Personal Resources
swalk
Say hello to my little friend. Join Date: 2011-01-20 Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
Say hello to my little friend. Join Date: 2011-01-20 Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
<div class="IPBDescription">Should be limited to 100</div>Hello everyone.
Personally I really miss the 100Res caplimit(from NS1 aliens) - and I really think we need them on both sides in NS2. This will limit how many hydras one person can suddenly place on the map. Limit how many times people can buy weapons/evolve to lifeforms.
Other than that, i think the starting PRes of both teams should be 25 instead of 10 - also like it was in NS1. So marines can get that really quick shotgun, and aliens can get a really quick lerk.
Just my 2 cents about Personal Resources. Let me hear what you think?
Personally I really miss the 100Res caplimit(from NS1 aliens) - and I really think we need them on both sides in NS2. This will limit how many hydras one person can suddenly place on the map. Limit how many times people can buy weapons/evolve to lifeforms.
Other than that, i think the starting PRes of both teams should be 25 instead of 10 - also like it was in NS1. So marines can get that really quick shotgun, and aliens can get a really quick lerk.
Just my 2 cents about Personal Resources. Let me hear what you think?
Comments
I once died as an Onos and then re-evolved and had 100 straight off the bat again.
But yeh as for the initial point perhaps your right, being able to smash 15 hydras into a room would be kinda, annoying.
999 cap is fine and many of the problems this idea would solve, could be solved in better ways (e.g. implement a hydra's per room or a hydra's per tech node or a hydra's per gorge cap).
-1
999 cap is fine and many of the problems this idea would solve, could be solved in better ways (e.g. implement a hydra's per room or a hydra's per tech node or a hydra's per gorge cap).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is that a better way?
Usually I prefer to have loose limitations like the 100 cap and then let players figure out how that 100 can be spent rather than trying to force the players into one mindset through more specific limits. Sometimes the more specific rules are necessary, but I don't like going there unless it's clearly necessary or beneficial.
It's no biggie either way though, whatever works with rest of the game.
Because the OP's suggestion is a treatment for a symptom. The issue of overabundance of hydras and purchased weapons/lifeforms have underlying issues beyond the personal res cap.
But with the way Pres is set up, there wouldn't be any overflow res for your team. It would artificially encourage spending once you hit the cap.
Usually I prefer to have loose limitations like the 100 cap and then let players figure out how that 100 can be spent rather than trying to force the players into one mindset through more specific limits. Sometimes the more specific rules are necessary, but I don't like going there unless it's clearly necessary or beneficial.
It's no biggie either way though, whatever works with rest of the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that's the standard RTS method of dealing with these things. Usually, its a unit or structure cap, but I think a fixed cap would do fine here. If UWE wanted to make it more complex, I could see a cap/tech node system where each tech node provides additional cap and each structure/alien class/weapon uses up some of that cap.
Your method (low PRes cap) slows, but doesn't fix, this problem. I could still, over the course of a long enough game, spam a ridiculous amount of structures. A maximum is usually the best approach to avoid unlimited spam and the associated performance problems.
I actually had an idea about Tech Points providing an additional "Supply" resource that worked like what you're suggesting, but I never bothered with it since it requires a major overhaul of the current system.
If they lower the pres income enough so that marines can't always buy a weapon, it will be balanced because both teams will have the option to spend all their res.
also: restricting to a number of buildings/area isn't a very good solution since it's a hidden variable in the equation. NS1 had a big problem with having too many hidden variables, which contributed to the incredibly steep learning curve.
capping res is a pretty good solution, but I think it should work as it did in NS1, once you hit 100 res, your overflow got distributed to teammates. It'd also be an interesting idea to distribute some overflow into team resources, as well as to teammates.
Your method (low PRes cap) slows, but doesn't fix, this problem. I could still, over the course of a long enough game, spam a ridiculous amount of structures. A maximum is usually the best approach to avoid unlimited spam and the associated performance problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure about the standard approach. Most RTS games I've played are quite happy capping the max supply/unit count at max, not so much trying to create extra artificial limits on how to fill the cap. That's exactly the kind of design I like: You've got some clear overall guideline (Starcraft 200 supply cap for example), but whatever you do within that guideline is your own business.
Also, "The rest are doing it" isn't probably the best reasoning when we are discussing a game setting as unique as NS. What works in pure RTS might not be the best solution in a melee vs ranged RTS/FPS, especially now that the res model looks very different from your average RTS.
I'm not actually sure what's the biggest deal with the hydra spam anyway. In vast majority of cases the oppositing team benefits from such overcommitment as long as they can react properly. If the long period spam is still proving to be a problem, by all means kill it with cap. Somehow I understood that the opening post was more about the 'burst damage' you can do with the uncapped res pool on some cases, but I'm no way sure I understand the actual problem here.
