things so khamm doesnt have to spam? Increase cyst range so that you need less of them, improve crag healing so you dont need 6 to heal anything at a decent rate, make whips actually throw nades back at decent efficency. The problems of spam come down to khamm being a very casual role with nothing to do beyond setting up stations and buying upgrades (1 of those ends very quickly) and those buildings being pretty inefficent overall.