Advanced Economic System
aNytiMe
Join Date: 2008-03-31 Member: 64007Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2008-03-31 Member: 64007Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">better than what Charlie invented!</div>Can you imagine a game where your marines would absolutely book-it to build your RTs? Have you ever, as a commander, found yourself in a position of trying to contain the excitement of players jumping at the thought of staring down your RTs to completion? As it stands now, the NS2 system is going to be just as annoying as the NS1 system, mitigated slightly by the presence of the weld-bot. Face it, there is absolutely no excitement in staring at a resource tower and waiting for it to build/die. Many players forgo this exercise in NS1. However, I have a suggestion that can make the economic system much more exciting than you can possibly imagine. I've thought about this for a good while and believe that it can be implemented without upsetting any other NS2 feature.
The RT structure needs to become a lot more important strategically for both teams. I propose that the cost be increased to 30-50 per tower in NS1-relative currency, and the income should be raised. (5res/tick) Of course everything will have to be re-balanced around this income raise, but that shouldn't be a problem at this stage of game development.
... There's more! The second part of the proposal is to let the commander build special harvesters on top of the structures. Let's call the marine harvester the "capacitor" and the alien harvester a "larva." Their cost should be ~5res apiece and each RT should support up to 5 of them. Each of these should provide an additional 1 res/tick.
To make things better, the capacitors and larvae should have hitboxes players can fill with bullets/teeth/flames/grenades! Capacitors should have 300hp and must be welded to be healed, while larvae should have 250hp and should slowly regenerate. This would really add emphasis to RT defense and each RT battle would play like a mini-hive siege.
Advantages of this system:
- allows the possibility of economic harassment. (should you kill the marines pressuring your hive or should you sneak around the back and take out their "capacitors?")
- adds a new layer of strategy for the commanders. (should you expand and be technologically behind for a while, or should you use your resources in some other way?)
- removes the tedious chore of holding a button to build/kill nodes since very few nodes will be put up during the course of a typical game.
- emphasizes scouting and communication. (did they get an expansion up? are they sitting on their resources? are they going to try to take our hive down?)
- gives commanders something to do.
- would share the adrenaline-pumping level of excitement of SC/SC2 worker harassment.
- etc...
You can even keep your powergrid idea intact!
Here is a quick, merciless paint mockup:
<img src="http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc15/Domining/NS2_rts.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
You can keep the layout the way you have it now.
<img src="http://www.unknownworlds.com/images/news/powergrid/NS2_powergrid_overview.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Something similar was suggested here:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=107163&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...=107163&hl=</a>
The RT structure needs to become a lot more important strategically for both teams. I propose that the cost be increased to 30-50 per tower in NS1-relative currency, and the income should be raised. (5res/tick) Of course everything will have to be re-balanced around this income raise, but that shouldn't be a problem at this stage of game development.
... There's more! The second part of the proposal is to let the commander build special harvesters on top of the structures. Let's call the marine harvester the "capacitor" and the alien harvester a "larva." Their cost should be ~5res apiece and each RT should support up to 5 of them. Each of these should provide an additional 1 res/tick.
To make things better, the capacitors and larvae should have hitboxes players can fill with bullets/teeth/flames/grenades! Capacitors should have 300hp and must be welded to be healed, while larvae should have 250hp and should slowly regenerate. This would really add emphasis to RT defense and each RT battle would play like a mini-hive siege.
Advantages of this system:
- allows the possibility of economic harassment. (should you kill the marines pressuring your hive or should you sneak around the back and take out their "capacitors?")
- adds a new layer of strategy for the commanders. (should you expand and be technologically behind for a while, or should you use your resources in some other way?)
- removes the tedious chore of holding a button to build/kill nodes since very few nodes will be put up during the course of a typical game.
- emphasizes scouting and communication. (did they get an expansion up? are they sitting on their resources? are they going to try to take our hive down?)
- gives commanders something to do.
- would share the adrenaline-pumping level of excitement of SC/SC2 worker harassment.
- etc...
You can even keep your powergrid idea intact!
Here is a quick, merciless paint mockup:
<img src="http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc15/Domining/NS2_rts.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
You can keep the layout the way you have it now.
