Limited Resources
t0x1kw4st3
Join Date: 2008-04-27 Member: 64167Members
Join Date: 2008-04-27 Member: 64167Members
<div class="IPBDescription">(or, renewable?)</div>UNLIMITED
LIMITED
LIMITED RENEWABLE
UNLIMITED PSEUDO-LIMITED
UNLIMITED PSEUDO-LIMITED RENEWABLE
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/ressystem1.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/replenishment.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
In NS1 there are unlimited resources (+xres/yseconds, constant). I propose there should either be a mix of limited/unlimited resources, or completely limited resources (w/ or w/out renewability).
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/nsresourcemodel.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/nsfantasay.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
If you wanted to go the unlimited resource route, everything would remain the same.
The limited resource route, I think, would promote warfare on the resource level. Meaning, marines are going to have to move around the map in a long game (cause their first and second RTs will be depleted.) This promotes relocating, etc. Number of resources / RT could equal 200 or something.
The limited resource w/ renewability could be implemented where marines/aliens can "set-off" a +200 resources to certain resource nodes (could be all, could be some, could be one). "Setting off" could be the Marines welding a Emergency Reservoir (of whatever RTs pump). Maybe they can do this once or twice due to multiple "Emergency Reservoirs". Aliens can't really weld, so they would need another creative way to renew their resources. MAYBE, renewing resources can be a marine-only strategy, because aliens dominate the map (they take 3 bases) where as marines expand into the map resource areas. This would make certain areas in the map more valuable (more resources), and therefore promote territorial combat in those areas. Then, those areas, for example, could be honed for maximum alien vs marine warfare (balanced) in terms of map-dynamics. Meaning, vent access, bile bomb capabilities, large & small entrances/exits.
Or, you could do the unlimited resources with a handicap after certain time periods. This means, at first, the Marine Start RT is pumping +5 res/5 seconds. After 5 minutes, it pumps 3res/5 seconds. After 5 more minute, it pumps 1res/5seconds. In any case, a degradation in RT efficiency is created due to dwindling resources. However, the RT will maintain a minimum constant income after a certain amount of time. (1res/5seconds). This is unlimited resources.
You could mix everything together so that there is unlimited resources (but the efficiency of the RT degrades due to dwindling resources). Then, you could incorporate "renewwing" RT efficiency with "Emergency Reservoirs" (this could be a marine-only strategy, but that may not be "balanced"). The limited resource concept would be simulated by dwindling RT intake, when in fact it is still an unlimited resource. The renewability would be to reset the RT back to its maximum consumption state (Emergency Reservoir).
The Emergency Reservoir (ER) could be implemented in any way that promotes whatever the map maker wants to happen in terms of gameplay. For example, having a double res is valuable. Having the double res with ERs makes it twice as valuable. This would promote the Double Res as a huge stake in territorial conquest. Whoever gets double (and can hold on to it) has a greater chance to win the game.
You could also have it so that MS RT and all Hive RTs have an ER. This makes those RTs twice as good as other RTs. Or, you could have it so four individual RTs dispersed around the map each have one ER.
So, if you want to make resources have strategic value (more so than they are), you could incorporate this idea. I can understand why some people will vouch for the original NS resource system (it's simple.) But, the whole idea behind this post is to add more strategy to resource control -- or, in other words, to involve resources into strategy (a little more).
And if all that just blew over your head, I ask that there should be minimally an unlimited/limited resource OPTION for servers, to make it an option that can be voted for in-game. Then, you could have the best of both gameplays (cause they would be different).
LIMITED
LIMITED RENEWABLE
UNLIMITED PSEUDO-LIMITED
UNLIMITED PSEUDO-LIMITED RENEWABLE
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/ressystem1.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/replenishment.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
In NS1 there are unlimited resources (+xres/yseconds, constant). I propose there should either be a mix of limited/unlimited resources, or completely limited resources (w/ or w/out renewability).
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/nsresourcemodel.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/nsfantasay.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
If you wanted to go the unlimited resource route, everything would remain the same.
The limited resource route, I think, would promote warfare on the resource level. Meaning, marines are going to have to move around the map in a long game (cause their first and second RTs will be depleted.) This promotes relocating, etc. Number of resources / RT could equal 200 or something.
The limited resource w/ renewability could be implemented where marines/aliens can "set-off" a +200 resources to certain resource nodes (could be all, could be some, could be one). "Setting off" could be the Marines welding a Emergency Reservoir (of whatever RTs pump). Maybe they can do this once or twice due to multiple "Emergency Reservoirs". Aliens can't really weld, so they would need another creative way to renew their resources. MAYBE, renewing resources can be a marine-only strategy, because aliens dominate the map (they take 3 bases) where as marines expand into the map resource areas. This would make certain areas in the map more valuable (more resources), and therefore promote territorial combat in those areas. Then, those areas, for example, could be honed for maximum alien vs marine warfare (balanced) in terms of map-dynamics. Meaning, vent access, bile bomb capabilities, large & small entrances/exits.
Or, you could do the unlimited resources with a handicap after certain time periods. This means, at first, the Marine Start RT is pumping +5 res/5 seconds. After 5 minutes, it pumps 3res/5 seconds. After 5 more minute, it pumps 1res/5seconds. In any case, a degradation in RT efficiency is created due to dwindling resources. However, the RT will maintain a minimum constant income after a certain amount of time. (1res/5seconds). This is unlimited resources.