And like I said I have no big concerns either way, but I'd like to avoid setting specific artificial limitations whenever they can be avoided.
Also, "The rest are doing it" isn't probably the best reasoning when we are discussing a game setting as unique as NS. What works in pure RTS might not be the best solution in a melee vs ranged RTS/FPS, especially now that the res model looks very different from your average RTS.
I'm not actually sure what's the biggest deal with the hydra spam anyway. In vast majority of cases the oppositing team benefits from such overcommitment as long as they can react properly. If the long period spam is still proving to be a problem, by all means kill it with cap. Somehow I understood that the opening post was more about the 'burst damage' you can do with the uncapped res pool on some cases, but I'm no way sure I understand the actual problem here.
And like I said I have no big concerns either way, but I'd like to avoid setting specific artificial limitations whenever they can be avoided.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A 100 PRes cap is just as artificial as a hydra cap. I understand why you support the former over the latter (the PRes cap gives more flexibility to the players), but there is no natural or physical basis for either (unless theres some unspecified hardware or software limit that we don't know).
NS2 is unique, but it isn't radical, being a synthesis of two mature game genres. Therefore, IMO we should go under the presumption that things that work in an RTS or FPS should work in NS2, unless proven otherwise. I agree that not everything will work but,
1. We should learn from the experience of 'what works' in other games
2. Using the standard conventions and mechanics of other games makes NS2 more familiar to new players
I think there are actually two problems here. 1) A player can stock up on PRes and then quickly dump it, to great effect with hydra spam. A 100 PRes cap solves that. However, that doesn't solve 2) where as games progress, one side can generally build structures without limit. This both reduces the strategic trade-off between say expanding to a 2nd tech node or researching better armor, but also starts to drop performance. No matter how much UWE improves hydra/sentry/etc. performance, there will be a game where one side will be able to build enough of them to cause performance issues. Better to just solve the issue now with a cap.
But right now it seems like when you get to a certain point in the game, PRes doesn't really matter anymore, because you got 999 of it.. And you will never be able to use it all (except for going gorge and mass hydras).
If the cap was set at 100 PRes, then you would always have to be careful of what you chose to use your resources on.
Edit: Another note on the hydra limitation, if they decide to limit them somehow, i think it should be "#number of hydras within hydras range" - that way you won't have to be sure that you have enough tech points/res nodes to build a hydra, and gorges can keep using their res. They just have to put hydras in another place.
999 cap is fine and many of the problems this idea would solve, could be solved in better ways (e.g. implement a hydra's per room or a hydra's per tech node or a hydra's per gorge cap).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That creates invisible limitations, which are <b>bad</b>.
A 100 PRes cap would not be invisible, unless they were stupid enough to implement it without showing that it caps at 100.
I agree with Jaweese that the high income is what is causing the problems.
However, even with a lower income, without a cap, at some point you might probably have more res than you can spend.
I once died as an Onos and then re-evolved and had 100 straight off the bat again.
But yeh as for the initial point perhaps your right, being able to smash 15 hydras into a room would be kinda, annoying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually....
The way it worked in NS1 was excess res was sent to your teammates.
To paraphrase a great philosopher of our time: 100 pres ought to be enough for anyone!
That said an artificial cap on hydras/sentries is probably a good idea too.
A 100 PRes cap would not be invisible, unless they were stupid enough to implement it without showing that it caps at 100.
I agree with Jaweese that the high income is what is causing the problems.
However, even with a lower income, without a cap, at some point you might probably have more res than you can spend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, thats easy to solve by putting a X/10 counter under or next to the icon for sentries/hydras. Also, I would expect the PRes cap to be like the current 999 cap, which technically is invisible.
Within what <b>bounds</b>, though?
Whatever you want. If you want to tie it to tech nodes captured. For example, you could do a 10 sentry/tech point cap and show a X/(10 x # of tech nodes) counter under the sentry icon on the build menu.
The point is you can make a structure/unit cap work that is visible, understandable, and no more artificial than a resource cap.
+1 on the 100 cap though; With excess siphoned elsewhere of course.
The point is you can make a structure/unit cap work that is visible, understandable, and no more artificial than a resource cap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not about what I want - I don't want it at all. It's your idea, so it's about what you want. And that's what we'll discuss. In the example you gave, the <b>bounds</b> are the entire map. Now how does that scale for larger or smaller games where you will need more or less sentries? How does that help when you've still got that small, critical room where you've placed 10 whole sentries? What happens to your 11th to 20th sentries when you lose your second tech point? How much should sentries cost with your example?