<img src="http://www.unknownworlds.com/images/news/powergrid/NS2_powergrid_overview.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Something similar was suggested here:
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=107163&hl=" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...=107163&hl=</a>
Comments
Why would the RT's need the significant increase in cost? If they cost more but produce the same amount as NS1 towers, and assuming the cost of the Capacitors / Larva (I'm going to call them "Expanders" from now on to refer to both) were reasonable, it may be better to build the Expanders so you can recover the heavy hit to your income faster. In my eyes, keeping RT costs the same, but making Expanders more costly, would provide for greater strategic choices as it frees up more income to be invested in either the military or economy.
To illustrate my point, I've taken your example and put it into practice/test. Below are two teams, one builds all expanders and the other doesn't. Every new line is a new tick. Assuming I'm not missing something that will make me look stupid then it looks like it would almost always be better to build Expanders as soon as you're able.
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 0-New Expander
6 2
7 3
8 4
9 0-New Expander
10 3
11 1-New Expander
12 0-New Expander
13 0-New Expander
14 6
15 12
16 18
However, I don't really understand how this is going to encourage your teammates to build res any more then it does now. I mean the whole idea of "Hey build rts so we can have rez!" is in play now and we all see a lot of people not building rez. Making it more expansive or costly really doesn't increase incentive. You say it makes it more important but let's face it, Rez is already a HUGE keystone of every game, people are just more focused on using there time and resources (if aliens) for there own personal benefit, instead of helping the team. So unless you make building rez towers directly benefit the builder, people probably aren't going to be in much of a rush to do it. So I don't understand the first part of your post.
That said however, I do like the idea of resource towers being more of then build and forget type of thing, and increasing each ones importance in the large picture.
I like the idea of separate damage for modules. But I'd say not repairable, but once it finally breaks you can buy a new ones (encourages hit and runs effectiveness to counter the turtling effect of the RT upgrades)
I don't get how this idea address your complaint of RT building being boring. They still need to be built. And if you're suggesting less fighting over territories then NO.
<!--quoteo(post=1729490:date=Sep 28 2009, 09:18 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Sep 28 2009, 09:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729490"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 0-New Expander
6 2
7 4
8 1-New Expander
9 4
10 2-New Expander
11 1-New Expander
12 1-New Expander
13 7
14 13
15 19
16 25<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fixed
Why would the RT's need the significant increase in cost? If they cost more but produce the same amount as NS1 towers, and assuming the cost of the Capacitors / Larva (I'm going to call them "Expanders" from now on to refer to both) were reasonable, it may be better to build the Expanders so you can recover the heavy hit to your income faster. In my eyes, keeping RT costs the same, but making Expanders more costly, would provide for greater strategic choices as it frees up more income to be invested in either the military or economy.
To illustrate my point, I've taken your example and put it into practice/test. Below are two teams, one builds all expanders and the other doesn't. Every new line is a new tick. Assuming I'm not missing something that will make me look stupid then it looks like it would almost always be better to build Expanders as soon as you're able.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because building an expansion makes you vulnerable. Those "expanders" can be easily destroyed if you don't scout/defend well enough. I wanted RTs to cost more money because I want there to be less RTs in a standard game. This will make them more special to the players and really make commanders think whether double expansion is a good idea or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1729499:date=Sep 29 2009, 04:01 AM:name=ShadowedEclipse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ShadowedEclipse @ Sep 29 2009, 04:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729499"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However, I don't really understand how this is going to encourage your teammates to build res any more then it does now. I mean the whole idea of "Hey build rts so we can have rez!" is in play now and we all see a lot of people not building rez. Making it more expansive or costly really doesn't increase incentive. You say it makes it more important but let's face it, Rez is already a HUGE keystone of every game, people are just more focused on using there time and resources (if aliens) for there own personal benefit, instead of helping the team. So unless you make building rez towers directly benefit the builder, people probably aren't going to be in much of a rush to do it. So I don't understand the first part of your post.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With this idea, RTs will become special. They will become possibly more special than phase gates because these are even more mission-critical. In NS1, one RT is expendable and who cares if you don't build it, someone else will get an RT up somewhere else. With expensive RTs, people will look at them completely differently. There will actually be strategy and teamwork in the resource module.
