Lower Starting Cost Of Chambers

Ice9Ice9 Join Date: 2004-06-09 Member: 29208Members
edited August 2004 in NS General Discussion
<div class="IPBDescription">Possible Answer To Unchaining?</div> Maybe instead of changing the starting res, gorge costs, and unchaining the chambers, the cost of the chambers themselves are lowered.

Make them start at 5 res, and each chamber of that type built makes it 1 res more expensive. That would branch out like:
1 DC - 5 Res
2 DC - 11 Res
3 DC - 18 Res
4 DC's - 27 Res
5 DC's - 37 Res
6 DC's - 48 Res
7 DC's - 60 Res
8 DC's - 73 Res
9 DC's - 87 Res
10 DC's - 102 Res
11 DC's - 117 Res...

Only for DC's, SC's, and MC's. I would keep OC costs at 5 Res. The increase in the DC cost would lower the amount of Self-Healing OC Walls and keep the number of chambers to a minimum. Then you could focus more on the offensive part.

Comments

  • SinSpawnSinSpawn Harbinger of Suffering Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8359Members
    :O

    11 DC's - 117 Res...

    why does it cost more then it does now?

    and is this for the entire map or is it just based on an individual. plus this seems way to complicated.
  • Ice9Ice9 Join Date: 2004-06-09 Member: 29208Members
    For the entire map, and it would cost more eventually... Here's another way of explaning it:

    1 DC - 5 Res
    2nd DC - 6 res
    3rd - 7
    4th - 8
    5th - 9
    6th - 10
    7th - 11
    8th - 12
    9th - 13
    10th - 14
    11th - 15
    12th - 15
  • SinSpawnSinSpawn Harbinger of Suffering Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8359Members
    hmm entire map = bad, keep a certain cost would be better.

    your way is way more complicated, plus this is only beneficial for the begining of the game, but what about later in the game?

    aliens are losing...there are late joiner res is slow...jeeze the 12th chamber is the same as placing a res tower..

    After thoroughly thinking this idea through my head it seems pretty awful and complicating as to the player would be thinking, why is it not dropping a chamber, how many chambers do we already have? etc.
  • SnidelySnidely Join Date: 2003-02-04 Member: 13098Members
    Is this on top of the 1 chamber per hives restriction, then?

    The point of unchained chambers is that it gives aliens more flexability in tactics than the current game provides. This suggestion doesn't really tackle that if you still can only have one chamber type per hive.
  • HighnoHighno Join Date: 2004-01-29 Member: 25706Members
    we havent event tested unchaining the chambers with the whole community and now everybody gets his ideas against unchaining.

    I think noone gets the real idea behind unchaining, that is breaking the standard DMS strategy to benefit of other alien abilitys too.
    And not preventing people from building DCs first.
  • PehmoleluPehmolelu Join Date: 2004-05-03 Member: 28424Members, Constellation
    Bad idea, No one wants to calculate in game how much it would cost if I would do this and this. Forget it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • BlueNovemberBlueNovember hax Join Date: 2003-02-28 Member: 14137Members, Constellation
    SC goes down first.

    "Ok guys, all drop 2 sc chambers round the map"

    GG.


    It's not a bad idea in theory, but hte exponential cost would really just serve to reduce lag by limiting the number of chambers. And Ocs at 5?! Aliens would drop 3 Dcs, and that would be it. May as well make 2 more Ocs rather than and extra dc, and have some res spare.
  • ZekZek Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 7962Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    This doesn't address the idea behind unchained chambers at all. Unchained doesn't make it cheaper to get upgrades, it adds flexibility to the alien team and gives them more options in spending their res.
  • PalinPalin Join Date: 2003-03-24 Member: 14848Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-BlueNovember+Aug 9 2004, 11:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BlueNovember @ Aug 9 2004, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ... but hte exponential cost ... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Just being nitpicky, but the equation is a linear summation (x + n | n = 1 -> oo; where n = number of chambers and x = base cost) and not a geometric summation (x + c^n | n = 1 -> oo, c > 1).

    Math aside, I don't understand everyone's qualm against NS becoming too "complicated". It started out complicated but I dare say the majority of us learned how to play in a decent time... making it more complicated simply lengthens the time it takes to "master" the game. If anything, added complication can only benefit us in the long run as it ends up challenging our ability to effectively contribute in-game. I say go play something like CS, Q3, or UT if you're looking for simplicity... they have all pulled it off quite nicely.
  • Ice9Ice9 Join Date: 2004-06-09 Member: 29208Members
    <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo--> Well, it's not the answer to unchaining...

    I screwed up the title now that I think of it... I want this to go with unchained chambers...
  • SneaKandSeeKSneaKandSeeK Join Date: 2004-02-12 Member: 26454Members
    What's the reason of this change?
    It's quite good to try to make the alien not so vulnerable at the start as it is at PCWs these days and make the aliens more vulnerable later in the game, the idea is good but I dont like making the game complicated.
    The unchaining chambers will make enough balance in the game, tbh (I think).
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    I think this won't work simply because it's too complex: not elegant. Confusing, not intuitive. I tend to like features that work like this but NS development so far has tended toward keeping at least the details simple/consistent. Although, we did see a departure from that with more effective carapace based on hive count so who knows?

    PS Credits to the above who already commented on the complexity of the idea.
  • k1ndredk1ndred Join Date: 2003-11-30 Member: 23790Members
    more alien flexibility in tatics with chambers abilities? build more hives.
  • ZekZek Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 7962Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--QuoteBegin-k1ndred+Aug 10 2004, 10:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (k1ndred @ Aug 10 2004, 10:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> more alien flexibility in tatics with chambers abilities? build more hives. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Do you need me to define the word "flexibility?" First of all, building more hives in and of itself is a completely linear tactic that leaves little room for adjustment. Every competent alien team gets someone to spend all their res on an early hive, and most of them will get a third if/when possible. No flexibility there. More importantly, with hive restrictions, aliens have to follow the same upgade path almost every time to compete. That means there is only one primary tactic when it comes to alien upgrades. That's not flexible in the slightest. <b>Flexibility</b> means having the option to choose from a number of feasible tactics, not just going through the motions every game.
Sign In or Register to comment.