Perhaps a better way to let marines buy weapons?
StixNStonz
Join Date: 2006-11-06 Member: 58439Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2006-11-06 Member: 58439Members, Reinforced - Shadow
There are other threads on this, perhaps with a similar idea, but I thought about it for awhile and this seemed like a great way to implement the concept of marines buying weapons.
Let the default be that marines can NOT buy weapons. Their RFK goes into the pool.
But, should the comm click on a specific marine, he can set that marine to either keep half his RFK, or all of it. By using this method, the commander can set only specific, trusted marines with the ability to siphon off their earned res from the team, and not necessarily all of it. You could even include buttons for 'set all marines to half siphon', 'full siphon', and 'no siphon'.
The comm would still have control over the res flow; he could turn off all siphoning when he's saving for something big, or when res is tight. He could let just the top few players have a certain amount of siphon. He could even use it as a technique for punishment on a marine who refuses to follow orders, and as a reward for marines who do follow orders (or even build base).
All the while, he would maintain full control.
There are even side benefits, such as the inability for marines to hop in and set their own siphoning level.
As a very frequent commander, this would be imo the best compromise between offering the ability for marines to buy their own weapons, and keeping control in the hands of the commander. The comm could of course still use his own res for dropping weapons, as is absolutely necessary, but it offers him an indirect tool to control how marines spend res on equipment.
Thoughts?
Let the default be that marines can NOT buy weapons. Their RFK goes into the pool.
But, should the comm click on a specific marine, he can set that marine to either keep half his RFK, or all of it. By using this method, the commander can set only specific, trusted marines with the ability to siphon off their earned res from the team, and not necessarily all of it. You could even include buttons for 'set all marines to half siphon', 'full siphon', and 'no siphon'.
The comm would still have control over the res flow; he could turn off all siphoning when he's saving for something big, or when res is tight. He could let just the top few players have a certain amount of siphon. He could even use it as a technique for punishment on a marine who refuses to follow orders, and as a reward for marines who do follow orders (or even build base).
All the while, he would maintain full control.
There are even side benefits, such as the inability for marines to hop in and set their own siphoning level.
As a very frequent commander, this would be imo the best compromise between offering the ability for marines to buy their own weapons, and keeping control in the hands of the commander. The comm could of course still use his own res for dropping weapons, as is absolutely necessary, but it offers him an indirect tool to control how marines spend res on equipment.
Thoughts?
Comments
Thoughts?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sigh
2 rows down
Try re-thinking the idea, taking into account that there will be two resources in NS2.
It's also way too messy to keep track of like 15 marines and their "res-status".
Even if the commander could do it the easiest way, via the scoreboard, it seems like a dull and boring action to me.
It seems like you're looking at this in terms of NS1's resource system. If, in NS1, rfk went to individual marines I could see potential problems with the marines' resource model however NS2 isn't NS1. We don't know what overall changes will be in place so we don't know if marines buying their own weapons will be a problem. We do know individual marines will get personal resources for weapons through rfk and building structures, but that's about it. Just because marines can now buy their own weapons doesn't necessarily mean that commanders cannot still drop weapons.
Here's a question that will help me understand the other side: If you think marines buying their own weapons is a bad thing, why?
I prefer a credit system where the comm gets the res and marines draw from an equipment pool using their credit. It doesn't simplify things for the commander as much as marines having complete autonomy over their own res, but I'm not sold on that idea yet.
The part of the idea that goes beyond that situation turns the current NS model into LESS of a dictatorship. The idea simply takes the current model and gives the comm the ability to give all or certain marines the ability to earn their own guns.
Psykoman: Its that not messy. A comm would set the general level to one of three options: (1) comm gets all RFK res (default), (2) all marines keep half rfk, and (3) all marines keep all rfk.
Then the comm can pick specific marines to modify should he please. So it can be used to reward good behavior or skill, and punish bad behavior and possibly even bad skill <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. Thats not hard to keep track of at all, and yes, if the individual marine settings were done via the scoreboard it would be even easier.
SentrySteve: Uh, if the comm drops all the weapons, it is exactly the current system. You're saying the ONLY other option is to make the marines the ONLY ones able to drop weapons? Come on now. And you just named two really complicated systems (tracking structures and specifically allocating res).
Of course I'm speaking in terms of the NS1 system, since noone knows what the NS2 system is yet. I think we're all about 100% sure that it will be at least inspired by the NS1 system from which it will take many traits, and that ideas meant for NS1 can be applied to NS2 with the proper modifications.