Have you noticed how everyone builds phasegates in NS1, but nobody caps RTs? It's like that.
The people have spoken:
Better Economic System!
Why would the RT's need the significant increase in cost? If they cost more but produce the same amount as NS1 towers, and assuming the cost of the Capacitors / Larva (I'm going to call them "Expanders" from now on to refer to both) were reasonable, it may be better to build the Expanders so you can recover the heavy hit to your income faster. In my eyes, keeping RT costs the same, but making Expanders more costly, would provide for greater strategic choices as it frees up more income to be invested in either the military or economy.
To illustrate my point, I've taken your example and put it into practice/test. Below are two teams, one builds all expanders and the other doesn't. Every new line is a new tick. Assuming I'm not missing something that will make me look stupid then it looks like it would almost always be better to build Expanders as soon as you're able.
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 0-New Expander
6 2
7 3
8 4
9 0-New Expander
10 3
11 1-New Expander
12 0-New Expander
13 0-New Expander
14 6
15 12
16 18<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok now that I am not falling asleep I can answer this argument.
Whereas an RT is the "command center", the expanders are the "workers/peons" you build on top of that command center. They are modular because they can be destroyed by the other team, sort of like how you destroy enemy workers in SC. Of course it is going to be more profitable to have more workers on your tower, but what if you choose to build two towers at the same time and then upgrade the workers from both at the same time? Your alien strategy may call for it.
You would want to make the kharaa enhancers immune or resistant to projectiles. If a skulk has to climb on top of the rt to kill the enhancers and be more vulnerable(which I think is a good intention), there should be a similar decision for the marines attacking a node. It would make attacking nodes more interesting if you had to chase down the glowies/enhancers surrounding it.
Similarly, there could be a mini game with the marine enhancers where they are only vulnerable on an "upswing" or "downswing" of the RT with some type of visual indicator. It would be a little like whack-a-mole except half of the enhancers would be vulnerable at a time.
Either that or marines could use weld bots as their enhancers(where they just float around it) so it would be similar to the kharaa version.
And about the above "always better to build an expander" you should make holding a new rt always preferable to building an expander. Otherwise marines would have very little reason to be aggressive and push past their base node. There should also be a max number or at least diminishing returns to encourage comms to use it on front lines and not just in secure areas.
Finally, it would be interesting if you reduced the cost(and maybe the effectiveness) of electrification and made it a binary decision between defense and economy expansion. Better yet, give the RT a set of hardpoints(maybe 3) that can be used to add electric generators or enhancers.
You would want to make the kharaa enhancers immune or resistant to projectiles. If a skulk has to climb on top of the rt to kill the enhancers and be more vulnerable(which I think is a good intention), there should be a similar decision for the marines attacking a node. It would make attacking nodes more interesting if you had to chase down the glowies/enhancers surrounding it.
Similarly, there could be a mini game with the marine enhancers where they are only vulnerable on an "upswing" or "downswing" of the RT with some type of visual indicator. It would be a little like whack-a-mole except half of the enhancers would be vulnerable at a time.
Either that or marines could use weld bots as their enhancers(where they just float around it) so it would be similar to the kharaa version.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It might be more difficult for skulks, but it's easier for fades and gorges to destroy them. To balance it, I think that the alien larvae should regenerate really quickly, so killing them without a shotgun or a GL would be a big chore.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And about the above "always better to build an expander" you should make holding a new rt always preferable to building an expander. Otherwise marines would have very little reason to be aggressive and push past their base node. There should also be a max number or at least diminishing returns to encourage comms to use it on front lines and not just in secure areas.
Finally, it would be interesting if you reduced the cost(and maybe the effectiveness) of electrification and made it a binary decision between defense and economy expansion. Better yet, give the RT a set of hardpoints(maybe 3) that can be used to add electric generators or enhancers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well marines have to deny aliens their two/three minute hive, so they can't turtle either way. I do agree that the RTs should bring back more money than the addons. Maybe RTs should give back 5 resources and the add-ons should give one, all costs would be scaled accordingly.