You could mix everything together so that there is unlimited resources (but the efficiency of the RT degrades due to dwindling resources). Then, you could incorporate "renewwing" RT efficiency with "Emergency Reservoirs" (this could be a marine-only strategy, but that may not be "balanced"). The limited resource concept would be simulated by dwindling RT intake, when in fact it is still an unlimited resource. The renewability would be to reset the RT back to its maximum consumption state (Emergency Reservoir).
The Emergency Reservoir (ER) could be implemented in any way that promotes whatever the map maker wants to happen in terms of gameplay. For example, having a double res is valuable. Having the double res with ERs makes it twice as valuable. This would promote the Double Res as a huge stake in territorial conquest. Whoever gets double (and can hold on to it) has a greater chance to win the game.
You could also have it so that MS RT and all Hive RTs have an ER. This makes those RTs twice as good as other RTs. Or, you could have it so four individual RTs dispersed around the map each have one ER.
So, if you want to make resources have strategic value (more so than they are), you could incorporate this idea. I can understand why some people will vouch for the original NS resource system (it's simple.) But, the whole idea behind this post is to add more strategy to resource control -- or, in other words, to involve resources into strategy (a little more).
And if all that just blew over your head, I ask that there should be minimally an unlimited/limited resource OPTION for servers, to make it an option that can be voted for in-game. Then, you could have the best of both gameplays (cause they would be different).
Comments
So, I like the concept. As you argue, it can cause people to move out, explore, have to fight over the resources.
My primary concern is how much and for how long? This is usually used as a system to end stalemates and force expansion, although lack of room for workers also forces expansion in games like StarCraft. Basically, some of my favorite games have been the over 30 minute both teams nearly fully teched slug fests. I once had an awesome 2 hour game. So, to put a cap on it and basically reduce the fighting to Skulks versus LMGs feels poor.
Also, how does this solve our problem? When certain regions die out, yet it forces movement and map control. However, as it is now, you still need map control for the res production. I am thinking in terms of DoW where they also had a point capture system, and they used it to end stalemates after very very long periods of time. As far as a game ender, NS doesn't have the issue of limited units. You just keep respawning. In a RTS, you need res to build another guy to keep up the fight. So, in the end you have a bunch of LMG Marines against basic skulks, maybe the shotgun or lerk/gorge from the res-for-kills mechanic.
So, good try, but I'm not feeling it quite yet. Convince me.
Ideas about it include forcing expansive movements. It would make RTs centric in terms of map control. Let me post some pictures.
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/ressystem1.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
What can we learn from these graphs? (I am kindof critical of them because its income/time).
The NS1 graph tells us that resources were infinite. You could never run out. Resource income was relative to how many resource towers were capped.
The NS2 graphs show us that resources dwindle over time and ultimately run out at a linearly decreasing rate. Income is relative to time. So, a fresh RT will be maximally optimal while a used RT would be (hypothetically) 50% optimal. This creates a hierarchy of which RTs are the best. Naturally, this information would force gameplay into the "center" of the map, because these RTs are generally capped last and therefore are most potent. RTs near the MS/Hives would be important <b>initially</b>, but less important <b>progressively</b>.
Imagine this example, NS1L: There is a constant battle over double res, but marines take and secure it for the entire game with a Turret Farm. This leads to their victory (greater economic advantage).
<b>(100$ invested in defending Double Res, Infinite $ Gained. NET GAIN: 8Infinity8)</b>
Same example, NS2: There is a constant battle over double res, but marines take it and have it secured for the entire game (Turret Farm). This leads to their instantaneous economic advantage, but it is reduced over time (giving the Aliens some breathing room). Later, the depleted double-res would be worth less than the single, neglected resource tower in the corner of the map. Double Res would be worth chicken squat 15 minutes after its' capture.
<b>(100$ invested in defending Double Res. 200$ Gained. NET GAIN: 100$)</b>
Would it be worth securing double with a TF + 10 Turrets + PG? Or would it be more worth securing double with Mines + PG? I assert that infinite resources at a constant rate promotes ideas like Turret Farming. Why? Because the Commander doesn't have to worry about his resources dwindling, therefore making his Turret Farm a good plan -- the resources invested is infinitely less than the resources gained. Plus, the tactic of camping RTs is IMHO lame.
What could this mean in terms of gameplay? There would be less room camping. Both teams would try to accomodate the most potent RT spots. At first it might be double res, but after 10 minutes, double res isn't so hot. In any case, the center of gameplay would "evolve" from one RT spot to another. Isn't that a core idea behind NS -- evolution? If the gameplay evolves, it can't be a bad idea. The Marines would have to be capable of adapting to their resource needs. No longer can they rely on their impenetrable Turret Farm in Double Res. This is what the game is all about.
Essentially, where the window of opportunity was constant and infinite in NS1, the window of opportunity is given dimension in NS2. The constant economic advantage from NS1 would be replaced with the same initial, but decaying, advantage in NS2.
<b>The Proposed System</b> would redefine the balance between maintaining resources and offensive, game ending measures. It would mature the idea of RTS from its present state.
I still have an issue with the potential cap on resources for end game.
Basically, I like the step-wise downgrading, but the eventual squeeze on res would be a problem. Basically, it reverses the tech eventually since you can't afford to put out any more Heavy armor or Oni. This doesn't end the game, in fact it prolongs the game. One might argue that it creates a dependence on the res-for-kills system, but that then removes the very core mechanic of evolving map control that is being implemented.
