Different game sizes

Racer1Racer1 Join Date: 2002-11-22 Member: 9615Members
in Ideas and Suggestions
A game with 3 vs 3 is a different game from 5 vs 5, and very different from 8 vs 8.
So, is there going to be any attempt to adjust gameplay based on the total player count (PC)?

Examples (that may not be great, but gets the idea across):
- Onos health increases with PC -- e.g. 200 + (PC * 10)
- Resource production increases with PC
- Build speed increases with PC
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • FocusedWolfFocusedWolf Join Date: 2005-01-09 Member: 34258Members
    edited June 2009
    Once i brought this up in a NS1 game and people said this "It's been tried in the past and failed horribly"... i'm not sure if that's a biased response from a non-marine pos alien-only player but nonetheless... i would like to see such dynamics introduced into the game for small games that change based on the # of players playing...

    First of all when i say "small game" i mean the total allowed players in the server could be like 90 but lets say only 5 players are on at the time... so a "small game" can become a "large game"...

    No that we got that established... i think the obvious features need to be a limit to alien lifeforms. Marines have always been nerfed so i can't suggest any limits being placed on the marine team. This is because of how hard it is to research heavy armor or jetpants and deploy them on a large scale with hmgs and flamethrowers that it is always a well deserved hard earned aspect of playing on marine team... The aliens on the other hand... HOW MANY TIMES do i see a player ###### up all his initial game res to go from skulk to fade like 5 minutes into the game and never die... I dont want to see any lifeforms higher then gorge and lerk in a small game and since a lerk or skulk are minifades... it makes sense.

    Here's why it makes sense: the marine team moves through the map very slow compared to the aliens. Then need the commander to drop rts and tfs and obs and meds and ammo... etc. The aliens on the other hand just go out like armies of 1 and take out everything they come across... because of this and the fact 2 gorges are dropping rts... that it isnt long before the fades are armed to teeth and marines never capped more then 4 rts, if that.

    Another idea here that makes sense is to cut off upgrades from requiring resources... this way a cut of marine team that cant get out of base to cap rts... and an alien team that's just sitting out there... well in the end the marine team is going to get full upgrades. To further extend this idea... it shouldnt cost any res at all to electrify rts or upgrade a turret factor or armory or anything ... shouldn't even cost res to research jp or heavy. It should only cost time. And if you want... res can be a requirement for dropping structures and guns but for nothing else. This will allow the commander to move faster... do more quicker like the alien team. And speed is the difference between winning or loosing in classic ns... you gotta get sieging on their hive before they got a fade end of story.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • Cereal_KillRCereal_KillR Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1837Members
    Wow er... I don't really know what to say... I would normally try to say something smart but I guess I'm just overwhelmed about the previous post. It must be because I don't think I've been playing the same game.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • BadMouthBadMouth It ceases to be exclusive when you can have a custom member titl Join Date: 2004-05-21 Member: 28815Members
    I think this can all be settled if the game has a good res distribution system that might depends on both number of players and number of towers. I can't crunch the numbers or do the math but I'm sure it can be done, instead of having the 1 person, 1 RT = 1 res every 4 secs.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • AlaskaAlaska Join Date: 2006-10-11 Member: 58067Members
    Generally scalable gameplay is a good idea.
    But it should be organized via server-variables not via precoded mechanisms.
    Just imagine an onos running throug enemy base and suddenly losing health because 2 Marines quit ^^ Or 2 Aliens going to readyroom because they want the hive to go up faster.

    A possibility for a server-admin to host a "small gameplay"-server with 4 vs 4 would be nice. But a aumomated scalation could be very problematic as playercount can change a lot over the course of one round.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • EmooEmoo Ibasa Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11198Members
    <!--quoteo(post=1713373:date=Jun 22 2009, 02:33 AM:name=Alaska)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Alaska @ Jun 22 2009, 02:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1713373"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Generally scalable gameplay is a good idea.
    But it should be organized via server-variables not via precoded mechanisms.
    Just imagine an onos running throug enemy base and suddenly losing health because 2 Marines quit ^^ Or 2 Aliens going to readyroom because they want the hive to go up faster.

    A possibility for a server-admin to host a "small gameplay"-server with 4 vs 4 would be nice. But a aumomated scalation could be very problematic as playercount can change a lot over the course of one round.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Agreed, an automatic system based on current player count is just to fragile. Possibly it could scale based on the max players variable? Of course that falls down when the server is mostly empty... maybe scaling based on player counts at the start of the round? Assuming that most people will stick around for the game.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.