I think that as KuBaN stated, you're treating a symptom, not a problem. Sentry spam isn't really an issue. Hydra spam is, but that's because of the <b>abundance of personal resources</b>. That's the real problem.
Sure, you could give each gorge player a cap for how many hydras they can place - that will be both obvious and simple, and let them recycle any hydras they place, maybe along with a portion of the cost. That will scale naturally based on team size. However, you will end up with another issue: what should happen to the hydras when the gorge who owns them leaves the server?
perhaps give their control over to the Commander actually if they stay, let them recycle/destroy them as needed.
Thats easy to deal with, even if you're new to the game.
Thats easy to deal with, even if you're new to the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I meant recycle OR destroy,(I even said I wasn't fond of the recycling actually) it'd mostly be in the case of someone leaving hydras in horrible places taking up the proposed area cap that it'd be used for either way.
Really the gorge should be able to destroy or consume (just leaving the concept as open as possible still keeping a "recycle" option) it's own hydras in case of a bad placing that'd be a waste of the area cap. I'm not fond of the idea of gorges physically moving hydras outside of pure function.. it'd honestly look stupid in most implementations (It'd be jarringly out of character).
Edit: idea though.. perhaps a gorge could consume a hydra for a single free placing of another hydra.. pretty much the same as that physically moving thing but without the look of it I've seen done in a few modded NS1 games..
Either way the one problem I had with the old cap was no vanilla-game way of dealing with bad placements short of waiting for it to be killed hopefully by a marine. After that's fixed and given a visual indicator of the cap it'd be perfect for any scaled games.
I can see it being abused though, an ass hat team mate might go gorge, devour all of the hydras someone put up in a room for res and then go fade or something, I can see that happening! If this were to be allowed it should only be enabled for Hydras too, else we'll see people consuming Hives for a laugh and things :P. (or worse, consuming one by mistake :P)
At the same time, the idea that the aliens have to have a bit more thought in where they place things because they cannot refund them is also one of the perks of the team (or whatever the negative word for perk is).
I think that as KuBaN stated, you're treating a symptom, not a problem. Sentry spam isn't really an issue. Hydra spam is, but that's because of the <b>abundance of personal resources</b>. That's the real problem.
Sure, you could give each gorge player a cap for how many hydras they can place - that will be both obvious and simple, and let them recycle any hydras they place, maybe along with a portion of the cost. That will scale naturally based on team size. However, you will end up with another issue: what should happen to the hydras when the gorge who owns them leaves the server?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, what I would do is institute a standard RTS supply/capacity limit that increases with each tech node captured. If a tech node is lost, you can't build any more structures until a) you lose enough to where you're below capacity or b) you regain a tech node. Since the supply/capacity limit is tied to tech nodes, it should scale pretty well with map size as larger maps = more tech nodes. However, if it turns out that isn't sufficient (because people might want to put 5 tech nodes on a map twice the size of tram or 20 tech nodes on a map the size of rockdown), you could allow the mapper to specify the supply/capacity amount per tech node in the map parameters.
With regards to hydras, I would institute a similar personal supply/capacity per tech node for each gorge. If a gorge leaves a game, all of their placed hydras would quickly die.
I agree that hydra spam is a symptom, but I think the underlying problem is that there is no limit to structures rather than an overabundance of PRes. I've never played an RTS game that didn't have a limit on structures because it leads to this very problem. Now I'll agree that a 100 PRes cap would help reduce hydra spam, but I'd rather we just eliminate it the same way every RTS game developer has done since RTS games we're created, via a supply/capacity limit. At best, your way reduces the frequency at which hydra spam becomes a problem, but I can guarantee you that we would still see games with dozens of hydras on a fairly regular basis without a supply/capacity limit.
With regards to hydras, I would institute a similar personal supply/capacity per tech node for each gorge. If a gorge leaves a game, all of their placed hydras would quickly die.
I agree that hydra spam is a symptom, but I think the underlying problem is that there is no limit to structures rather than an overabundance of PRes. I've never played an RTS game that didn't have a limit on structures because it leads to this very problem. Now I'll agree that a 100 PRes cap would help reduce hydra spam, but I'd rather we just eliminate it the same way every RTS game developer has done since RTS games we're created, via a supply/capacity limit. At best, your way reduces the frequency at which hydra spam becomes a problem, but I can guarantee you that we would still see games with dozens of hydras on a fairly regular basis without a supply/capacity limit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it makes more practical sense for Tech Nodes to determine the max supply (if only because Tech Nodes NEED a purpose right now), it makes more logical sense that Power Nodes would provide a Resource that limits the number of structures that can be placed.
Map design and planning would be absolutely paramount and may require a whole new invisible entity to govern all this info in itself!
Also, I don't know any RTSs that have structure caps beyond, well, resources, and, you know, real estate.