A better system would be a regeneration system. Basically, keep the contested points more potent. If there is no node on it, the rate of generation increases back over time. This could create an interesting scenario where it is to your advantage to recycle that RT in MS (hopefully a similar system available for Aliens) for a later boost in production. As for how fast the rate regens, about equal if not faster than the degeneration rate. We don't want to starve the game of res as I point out above. This also means areas that don't always have a tower (contested regions) are more potent since they have a chance to regain some of their res production between periods of control.
Yes, that would be bad. In the original post I did mention "Renewability". Like modern politics, I proposed the "Emergency Reservoir" idea to increase the life of RTs. To release the "ER", many methods could be used - creatively.
For Marines, they could use their welder to "unlock" the extra resources. I don't know of an alternative for Aliens, but perhaps a gorge has to spit at a weld point long enough (acid spit). An easier way out could be to spend 20 resources to maximize <b>income:time ratio</b>.
There could also be random resource renewability of RTs. Randomly, every 3 minutes, an uncapped RT is chosen and placed back at maximum potential.
Whatever the method, the goal is the same -- to give both teams the ability to increase the <b>income:time ratio</b>. (However that is implemented).
The main problem with an active system to replenish is 1) why not always spam it and 2) would this be global or just the nodes they own or on a node-to-node basis?
I'm gonna stick with my idea of unused = replenish until you give me more details on yours.
You can't spam it (there is a delay between triggering events)
It would be in terms of individual nodes.
What I was thinking is that the Marines / Aliens can weld/spit the "Emergency Reservoirs" to refill the resources on a specific node. They can do this only once or twice per resource node, and there is a refresh rate. They can only call on the Emergency Reservoir every five minutes. Either all resource nodes or only select ones will have an Emergency Reserve. Depending on which RTs do/do not have the ER changes their value and therefore could center gameplay around those facts.
The Emergency Reserve "refills" the resources. It could work many different ways, but once the triggering event occurs (welding? spitting? timer?) the following possiblities could take place:
A) Integer Refueling:
There is 200 res in reserve. The RT currently has X res. Triggering the ER causes Y <= 200 - X resources be transfered from the ER to RT. There must be a delay between triggering the ER. But, it would be more accurate refuiling.
B) True Refuiling:
Once the The Emergency Reserve is triggered, it resets the RT back to its max res amount. It doesn't matter how much res is in the ER or in the RT -- it just sets the resource amount back to maximum. This can only be done once or twice.
On the idea of unused = replenished, I like it. It would be like the garden replanting its own seeds. How about an RT gains +1res/second if it is unoccupied. This means that 200 seconds after a completely depleted RT is destroyed it is back to maximum capacity... (if the max amount of res/rt = 200)
The truth is: Resources run out. Resources definately aren't permanent. It would be like trying to get as much cookie dough jiblets out of one massive spoonful of icecream. It is a timer, of sorts. You're right, there would be a rise, peak, and valley of tech tree. The rise would be in the beginning, the peak mid-game, and the valley in the end-game.
Possibly a solution to this is to give the RTs more resources, but still make them replenishible. Or, let them be replenished more times. This would create a longer high-tech game. In essence, what really determines how long high-tech is "in" is how many resources are available. I think each team should have 1500 res to play with per game. That means 3000 res per game. This equates to ~375 res/node (given 8 nodes). (3000/8 = 375)
If there are 8 RTs each with 375 res, it's unlikely they'll all be taxed to the max before the game ends anyways. Then, if there were "refills", the end-game would be around the "refillable" RTs. Just make them refillable (1x) only after 20 minutes have elapsed.
I'm still scared of the eventually no res situation. Call me paranoid, but stalemates with only res-for-kill income doesn't sound too great to me. Granted, you're giving a decent amount of res to play with, but it's that annoying end scenario that screws it all up.
Granted, this should be rare. This style of system creates an unstable equilibrium with the contested nodes being more and more profitable as time goes on. So, later in the game, assuming even contest and very little exploit, the team that controls those few nodes can get a huge boost over their opponents. Hopefully this helps them move forward and win. The problem arises when these few nodes become game breakers due to all the res left only being consolidated into a few nodes.
I would argue, however, that the peak of tech is late-game, and the valley of tech be used as a game ender. If you gain the upper hand in a typical game and continue to push forward, it's much easier to end the game. Also, with diminished res production at their last few nodes (granted the nodes you capture will also be less profitable), it should be easier to break a turtle/last stand. Basically, if the game is prolonged too far, then the effects of limited res should kick in. You hardly see a StarCraft game end where it was due to lack of resources on the map. It's either a powerful punch in some decisive battles or the other person is able to control and hold more res regions, starving the opponent who has no more left.
However, it's almost never a futile fight with a few squads of Zerglings and SCV/Marine/Medics left because that's all they can build. It's always a climactic battle of Mutas and Zergling and Devourers versus Siege, Vultures, Marines, and Medics (and some irridating Obs for the lolz). That's the key. We want the usual game to end on high-end tech, not a depreciating degradation of tech since all the res is running out.
I have seen many pro starcraft games. There are numerous factors that play into victory. Rarely do I see games where all the resources are consumed (2 historic games come to mind.)
Most NS games would be over before the resources are consumed completely. They will be over with high tech, too. Plus, with a resource refuel ability, that grants even more resources so you can tech yourself up even more.