Well it would make the fade more vulnerable too since we would have to climb on top and aim down. If gorges are given some type of bilebomb or rt disruption of the start maybe it would be even, but I doubt they would replace skulks in this regard since the speed, ability to get behind enemy lines, expendability, and damage output make them great rt hunters, especially at the beginning.
About Kharaa enhancers regenerating, that might work, but marine ranged dmg output is so high and ammo easy to come by I don't think it's enough. Agree to disagree I guess since there's no way of knowing currently.
<!--quoteo(post=1729620:date=Sep 29 2009, 02:48 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aNytiMe @ Sep 29 2009, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well marines have to deny aliens their two/three minute hive, so they can't turtle either way. I do agree that the RTs should bring back more money than the addons. Maybe RTs should give back 5 resources and the add-ons should give one, all costs would be scaled accordingly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if marines will have the ability to deny the second hive in a balanced match and I think that is a stretch of an assumption. The "natural" tech points are so close to the start points that if your team loses its natural that early the other team is holding ~80% of the map. From the design of the map it looks like the game is geared for a fight for T3 rather than T2. It's a smart improvement IMO.
In short, we're both speculating, and you agree that aggressive expansion should be more effective so it's a bit of a moot point.
It certainly gives commanders the option to stay in Tier1 longer so they could get a gigantic economy going. It doesn't force them to stay there longer at all because those RTs also provide more income.
About Kharaa enhancers regenerating, that might work, but marine ranged dmg output is so high and ammo easy to come by I don't think it's enough. Agree to disagree I guess since there's no way of knowing currently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The alien speed advantage makes it fairly easy for them, I don't think that being on top of an RT would change much. It's not like aliens are safe behind RTs in NS1.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know if marines will have the ability to deny the second hive in a balanced match and I think that is a stretch of an assumption. The "natural" tech points are so close to the start points that if your team loses its natural that early the other team is holding ~80% of the map. From the design of the map it looks like the game is geared for a fight for T3 rather than T2. It's a smart improvement IMO.
In short, we're both speculating, and you agree that aggressive expansion should be more effective so it's a bit of a moot point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I said "deny the two minute hive", but I meant that as in "delay it until 5 mins+ through dead resource towers." In 6v6 NS1, aliens don't usually play with more than 3 rts. I would like this figure to make it back into NS2 and the timing to still be the same. So if all 3 rts have all workers, aliens are getting a 2 minute hive.
If this were NS1 I would probably agree with you. The maps in NS2 look like they're going to be very different from those of NS1 as you can tell by the example map you attached in your initial post. With a smaller amount of rooms, and a significant decrease in the amount of hallways, it's safe to assume that we'll see less RT node locations and the importance of holding the RTs will increase due to map design. With this in mind, making resource towers cost more will only encourage very predictable and boring stalemate situations or "push, hold, turtle, repeat" scenarios that we see in not-so-popular push heavy games like Dystopia.
<!--quoteo(post=1729604:date=Sep 29 2009, 01:03 PM:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ( @ Sep 29 2009, 01:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course it is going to be more profitable to have more workers on your tower, but what if you choose to build two towers at the same time and then upgrade the workers from both at the same time? Your alien strategy may call for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why would you ever do that?
Let's take two Gorges. Both have 50 res. One drops the resource tower (reducing his res to 0) and the other drops all 5 Expanders (reducing his res to 25). The Gorge with 25 res can then build two chambers and possibly drop a third by the time the other two are built. Aside from that advantage, they also only have one spot to defend and are getting 6 res a tick.
If the Gorge's took two different towers they would both have 0 res, res would trickle in substantially slower (x3 slower, thereby slowing all other tech), and the team would now have to split up and defend two locations. There's almost no advantage to this and I couldn't see any viable strategy requiring a team to drop 2 nodes instead of 1 + Expanders.
The typical asymmetric game of starcraft has an aggressor and a defender. These roles are guided by the nature of their openings, one player's racial safe opening is to turtle and defend while another player's racial safe opening is to pressure the defender into a less-favorable position.