This idea just keeps the control in the comms hands while giving him the choice to let part of his income (the RFK, which is the income specifically generated by each marine) be kept in the hands of the marines, to be used at their own volition. Which global settings and individual settings, both of which would be very easy to implement and understand, a comm could either not touch it (and have an NS1-like dictatorship over res) or use as much of the system as he pleases. AND it gives him the ability to still save up all res when he needs to, AND drop weapons with his own res, AND reward good skill/behaviour, AND punish bad behaviour.
Locallyunscene: The credit system, to me, seems to be too at-odds with the normal resource model. I can't possibly picture how that could work. Marines would all built up credit, yes; but the equipment has to be paid for somehow. If the comm puts in lump sums or a % of income, either way you'd have insane armory humping and only enough equipment for half the demand. If I was a comm able to set a % to equipment, it would be 0, and I'd hand guns out manually.
With the system I'm suggesting, I'd start a game with all the res coming to me. After a few RTs and a better feel for the game, i'd set a couple marines up to half or full RFK, and possibly boost the whole team to half or even full if we have a solid resflow. If times get tough or I need to save for level 3 upgrades, proto or a big rush, i'd just hit the button to keep all res.
No matter what system is implemented, it will either tie marine-earned weapons into the overall res system, or it will not. If they are tied into that system, the comm really needs some form of control over them, like my suggested system.
But if marine-earned weapons are NOT tied into the res system... perhaps that is where the new resource comes in. Call it WepRes for now. Perhaps this could be similar to RFK, and/or it could be separate, individual WepNodes. Smaller wepnodes scatter the map, perhaps only needing to be welded or capped with smaller structures. When marines kill, they get wepres, but they can also get a constant income by capping these wepnodes. And on top of this, the comm could use his own normal res to drop extra weapons.
That could have potential, but I'd be rather wary of the complications of a second type of resource. I mean, jesus, isn't NS already complicated enough?
For the credit system I was envisioning a cache of weapons dropped by the commander. So yes, there would usually be more credit available than weapons a lot of the time. I don't see this as a big problem.
I said [in the other thread] the Comm, in the current marine buy system, may still be able to drop weapons. I hope he can because if all his marines get rolled and lose their guns I would hope that the Commander has the ability to spend the res needed to re-equip his marines. Of course, the opportunity cost of this would be losing upgrades. What I meant by the 'these are the only really two options' is they're [comm dropping/marine buying] the most simple, easily understood, and UI-friendly. In a video game, that would usually make them the best choice.
If the choice was up to me, my system would allow all RFK / Res (for buildings structures) to go to marines. This 'WepRes' would be nontransferable to the commander, but the commander could still drop weapons for his marines.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This idea just keeps the control in the comms hands while giving him the choice to let part of his income... be kept in the hands of the marines, to be used at their own volition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think this idea would work at all. If this idea was implemented I predict that a good commander would always set the res ticker to zero (assuming he could drop weapons). This would result in the system that we currently have in NS1. Why?
Let's say the commander wants to get Upgrade X that costs 20 res. Marines X and Y each want guns that cost 10 resources. Let's say that in one tick of res, the team gets 20 res. If the commander is allocating resources, then the commander and the two marines get 7 res each for that tick. No one can accomplish their goals. The team makes no progress. In the next tick, the commander has 14 res, and the marines have now bought their guns. The commander still can't get his upgrade. Finally, in the third tick the commander has enough resources to get his upgrade. If the commander was not allocating resources, on the first tick he would have received that upgrade, in the second the marines would be armed, and in the third he would have 20 res to spend as he likes. Obviously I dumbed down the numbers and left out the decimals (more complexity) for the sake of math but this scenario is very applicable and isn't just 'theorycraft.'
Of course, you could say the commander could manage the siphon rates. And he could, but commanding a game of NS1 is intense as many things are going on and this is without having to worry about how resources are being allocated to 10 - 15 marines. Plus, managing the siphon rates may not even be as efficient as denying res to all marines. I think it's far too complex and I don't see it adding any actual value to the game.
Also, it should only be damage that contributed to a kill, not just pure damage dealt (because if they just regen then your damage was useless and of no benefit to the team).
And, I'd tie Credit to a finite team resource, to limit the numbers of high-end weapons earnt from simply welding your teammates (rolleyes).
Although I agree that damage contributed to a kill is probably more benefital, you have to consider that it helps marines a lot to either hold or approach a location, if they cause aliens to leave for healing in order to buy some more time.
I thought of that, but I'm still of the opinion that only damage that contributes to a kill (in other words, damage that gives you a kill or kill assist) should allow you to earn credit.