The thing about high-tech is this: When a squad of 6 HA-HMG-GL go against 3 Onii + 3 fades, one of those teams is going to lose. Once this happens, the winning force will have near decisive power to win the game. They will either destroy the enemy's resource income or go directly for the juggular. It's hard to come back from losing a high-tech battle because it is too damn expensive. The stalemate game you speak of exists in both worlds - the infinite resource & the finite resource worlds.
In the infinite resource world, high tech will be the tool for winning the stale mate.
In the finite resource world, low-mid tech will be the tool for winning the stale mate.
I feel like talking about the stalemate so much puts it out of proportion -- it is a <i>rare</i> case (<1% of games is my thought). What is more important is balancing early (rise) - mid(rise) - late game(peak) with the resource system -- and by all means I am not developing NS2. Whatever Flayra and his buddies decide is the best way to go will either make our conversations a worthy expenditure of time or a worthless endeavours into concept.
This way, resources have a little more strategic value. You'll still be able to use your shotgun -- and guess what! When you die (cuz I'm playing), it drops on the ground and you can go pick it up again.
shoot, 350 res can buy you a hell load of stuff. 15r/hmg 20r/ha? 35res/hahmg! 1 RT = 10HAHMG, not including their facilitory buildings.
shhot, each mineral crystal in sc has 1500 res. i feel a revamp to NS resource system is in order & neccesary,
It brings to mind that topic the Devs have covered a bit once upon a time: Unified Resource Model.
I don't understand the question... rephrase if I don't answer right (after I kindof condense your question into something that looks like it might be a question).
How does a finite resource take into account marines and kharaa using resources? nonono x
How does finite resources take into account spending resources? nonono x
How does finite resources affect the spending of resources? okokok !
Marines / Kharaa will still be able to buy their gear/lifeforms. The difference is that over time, this ability to "tech up" will ultimately not be available, therefore rendering the omega-game a battle between skulks and LMGs. But,if a balanced system of replenishment was introduced, then the aformentioned effect (low tech ending) would not come to play.
errm -- LOOK --
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/replenishment.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
this is just a finite resource idea. I believe it should exist as a topic considering the nature of NS and games it seems to be based off of. I believe this topic should exist primarily for consideration. I have no idea how this system would actually play out in NS2 games (and I don't have any evidence, gameplay experience, or statistics to use as evidence to any of my points. All I have is my Starcraft experience (which is good) to compliment my points -- and I would be a fool to assert that I am in the right. For one thing, resources factor into winning or losing, finite or not.
Of the many options available (many many many ways of implementation), resources do come to a critical turning point (in my eyes): <b>infinite</b> or <b>finite</b>. Both options lead to different avenues and yield different results. Some results might be similar, some might be different. But as I said before, I have no idea how it would play out. This is why I suggest to the option of playing one of <b>two modes of play</b> - <b>Infinite</b> or <b>Finite</b> Resources. I would play on finite resource servers. Plus, it would be a good implementation for experimental purposes (they developper team can get a hands-on look at how gameplay is affected). It would be a [i]wise[/b] decision.
Also, considering the nature of the game (not released, ambiguous on all fronts), I feel like I am forced to remain ambiguous and purely conceptual myself. I don't have enough information to make what I'm taking about make sense (so I am forced to keep it broad and general). It's like a pillow fight.
I understand that, I have found myself saying much the same thing in the past as other posters insisted on saying ideas I have felt like bringing up were hogwash because it couldn't have worked in NS1, which always seemed odd to me since I thought we were discussing the potential in NS2.
Sorry you don't understand the question. It pertains to topics discussed by the Devs in some of their pod casts, one of which they went over being that they wanted the marines to individually pick out their equipment this time around and showed conceptual "screen shots" to illustrate their ideas. I think it was the same one that showed some conceptual commander views of squads. Also mentioned in some pod casts was the desired concept of a Unified Resource Model for both sides of the conflict, so that the devs would have more slack in the balancing act.
I understand that we don't know exactly how any of our ideas would work out till we test them in the game itself, if the implementation effort wasn't excessively taxing on the limited real world resources of software development, but it was just something I felt was worth noting in any discussion of finite or infinite resources since it is such a different situation than Starcraft.
How about on the contrary having switches which turn on and off resource flow from certain parts of the map? If you're in section A and the opposing team resides in section B, you could turn off the res flow for section B. Invrersely, if YOUR team were in section B, you could hit a switch in Section A to double resource flow for 5 minutes in Section B (you'd probably have to fight through a turret farm to do it).
Strategy from resource gathering, if not the standard 'take and hold', to be made more interesting would require map particulars. Anything else would detract from taking and holding resource nodes. In starcraft, the whole point of having depletable resources was to make it so that you couldn't horde yourself in your own base. Eventually you needed to expand in the map. In natural-selection, you cannot capture one resource point and hold it and horde in your base, because quantity is a serious issue here (whereas in starcraft, I believe you *could* capture the res as fast as you wanted, but you'd simply deplete it faster). Any comm to try that strategy will be likely to be kicked out or they'd find that bile bombs and onos are very difficult to surpass with light machine guns.
Therefore, fixating the game less on resource whoring and more on strategic victory.