Before Bisu, SC PvZ games were played with the zerg being clearly on defense, trying to throw up his second hatchery and defending it from the zealots. The protoss on the other hand was more in the position of desperation, because he knew that he would be overrun if he should choose to sit and watch the zerg throw up multiple expansions uncontested. Of course the protoss also had to know when to put up his expansions to guarantee their safety and his strategic success. The protoss pressures while the zerg scrambles to defend his expansions. ZvT played the same way.
The logical question that arises is why did the protoss or the terran have to pressure the zerg instead of expanding side by side and letting the zerg have whatever he wanted? The reason is that the Z had an IMMENSE advantage when it came to late game. The Z had the cheapest units, the cheapest expansion towers and the <u>strongest late-game ground units.</u> The first appearance of the defiler and the ultralisk put the Protoss and the Terran at an instant disadvantage.
<!--quoteo(post=1729682:date=Sep 29 2009, 11:46 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Sep 29 2009, 11:46 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1729682"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If this were NS1 I would probably agree with you. The maps in NS2 look like they're going to be very different from those of NS1 as you can tell by the example map you attached in your initial post. With a smaller amount of rooms, and a significant decrease in the amount of hallways, it's safe to assume that we'll see less RT node locations and the importance of holding the RTs will increase due to map design. With this in mind, making resource towers cost more will only encourage very predictable and boring stalemate situations or "push, hold, turtle, repeat" scenarios that we see in not-so-popular push heavy games like Dystopia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The example map doesn't look radically different from the more successful NS1 maps.
The marines will have to find a golden balance between expansion and aggression. If the gameplay is similar to NS1, the aliens win when they have 3 hives. This puts the marines at an assymetric, but fair disadvantage at game start. The aliens are the ones throwing up the hatcheries and the marines are the zealots who have to stop the aliens from doing so. If marines ever find themselves turtling, they will be overrun by the expansive aliens.
The marines can certainly turtle and push slowly, but that won't stop the aliens from putting up three hives and winning the game. Instead they will have to figure out a way to defend RTs and push at the same time if they are to win.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But why would you ever do that?
Let's take two Gorges. Both have 50 res. One drops the resource tower (reducing his res to 0) and the other drops all 5 Expanders (reducing his res to 25). The Gorge with 25 res can then build two chambers and possibly drop a third by the time the other two are built. Aside from that advantage, they also only have one spot to defend and are getting 6 res a tick.
If the Gorge's took two different towers they would both have 0 res, res would trickle in substantially slower (x3 slower, thereby slowing all other tech), and the team would now have to split up and defend two locations. There's almost no advantage to this and I couldn't see any viable strategy requiring a team to drop 2 nodes instead of 1 + Expanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've changed my suggestion a little bit earlier to make the basic tower give more income than the add-on harvesters. I said 5r income from the tower and 1 each from the harvesters.
I disagree. The radical difference is in the removal of the hallways/vents. When there's only one path to take to get into a room that makes the game become push heavy. Granted, the simplification of NS2 maps doesn't relate to your suggestion so there's no real need to debate it here.
My initial point was that I didn't see any reason to increase the cost of resource towers and I still fail to see why that is necessary. The maps will be smaller with less travel time and there very well may be less nodes available. These two factors combined will make defending nodes easier and more important when compared to NS1. Increasing the cost will only needlessly slow down the tech production (and therefor, the game) and losing a expensive tower early on, to a skulk rush for example, may be so debilitating that a team may never be able to recover.
Like I said, the increased cost is CENTRAL to the concept of making the RTs stand out as special buildings. Why do you think command centers/nexii are so expensive in star craft? In fact, the expansion center is usually the most important building in all strategy games. Assigning <u>real $$$ value</u> to the towers would add a new dimension to the game.
Having more expensive towers wouldn't slow down tech production because that could easily be balanced around the new resource system at this point in time. The income can also be tweaked to get this effect. I don't think they've assigned any numbers yet.
If the maps have less nodes available, that would actually support my theory rather than provide a counterargument.
