I guess it's best to have a simulation to demonstrate why having more expensive RTs will make for more fun commander gameplay and how it won't turn the game into point control. That is the easiest thing to tweak though, so no problem there.
<!--quoteo(post=1730099:date=Oct 1 2009, 10:53 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Underwhelmed @ Oct 1 2009, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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%.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't buy units, but you can certainly buy mobility and cover more of the map with proper intelligence. Both of those are built very-much like units in SC.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never seen a useful PG get ignored the same way RTs get ignored, no.
<!--quoteo(post=1730099:date=Oct 1 2009, 04:53 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Underwhelmed @ Oct 1 2009, 04:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus the inherent risk-reward for capturing locations / investing in your economy in any game. Or, for that matter, equipment and tech. Tech is perhaps the biggest risk-reward since once researched they stay with the team, have a long time before they kick in, and generally cost a moderate amount. However, in the long-term, you should win more engagements and earn those credits/res back.
The reason point control works is that fights don't come down to who lost more units. In a game like StarCraft where most of the fights occur outside bases, typically you win if you can kill more of their dudes and eventually have enough to push into their base (or surprise their undefended expansions). In the control point system losing an engagements BUT winning a control point may still be a net win, assuming you hold that new point. While similar things are in play, i.e. kill their dudes more and control more of the map is good, it forcibly locates battlelines in terms of map control spread throughout the entire map. In SC map control is more subtle, but gaining ground gives you access to more lines of fire, flanking, and more expansions. i.e. map control is still an objective in StarCraft, just as in control points. Point control systems simply move all that economy into the front lines, making map control a bit more tangible and forcing people to not turtle. It's now a requirement to leave and capture points, or at the very least contest them away from your enemy.
On a side note, be careful of how you're defining RTS. I'd argue WiC is an RTS since it includes an economy system, real-time movement of units, and strategic movement coupled with tactical engagements. I'm simply disappointed by the lack of true tech instead of "save points to use uber weapons". I've heard some people argue that The Sims are strategy games due to the optimization of resources involved to complete an objective.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1730099:date=Oct 1 2009, 10:53 PM:name=Underwhelmed)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Underwhelmed @ Oct 1 2009, 10:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1730099"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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%.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't buy units, but you can certainly buy mobility and cover more of the map with proper intelligence. Both of those are built very-much like units in SC.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never seen a useful PG get ignored the same way RTs get ignored, no.
Thus the inherent risk-reward for capturing locations / investing in your economy in any game. Or, for that matter, equipment and tech. Tech is perhaps the biggest risk-reward since once researched they stay with the team, have a long time before they kick in, and generally cost a moderate amount. However, in the long-term, you should win more engagements and earn those credits/res back.
The reason point control works is that fights don't come down to who lost more units. In a game like StarCraft where most of the fights occur outside bases, typically you win if you can kill more of their dudes and eventually have enough to push into their base (or surprise their undefended expansions). In the control point system losing an engagements BUT winning a control point may still be a net win, assuming you hold that new point. While similar things are in play, i.e. kill their dudes more and control more of the map is good, it forcibly locates battlelines in terms of map control spread throughout the entire map. In SC map control is more subtle, but gaining ground gives you access to more lines of fire, flanking, and more expansions. i.e. map control is still an objective in StarCraft, just as in control points. Point control systems simply move all that economy into the front lines, making map control a bit more tangible and forcing people to not turtle. It's now a requirement to leave and capture points, or at the very least contest them away from your enemy.
On a side note, be careful of how you're defining RTS. I'd argue WiC is an RTS since it includes an economy system, real-time movement of units, and strategic movement coupled with tactical engagements. I'm simply disappointed by the lack of true tech instead of "save points to use uber weapons". I've heard some people argue that The Sims are strategy games due to the optimization of resources involved to complete an objective.