You say "if resources were depleted, you might not care a great deal if a depleted resource spot were taken over by the opposing team". This is completely true. Do you consider this bad/good? Or do you look at it in terms of how gameplay will change?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Plus, the other team would have no way of knowing that it was depleted, and so they'd waste their resources to build a resource tower on top of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Solutions to this might be having all resource nozzles have an identifying symbol showing how many resources it has. (Maybe) The Marine Commander (because they are bomb) could gain "sight" of Resource Levels. This could give Marines an advantage in taking the map, while Aliens have more potential to colonize it. It would also give the Marines implicit knowledge of where alien RT spots are (they don't see the RT, but they notice the RT levels are going down).
-- tangent -- what this system really does is create a hierarchy of RT placement, which will evolve the battle from "mined" areas to "less mined" areas. I mean mined as in, the gold was mined from the gold mine. It will promote adaption to the environment, where as certain strategies I see in game promote turtling (marines only). Is this good or bad or will it only create a different gameplay? I'm here to argue for a refinement of the game structure. Right now I'm on resources.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How about on the contrary having switches which turn on and off resource flow from certain parts of the map? If you're in section A and the opposing team resides in section B, you could turn off the res flow for section B. Invrersely, if YOUR team were in section B, you could hit a switch in Section A to double resource flow for 5 minutes in Section B (you'd probably have to fight through a turret farm to do it).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really good idea, chap. Kindof plays into map dynamics (how a map supports strategy). I think if NS2 maps had dynamic maps that featured resource-affecting strategies, the gameplay would become "richer". A squad of marines could go for one objective, all dying. But, completing that objective limited the alien team to half resource intake for the next 3 minutes. It's like Reaver Dropping in Starcraft. A+
The only strategy to affect resources in NS1 was killing the opposing team's tower... so, improving on this aspect creates more "strategy" - in terms of resources.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Strategy from resource gathering, if not the standard 'take and hold', to be made more interesting would require map particulars. Anything else would detract from taking and holding resource nodes. In starcraft, the whole point of having depletable resources was to make it so that you couldn't horde yourself in your own base. Eventually you needed to expand in the map.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Resources are a strategy for victory -- they are not critical to winning, it's just that the nature of the game makes resources a viable and standard strategy. For example, a Terran with the income of 5 bases but without a missile turret (for cloak detection) will lose to a single DT. AKA: Strategy trumps all. Resources are a strategy.
Considering the ultimate goal to any game is to win, or, in terms of NS & SCBW, to defeat the enemy team. To do this, one must kill all opposing structures and units. In NS, an RT is an object independent of warfare and will not directly lead to victory. An RT is a mechanism that allows greater potential to win, because "upgrades" cost "res". Therefore, considering the early game balance, resources are critical to victory -- shotgun > skulk. Fade > shotgun. HA > Fade. Onos > HA (some sort of equivalencies can be established). Otherwise, it would be skulks vs lmgs the entire game, which would be lame. RTs enable the evolution of both sides into stronger beings -- evolution takes time. That being said, <b>strategy and timing correlate immensely</b>.
If you play NS or Starcraft and decide to go a high-res build, you are considered to be "powering". That is, you are placing resource income more important than other elements of the game, like, for example, defense. While you are "extended" further than normal, you put yourself at risk. If the enemy realizes you are getting greedy, they can take advantage of your early game trade-off by using the resources you spent against you. They use the equivalent amount of resources offensively as you used greedily, putting you at the combat disadvantage. The point of that was to say that resources are a strategy for victory, and nothing more. "Take and Hold" is as noob as it gets, because the team is "powering up". The mentality for victory shouldn't be "take and hold", it should be "take advantage of the weak point in the enemy's strategy and make them pay for every mistake they make." That thought is more likely to lead to victory, but is much more difficult to master (especially because information is valued less in NS -- a huge strategic choice a commander has to make in NS how to counter the first alien tower.)
I think there should be viable strategies that capitalize more on enemy's economic choices.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In natural-selection, you cannot capture one resource point and hold it and horde in your base, because quantity is a serious issue here (whereas in starcraft, I believe you *could* capture the res as fast as you wanted, but you'd simply deplete it faster). Any comm to try that strategy will be likely to be kicked out or they'd find that bile bombs and onos are very difficult to surpass with light machine guns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Resources act much differently in SC than resources act in NS. There was a limit to how fast you could deplete resources. A resource can only have one worker mining on it at once, therefore putting a "cap" on efficiency. This affects timing and certain strategies. Basically, the strategy in SC begins right from the start -- do you plan on Fast Expanding? Or do you anticipate the enemy's fast expand and instead focus on early offense? None the less, both teams are pumping workers like there is no other, increasing their resource gathering rate.
I do pose as a counter point to your assertion that if a Commander traded initial economic development resources and invested them into an offensive strategy (instead of just sitting in their base idly, which is what you are posing) -- and charged into the Alien base with Mines and a Shotgun, Aliens would be hard pressed, and strategy has high potential to pay off. Turtling without a plan is one thing, using resources wisely is another.
It's a balance between macro and strategy in Starcraft. Turtling can give you an initial and dominant force. However, that force's potential evaporates with time -- the opponent (who chose to go mad resources) will be able to produce more than your force can handle soon enough, -- and that's the trade-off.
I want to post some more graphs.
These portay NS1 resource model:
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/nsresourcemodel.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/nsfantasay.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
From these graphs I can safely say that a "wavy" pattern (due to gain / loss of RTs) will always be present in an NS game in terms of total resources / time. (Given that a team always has at least one RT). If the team implemented finite resources, the "wavy" pattern would still exist, except the graph would ultimately level off (flatline). In terms of warfare, this means that resources "run out of bullets", just like the HMG. (except a HMG can "refuel" at an Armory). I can't say how gameplay will change when "flatlining" occurs.