Having more expensive towers wouldn't slow down tech production because that could easily be balanced around the new resource system at this point in time. The income can also be tweaked to get this effect. I don't think they've assigned any numbers yet.
If the maps have less nodes available, that would actually support my theory rather than provide a counterargument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the requirement of CC/Hives at tech points fills that role all ready.
About your earlier post, I think the "racial advantage" strats work in SC because there are 3 races. If it was the same in NS2 there are only two races and the breadth of tech is lower, and you'd be encouraged to play each other the exact same way each time.
I don't think the specific SC mechanics you're encouraging by making the RT's cost more are a good fit for NS2.
I can understand where you're coming from in regards to trying to increase the RT costs, but this is a control point money model. As such, new locations are governed by control of the resource locations. Making the base RT too expensive makes the lines more stagnant. It works OK to have a high barrier cost in games like SC due to the fact that there are fewer locations and each has a giant yield potential. Also, SC typically has its expansion points along the edges of the map making due to their model of not having the battlefield where the buildings are. If you break into the enemy's base, you're rewarded with killing expensive buildings. The control point system was developed to make the resource locations the targets and to spread out the locality of the battles to the entire map while keeping your main base safe in the back. Basically, winning a battle in the field means more nodes. In SC, you potentially could lose the battle but still maintain your base, you're simply lost available units (and thus resources spent). We have free respawns. See TA, SupremeCommander, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, and others for examples of well done control point economy models.
Also, I've heard in the olde days of NS that RTs and other building cost much more and the games stretched out much longer. People ended up building forward bases and have bloody carnage trying to take them from each other because each node cost so much. However, this also tended to force the game to last on the order of several hours. The control point system we have now allows a more fluid battle over the resources while not forcibly endangering critical buildings, unless you build a forward base (PGs!!). Also, people don't have to dedicate over an hour to a round to see it through.
I like it but I'm not sure how you'd employ an economy harass with the smaller maps and a lot less vents and back passages etc. The fade would probably be a good candidate I assume however, with its teleport ability.
Do you really think that's a fair comparison? The command center is the <i>central</i> building in SC. It's a resource drop off point, yes, but it also is the prerequisite for virtually all buildings, produces workers, and for 2 of the races allows other buildings to be built near them. You cannot make direct comparisons from SC to NS2 as if SC should be used as a holy bible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the maps have less nodes available, that would actually support my theory rather than provide a counterargument.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I understood correctly, one of the core reasons you want to increase the cost is to ensure that players properly value the nodes and do not leave them to die as they may have done in NS1 pubs. I think with less nodes available and with those nodes in central rooms, instead of isolated / random hallways, it's easy to see that players will defend them more without the complications involved by dramatically increasing RT node costs. One such complication I pointed out previously is if a pub team loses a RT it may be such a substantial lose they all just F4. Would that really be fun? I see more strategic options with RT node costs remaining the same. If you see the enemy team is building Expanders / turtling, your team may be able to fast expand to gain more map control with a front line next to their turtle. With RT's costing 50 res a pop I don't see how that could happen.
I like this idea as it provides a way for a commander to choose to invest in military / economy. I'm just not with you on the "increase RT cost" side because the advantages you list, which are already covered by NS2's design in my opinion, don't outweigh the disadvantages.
Make it so the further from a CC the res tower is, the more each harvester returns (kind of like picking up +1res (or however much) at each node as the resources pump back to your resevoir or whatever the story is for the res pool).
This would give a good balance between (dangerous) expansion and fortification in the risk/rewards stakes and would also have the added benefit of giving a team the incentive to not just upgrade the 2 nodes closest to their base with harvesters and turtle, as the other team can just upgrade the rest of the map if left unchecked and get almost exponentially more res. I think we can all agree that in an RTS/FPS hybrid turtling is a bad thing for the sake of boredom on behalf of the guys on the ground.
It also gives a possibly interesting choice of deciding between stability of your powergrid and increased resflow based around deciding whether to build a new CC or not. However, I'm not sure if making it a downside to drop a CC is a good idea other than opportunity cost of the resources used. Thoughts?
It would definately keep things more dynamic, and thats one of the main things I was worried about with the new powergrid system.
