<!--quoteo(post=1829318:date=Feb 3 2011, 04:29 AM:name=Loey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Loey @ Feb 3 2011, 04:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1829318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you've not provided any examples of successful games with "irregular resource rates".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <ul><li>original Command & Conquer Series (not Generals, not C&C 4) Two different kinds of Tiberium with different yield (Tiberian Sun only). Harvesters drive around, scooping it up. It's not teleported, so you have to wait until the harvester returns and unloads into the refinery.</li><li>Dungeon Keeper 1, Dungeon Keeper 2, Dungeons Workers rund around digging, collect fallen goldcoins from the floor or gold from goldveins, unload into treasurechamber only when their pockets are full or they're bored.</li></ul>
You're logic and reasoning is fallacious. Just because examples of a system exist doesn't make that system not flawed nor the best implication. It would be like siting the original doom and duke nukem as a case for still using out dating FPS game designs. Sure the example exist, but its mere existence doesn't validate it as a good or even a valid example.
The more intuative the game is the better for the player, and this is a game mechanic that would accomplish that purpose by providing players with helpful information they can base decisions off of.
<!--quoteo(post=1829427:date=Feb 4 2011, 02:38 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 4 2011, 02:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1829427"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said, any game with harvesters.
You can't exactly keep track of them while you're doing other stuff and even if you could, you still have to wait between 30 seconds to a minute to get money, so it's still very irregular because it comes in lumps. If the worst comes to the worst you can just assume NS will give you <number of extractors> income every 12 seconds, because it will, it will still be more regular than many RTS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has been addressed already, many times, even before you began this unreasoned argument. You must be deliberately ignoring it. 1. <b><u>NS does not have harvester units</u>, it has capture points.</b> In games with capture points, (Dawn of War, Supreme Commander), steady stream is the standard. The actual question Loey posed is, what successful games with capture points have irregular resource rates? 2. Steady stream is intuitive, and you can see an actual value of your resource production rate. 3a. Harvesters are a very strongly <b>visual</b> indication of resource flow; harvesters can also be attacked individually en-route. 3b. At high levels of harvesters, or the "saturation" point, the stream of resources IS steady, and the rate can be determined. ^ Above also directed to RobB.
Underwhelmed: You're worse than Chris. Take your trolling elsewhere.
<!--quoteo(post=1829601:date=Feb 4 2011, 01:10 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 4 2011, 01:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1829601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This has been addressed already, many times, even before you began this unreasoned argument. You must be deliberately ignoring it. 1. <b><u>NS does not have harvester units</u>, it has capture points.</b> In games with capture points, (Dawn of War, Supreme Commander), steady stream is the standard. The actual question Loey posed is, what successful games with capture points have irregular resource rates? 2. Steady stream is intuitive, and you can see an actual value of your resource production rate. 3a. Harvesters are a very strongly <b>visual</b> indication of resource flow; harvesters can also be attacked individually en-route. 3b. At high levels of harvesters, or the "saturation" point, the stream of resources IS steady, and the rate can be determined. ^ Above also directed to RobB.
Underwhelmed: You're worse than Chris. Take your trolling elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What difference does it make? You have a method of getting money, and you have an income rate.
Games work with irregular income rates, games work with various methods of getting money, why do you have to match up a particular income rate with a particular method of getting money? Seems arbitrary? You do something in the game and that dictates how much money you get, the specifics of either don't really matter as long as they work, and both irregular incomes and capture point based incomes work fine in plenty of other games, and I can't see any way in which they would contradict each other if used together.
There isn't anything <i>wrong</i> with perfectly steady resource income, my point is just that it makes so little difference that it's really not worth investing the time into doing it. There's other stuff that needs doing that actually makes the game better. Rewriting resource accumulation to average out a few seconds is <i>not</i> going to have a visible effect on the outcome of games, it's going to be entirely insignficiant compared to making marine and alien movement sufficiently responsive, ensuring weapons are balanced, ironing out crashes, improving latency, making sure the commander interface is responsive, fixing hit registration and collision.
A few seconds and one or two resources is so unbelievably insignificant compared to the skill of a team, how well the team's controls work, how much lag they have etc, I can't even begin to imagine how far at the bottom of the list of things to do it must be.
"What difference does it make?" Once again, by saying this all that you are saying is "I do not agree with this idea." That is all. Leave it. You say it makes no difference and have nothing of substance to back that up, I and others say it does make a difference - differences which we have explicitly stated, and you seem to be blind to; or you're trolling, in which case, you are succeeding. Well done.