Similarly, StarCraft has energy, which can, at least for some parts, regen units. However, mechanical units cannot be healed in this manner (Toss get shields, so partially) but you can't make new ones without res income.
Basically, there will not be a perfect flatline. The RTs may run out (I petitions they only degrade, not completely run out) and create a stronger focus on res-for-kills to become your income. At that point, you will also have a decent amount of passive upgrades, but nothing more. Major expensive buildings like the Arms Lab or a Hive will become even more important due to the squeezed res.
Basically, we can approximate the res flow to that of a Marine turtle if they got into late tech. Maybe they can save for a HA or HMG, but mostly it's shotguns and depending on sheer concentrated manpower to live. Of course, the Aliens should be in the same boat and won't be able to mass Oni and Fades to break the turtle.
One thing to note is that the Aliens will be disadvantaged if they are stuck at Hive 1. Since they (at least in NS) don't pool resources, they have a much more granular and lump sum investment. So, building a Hive would take a really long time in this end game scenario unless they went on a killing rampage. Same with creating a Fade. So, it would depend much more on individual performance. Also, buildings are most costly due to the initial flush of resources to become a Gorge.
On the other hand, Aliens with Hive 2 (in NS) will pwn the Marines with the extra abilities. Even and lv3 LMG doesn't fare well against good leaping skulks and Fades in umbra. A few shotguns might make it, though.
Basically, end game would move into low bought tech, but probably higher passive tech (Weapons 3 and at least 2 types of chambers, maybe even Hive 2). And since the end state is so chaotic, trying to balance it is close to futile. Instead, players may begin to develop strategies to maximize their low-res situation (ensure Arms Lab is done, have a Hive 2 up, multiple chambers, recycle guns a lot).
Let's say the Shotgun cost X res. Based on the shotguns average encounter rating, we can simulate its value. For example:
a shotgun is considered > than a skulk (on average). Therefore, if it cost X res to buy the shotgun, a skulk is worth .4X.
a shotgun is considered < than a Fade (on average). Therefore, if it costs X res to buy a shotgun, a Fade is worth >= 2X.
a shotgun is consider much < than an Onos (on average). Therefore, if it costs X res to buy a shotgun, an Onos is worth >= 5X.
HMG > Shotgun, therefore HMG = 1.5X
The idea is that all things have to relate to a basic unit of measurement. In NS, it is resources. A nice system. You can balance things this way, I guess.
Well, you can <b>try</b>, but good luck. For example, is a Phase gate = to a HMG? Or a HMG = to a GL, both which are 1.5 time better than a shotgun?
Granted, these aren't perfect since there's also the startup research cost, but that becomes negligible after many instances of the item being built.
Also, what is the res reduction of a scan?
As you can see, you might be able to, but there's so many factors it's hard to get anything more than a rough estimate. The rest is soft counters and ensuring items have their place. That, and lots of testing.
See this article on balance: <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_GameBalancePart1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_GameBalancePart1.htm</a>
Well, if you wanted the rating of a GL vs HMG, you would consider their potentials against all types of units, then find an average "value" of both.
In the same vein of logic I was previously humming to,
ON AVERAGE (figmented numbers, too), assuming a 1vX Scenario:
(these values are based on my experience in NS, and are "soft estimates")
(encounters are imagined to be in a medium sized NS-esque room, barring extraneous battle tactics).
LMG = Skulk
LMG = Gorge
LMG < Greater Lifeforms
1 Shotgun >= 2 Skulks
2 <= Fade
5 Shotgun = Onos
1 HMG = 3 Skulk
1 HMG = 1 Fade
3 HMG = 1 Onos
GL > Skulk
GL > 2 + Skulks
GL < Fade
GL < Onos
LMG < Shotgun < HMG > GL
HMG > GL vs Higher Lifeforms (it's effectiveness vs higher lifeforms has a greater importance than the effectiveness of the GL vs lower lifeforms)
HMG < GL vs Lower Lifeforms + Chambers
So, I would argue the HMG >= GL.
On the thought of the scan, I'd argue that a scan doesn't cost resources (it costs energy). In terms of a Shotgun, though, I'd say a scan is .33 of a Shotgun.
Buildings? It depends. Building are a different world -- I think a building should be worth >2 Shotguns. Higher tier building should be worth >3 Shotguns.
A soft estimate is a good way to put it , because this balancing this game is like trying to find stability on a mountain of pudding. It's too hard, I just want to give up!!!!!!! They will do their best, and I'll be happy with it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
But, considering resources in NS, they are the only completely balanced mechanic -- each RT gives Yres/Xtime no matter the team. Considering this, the true balance is in what the resources can buy (which is why I got into the "equivalating").
But if in starcraft, you horde all resources in your base, you have all your upgrades, all your unit creation buildings, everything necessary to build an impressive army like any other player in the game. The difference is that you're not spread thin, while they are. If you attack a section of their base, odds are they won't have all their soldiers there, and so you destroy the number of buildings equal to the time it takes for the marines to arrive divided by the time it takes to destroy a building. It's already an advantage.
Doesn't seem logical to horde yourself in a base because nobody gets unlimited resources and nobody gets an unlimited flow of resources. Your flow is reduced and eventually you will run out of resources. For this reason you must expand. It is expansion FOR resources as opposed to expansion for destruction. Ideally moving your army out to destroy an enemy base would be best, because it implies you are not short on army.