Hell, this idea would work with just regular RTs in general.
Oh, I have 6 and you have 5? I have way more resource income than you! By a lot! Because my nodes have to be further from my base! Wheeeee
There's already an inherent risk in the current system involving a larger region to defend. This is why Aliens at the pro level often only have 3 RTs, it's easier to defend 3 spots than half the map. However, as you box in the enemy, you negate that problem allowing the end game to finish quickly instead of being dragged out once there's a clear winner.
That, I believe is why resources are a simple and cheapish system. If you increase the cost and importance too far, you will lose a lot of players who simply don't want to deal with it and won't stay if it causes them to lose too often. Now you may want to say good riddance to them, but sadly I think that would make too much of a dent in the fan base. NS, and NS2 is an rts/fps HYBRID. It does both. It is meant to appeal to both crowds and allow players from either grouping to be able to play the game as they want and find something useful to do. The players that want to just go out and fight should very well be allowed to do so. If you make the RTS elements too large and important you will eventually start to force them to play outside what they want to do. This can be bad.
Expansion of the resource system sounds interesting. I especially like the idea of upgradable rt's. However, you should still be able to take a few hits to your resource system without breaking the team, and having big expensive rt's may not allow that to happen. As long as your team works together and focuses on their objective, EVEN if it's an aggressive one, should be viable. If a person wants to play fps style, let them. If they want to rts style, let them. It's the merger of the two that makes ns great, and I think your putting a little too much importance on the resource system and it may detract from the game overall. So leave the rt's at there ns1 cost equivalent, but maybe add a few more ways to upgrade them besides just electrifying them.
Oh, I have 6 and you have 5? I have way more resource income than you! By a lot! Because my nodes have to be further from my base! Wheeeee
There's already an inherent risk in the current system involving a larger region to defend. This is why Aliens at the pro level often only have 3 RTs, it's easier to defend 3 spots than half the map. However, as you box in the enemy, you negate that problem allowing the end game to finish quickly instead of being dragged out once there's a clear winner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know, I think that argument is a mountain out of a mole hill in this case. There are ways of mitigating steamrolls like the bonus takes a little while to come into effect, or it only occurs every so often rather than every time. Also resource systems are inherently flexible because the gap in time between res control and tech improvement allows time for the other team to regroup and retaliate.
I also like <b>MuYeah</b>'s suggestion because it doesn't automatically preclude any other of the RT improvements suggested here.
expanding > turtling
turtling > rushing
rushing > teching
teching > expanding
er.. i think thats the equilibrium you want to get right. Someone who knows RTS better than me step in.
Btw, in 6v6 generally there are two RTs dropped because the res is needed to to get the hive up and defend it. Standard strat is Hive, straight Fade, straight Lerk, chambers at 28 res, RT/chamber, and RT Fade. Dropping an extra RT delays stuff later on. On larger maps you can get away with more early RTs because it takes longer for the marines to mount an offensive and reinforce. I also don't buy the slippery slope argument - res invested in economy is res that isn't going into tech or equipment. It takes time for that investment in economy to kick in and break even; you're taking a short-term loss for a long-term gain.
Back to the original topic: I like the idea of being able to expand the economy without requiring more map control, but I'm not sold on the worker harass idea. Let's not get too carried away with the SC parallels - in SC you can build additional units so your military scales with your territory. In NS you're stuck with the amount of players in the server. What would be nice is if RTs had different levels of resource output, something in-between 100% and 0%.
I don't know where you play, but I see players ignore building PGs and not defending them all the time - the problem is just that sometimes players have to put themselves at risk for the good of the team, and many players are unwilling to do that. Players are already completely coupled to their teams, I'm not sure what can be done in terms of in-game mechanics to correct this, if anything at all. If your team loses, you lose - perhaps people are just deficient at recognizing the relationship between them not helping kill a RT when there are no aliens nearby and getting overrun 10 minutes later.
WiC has <i>no</i> economy, which is why it's not an RTS. It's more of an RTG -- a real time game (what isn't?). Even RTS games that thrive on simple base management like DoW or CoH have the fundamentals of an economy.