Also you seem to be under the presumption that ideas and suggestions are for you to judge as to whether or not they are worth the effort. How is that even remotely your call? If you were to judge whether or not an idea would <b>work</b>, or how best an idea could work, that's something else entirely - that's something that others apart from yourself have managed in this thread, something which you seem unable to do and yet you persist to make what amounts to useless comments.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The actual question Loey posed is, what successful games with capture points have irregular resource rates?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> did not understand it as such. my fault, but i support this idea non the less, could even increase asymetry if alien production is more smooth (permanent, small trickle).
Comments
<ul><li>original Command & Conquer Series (not Generals, not C&C 4)
Two different kinds of Tiberium with different yield (Tiberian Sun only). Harvesters drive around, scooping it up.
It's not teleported, so you have to wait until the harvester returns and unloads into the refinery.</li><li>Dungeon Keeper 1, Dungeon Keeper 2, Dungeons
Workers rund around digging, collect fallen goldcoins from the floor or gold from goldveins, unload into treasurechamber only when their pockets are full or they're bored.</li></ul>
That's more than five games. Should be enough.
The more intuative the game is the better for the player, and this is a game mechanic that would accomplish that purpose by providing players with helpful information they can base decisions off of.
Too much trouble for too little gain
You can't exactly keep track of them while you're doing other stuff and even if you could, you still have to wait between 30 seconds to a minute to get money, so it's still very irregular because it comes in lumps. If the worst comes to the worst you can just assume NS will give you <number of extractors> income every 12 seconds, because it will, it will still be more regular than many RTS games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has been addressed already, many times, even before you began this unreasoned argument. You must be deliberately ignoring it.
1. <b><u>NS does not have harvester units</u>, it has capture points.</b> In games with capture points, (Dawn of War, Supreme Commander), steady stream is the standard. The actual question Loey posed is, what successful games with capture points have irregular resource rates?
2. Steady stream is intuitive, and you can see an actual value of your resource production rate.
3a. Harvesters are a very strongly <b>visual</b> indication of resource flow; harvesters can also be attacked individually en-route.
3b. At high levels of harvesters, or the "saturation" point, the stream of resources IS steady, and the rate can be determined.
^ Above also directed to RobB.
Underwhelmed: You're worse than Chris. Take your trolling elsewhere.
1. <b><u>NS does not have harvester units</u>, it has capture points.</b> In games with capture points, (Dawn of War, Supreme Commander), steady stream is the standard. The actual question Loey posed is, what successful games with capture points have irregular resource rates?
2. Steady stream is intuitive, and you can see an actual value of your resource production rate.
3a. Harvesters are a very strongly <b>visual</b> indication of resource flow; harvesters can also be attacked individually en-route.
3b. At high levels of harvesters, or the "saturation" point, the stream of resources IS steady, and the rate can be determined.
^ Above also directed to RobB.
Underwhelmed: You're worse than Chris. Take your trolling elsewhere.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What difference does it make? You have a method of getting money, and you have an income rate.
Games work with irregular income rates, games work with various methods of getting money, why do you have to match up a particular income rate with a particular method of getting money? Seems arbitrary? You do something in the game and that dictates how much money you get, the specifics of either don't really matter as long as they work, and both irregular incomes and capture point based incomes work fine in plenty of other games, and I can't see any way in which they would contradict each other if used together.
There isn't anything <i>wrong</i> with perfectly steady resource income, my point is just that it makes so little difference that it's really not worth investing the time into doing it. There's other stuff that needs doing that actually makes the game better. Rewriting resource accumulation to average out a few seconds is <i>not</i> going to have a visible effect on the outcome of games, it's going to be entirely insignficiant compared to making marine and alien movement sufficiently responsive, ensuring weapons are balanced, ironing out crashes, improving latency, making sure the commander interface is responsive, fixing hit registration and collision.
A few seconds and one or two resources is so unbelievably insignificant compared to the skill of a team, how well the team's controls work, how much lag they have etc, I can't even begin to imagine how far at the bottom of the list of things to do it must be.
Last word = the word of the devs.
Once again, by saying this all that you are saying is "I do not agree with this idea." That is all. Leave it.
You say it makes no difference and have nothing of substance to back that up, I and others say it does make a difference - differences which we have explicitly stated, and you seem to be blind to; or you're trolling, in which case, you are succeeding. Well done.
Also you seem to be under the presumption that ideas and suggestions are for you to judge as to whether or not they are worth the effort. How is that even remotely your call? If you were to judge whether or not an idea would <b>work</b>, or how best an idea could work, that's something else entirely - that's something that others apart from yourself have managed in this thread, something which you seem unable to do and yet you persist to make what amounts to useless comments.