In natural selection, it is crucial (but not a requirement) to control the map. If the resource locations stopped producing resource points, it means it's only worth it to you to put enough defense and energy to hold that place as it would take for the resource location to run dry. It's a different kind of strategy, that's true, but the type of gameplay it would support is expansion for resources, not expansion for destruction. If resources are more scarce, both teams are going to be desperate to have them, and although I think you intend on this being a way for people to not focus so much on resources, I believe it'd have the opposite effect. The Kharaa will see less onos and fades, because they'd be worried they'd die and not be able to go fade or onos again for what may be the rest of the match. The marines will be less likely to make risky siege attempts on hives as if it ends up in failure, you're out of resources with your current resource nodes producing less and less resources with every second.
So you'll get a lot of low-level fighting, even if they DO have resources so that they can use it later. A kharaa player without resources late in the game will be useless just like a comm without resources late in the game will be able to produce little results.
The game would go much slower, and both teams would play it far less aggressively. You'd see at least twice the amount of stalemates as you normally would, with one team surrounding the other at a hive or at marine start, seeing only unequipped marines and skulks have at it rather than high classes. At best, you'd see an occasional shotgun fall or a lerk spamming spore. It wouldn't make for fun gameplay.
If you want strategy, but you don't want it entirely focused on resources, you need to do so by adding important side objectives in maps which are more important than the resources themselves. This way, even if you don't control all the resources, if you manage to pull off an important side objective, you may not even need the resources to push the opposing team back.
With the ability to set resource node capacities, a mapper could design ways for teams to simulate the the equivalent of a "reaver drop" in Starcraft.
Functions could include:
<b>SetNodeGatherRate(integer: 0 to 100)</b>
// a value of 0 means the RT at said node will gather 0 resources per interval
// a value of 100 means the RT at said node will gather resources at its maximum possible rate per interval
// example: an RT has infinite res and is gathering at 100% capacity. A trigger occured and the SetNodeGatherRate(50) function was called, causing the RT to gather its resources at 50% maximum capacity.
<b>SetNodeGatherIncreaseRate(integer: -100 to 100, integer: #intervals)</b>
// a negative value means the RT will decrease its gathering rate by the percent supplied over the # of intervals supplied
// a value of 0 means the RT at said node will increase its gathering rate at 0% of its maximum possible rate per interval
// a value of 50 means the the RT at said node will increase its gathering rate by 50% of its maximum possible rate per interval
// a value of 100 means the RT will be at maximum gathering rate next interval
// #intervals = number of intervals this increasing rate should exist for (0 = until rate is maximum)
// example: an RT has infinite res. It's current gather rate is 50%. If a trigger occured and the SetNodeGatherIncreaseRate(10, 3) was called, the node's gathering rate would increase by 10% over three intervals, essentially creating a 30% increase in gathering efficiency. 50%-60%-70%-80%.
An example could include ideas you guys shared:
Double Resource room has two RTs. Naturally, all RTs are set to 100% gathering rate w/ infinite res. However, a trigger somewhere in the map (could be a weld point) changes the RTs gathering rates to 50%. This would effectively make Double Res equivalent to 1 RT, putting emphasis on the value of both spots (therefore making double res a difficult area to maintain successfully). So, the "edge" of Double Res could halved by a crafty Alien/Marine team. Inversely, there would have to be a way to increase the RTs back to 100%.
Then, if taking double res is impossible for either team, all is not lost -- they can focus on the triggering event that halves double's potential instead, making the area required to secure double greater and require more maintenance (because double is no longer a single room, it is stretched to two rooms, which could be distant)
This functions can simulate economic warfare in which map dynamics are an integral part, and create a way for greater strategy in map making. Seriously, I was playing NS1 maps yesterday -- some were horrible -- marine start way too close to hives - literally one resource tower between a hive and MS. Not good. I kindof want to design a map for NS2...
thx. you're a pimp.
However, you've stumbled right into another idea from the archives.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=103913" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=103913</a>
Since we've come to this idea twice independently, it's starting to sound better.
Gameplay will evolve from resource poor areas to resource rich areas. This will create a more obvious "focus" of "potential" as the game progresses into time BECAUSE the teams will progress to one point of importance: the remaining resources. Whoever is in control of those resources will likely win. In a way, limiting resources causes both teams to "unite" as they both battle to the death for the last RT. This "finish" to NS games would only occur after a decent amount of time has passed where traditional NS gameplay can occur. That's why I like the idea -- hypothetically.
I also think that there is more potential for refinement and legendary gaming if resources are limited. The scenario where the two teams are battling to the death over the last remaining resource, the gorge suddenly becomes "the one", and is escorted from zone to zone while marines try desperately to take out the gorge. He charges with onos cover, 17 resources left to the last spot... the RT goes up, marines charge in shotguns a blaze, HMG a fire, knives out. I feel limiting resources gives "culmination" to a game of NS, which can create greater feelings of (imho) satisfaction and frustration. Suddenly the battle isn't about 100% of the map anymore, it's about 50% --- then 20%. Then 10%. Imagine that feeling, knowing the marines have the last RT and the Aliens are staging an all-in offensive. It is essentially as epic as Custer's Last Stand type scenarios, where true value and meaning of low lifeforms will emerge, how well a pro handles his last 7 hps as a skulk. All creatures in NS have potential and dare I say beauty, if one's vision isn't immediately taken up completely by the fat ass of an Onos (lodged inside are 250 HMG bullet and a knife). What's wrong with ending a game with the most balanced gameplay -- skulk vs lmg? Skulk vs shotty? Both teams had their peak of weaponry and potential, but they weren't good enough to secure their victory. They deserve to be sent back to the lower lifeforms so that maybe next game the littler things can add up, before they decide to smash into the equation with an Onos. Why does the LMG run out of bullets? Because the Armory is dead.
I don't understand the causes for stalemates besides that both forces have a constant income of res. Limiting resources will solve all stale mates. If one team has two RTs and is able to defending them against the other resource starved team, they will win... but, whatever the vision is for either of us, those functions described above would enable us to achieve the vision.
If there were a final battle to decide who gets the last resource, I imagine that it wouldn't be a very exciting battle. Nobody has resources except perhaps barely the team which controls the last resource spot. At that point, it's going to be lmg marines vs skulks for control over an already defended area. The outcome is going to be pretty much pre-determined in that case.
But I do like the idea that the mapper can control the resource flow. That leads to interesting scenarios and 'custer's last stand' scenarios which actually do have meaning and the teams actually do have resources. I can already think up a map in which resources on the outer edges will give resources for the first 15 minutes and then stop. At that point, the only resource spots which will continue to flow will be those in the middle for example, giving lots of importance to controling only that section of the map. The problem, as I think has already been mentioned, is that marines hold ground better than aliens, so in any scenario in which one team has to hold ground, the humans will undoubtedly win, given that both teams are focused on the task. Plus there's the fact that comms can recycle res nodes that no longer give resources, so that gives an added advantage to the frontiersmen which the aliens don't have.
I personally think there should be a way to replenish the supply of 'White Gas' that spews from the node location, maybe even making more things be abble to be considered a node location. Having the gas that is as important as gold just spew out....that sounds really retarded. Maybe the marines could weld something to add more *Insert Resource Idea Name* to this node, and the aliens get theirs by DI <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />? Map specific weld points would be great for it maybe?
I had ideas of how to replace the gas that's as rich as gold, maybe actual resource? Maybe this metal deposite can be broken down by the aliens and used for da de da, and the marines can just harvest it? You can have multiple Res Nodes models, this one to mine metal, this one the 'White Gas', and you dont have to complicate it for the comm, just have one RT in the HUD for the comm, and when u place it, it will change to the apropriet(sp?) model required.
That might be alittle off-topic but its about resources =)
Having the teams get penalized for not kicking the other teams ass 1st causeing them to have to use low tech/lifeforms is great, making the 'custard' stands u guys keep repeating a possability.
Oh, and i have a better way of telling if the node is low if there is no RT on it(if they keep the white gass gyser) the less gas, the less $$$, and if the the alien RT, how inflated the upper sack is, and the marine one can have a Bar on a Screen, higher mean more cash.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAH
HAHA
HAH
HA
H
Ok. The upper sack's inflation will tell Aliens how many resources are left. There's always room for a good laugh.
@ Ryknow, I think that it would be funny if aliens could have a faster initial resource advantage somehow -- like, skulks eating resources and dropping them into the hive.
I'm not going to comment on how games will play out in a limited resource scenario anymore. I will say though, that the proposed map idea where outlyiny/inlying resource towers have differing functionality is a good idea -- voila:
<img src="http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z178/iruyun/maplayoutlehman4.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
In any case, mixing up resources could have cool and more original games.
These are ultimate ideas and I think will make NS2 NS2. Give mappers more power.
Finite resources creates a sense of greater value and importance of high-tech, which would streamline marine collaboration. Losing the HA will be twice as important. Essentially, giving resources a finite value will create "mass". Infinite resources displaces this idea for value, and realistically speaking, is not how the real world works.
Both teams will have to become more conscious of the resource aspect of NS if finite resources were implemented (partial or full). If the environment in NS was similar to earth, resources can be created (granted, in a much less time than it took for Dinosaurs to die for fossil fuels or plants to get squished into coal deposits). Plus, if we looked at this game from a purely practical standpoint, I would never play it, but it is the most critical of all. If the developers kept instilling ideas of infinite resources into the minds of the players if would be an illusion that promotes little change in real life. So, implementing limited resources is the best idea so that younger people on earth would not be jaded by the game they play instead of doing their homework. This way, the net result of NS2 will be a more aware community who have concepts such as limited resources instilled in their minds and therefore benefit humanity more than those still stuck in an naive mindset of unlimited resources. Progress the minds of the players to global issues while you are developing this game so its not a complete waste of brain time. (this is what people call "heaven") But this is more my logic for it.
From other perspectives, you might be right. The Oasis does replenish itself, but over time, and therefore, moderation is the key.
Now that's funny.
Having ways to replenish a finite resource Node should be put in, like the marines have a weld point, you can only weld it once, and it gives this node, only that one, say 100 extra res, while the node can only carry 150, so that means if they are idiots and weld it right after they put a RT on it, they epicly fail and waste like 99 res. Aliens can have the DI replenish it, slowly, 1 or higher res per X seconds, meaning, by the time the DI reachs this far out RT, it would be empty or emptyish and would start to refill abit.
I'm still for having diffrent RT models for diffrent Resources, cause i want diffrent resources, it would make it alittle mor logical to have the marines mining metal with this Metal Mining RT, and mining Gas with the normal looking RT.
2 types of resources. koo