<!--quoteo(post=1852931:date=Jun 15 2011, 05:07 AM:name=jkflipflop)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jkflipflop @ Jun 15 2011, 05:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852931"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hey I got an idea. Lets just make a short, fat little marine named George. Whenever the team needs something, you just yell for George and he'll come over and buy the building for you out of his own personal resource pool. Then we don't even need a commander or team res!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> +1
It just seems like what costs Pres and what costs Tres is chosen arbitrarily.
In RTS games with a 2 resources model, such as SC2, the costs and resource needed is based on pacing and balance. Right now it seems we are arguing for the resource type cost of certain items based solely on the <i>name </i>of the resource that would be used. Seems odd.
Dropped weapons shouldn't cost Tres simply because Tres has "team" in its name, and that it just <i>'makes more sense' </i>that dropped weapons should cost "personal" res. These are not a good arguments. Base off arguments on gameplay, pace and balance instead.
In SC2, two resources are used in order to have one common resource (mineral) and a rare resource (vespene). Mineral is used to build common low tech units. Vespene is used to make certain things more expensive, but without breaking your mineral bank. It bottlenecks certain units, without hindering you ability to make lower tier units. That basically how it is in most RTS games. It seems like in NS2 there are 2 resources for commanders 'just because'.
Either switch to a one resource model, or have better reasons to have two. I feel the names "team" resources and "personal" resources are getting in the way of these discussions.
...I like the new fade.. <img src="http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k210/concep7/ns22011-06-1400-36-57-24.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /> He could do with lower armour but ALSO adding cheaper shotguns is really going to mess him up bad. I also feel other things are contributing the terribly bad marine side.. -Lag and general hitches makes it impossible to aim accurately. -The lmg's muzzle flash covers the middle of the screen. -There's an odd delay to any actions after sprinting. -Can't initiate a reload while sprinting (even though initiated reloads will complete). -No sprint jump feels very odd -Collision is buggy and trying to walk past a team mate (or building) gives rubber banding.
In short the core light marine gameplay needs some work imo.
<!--quoteo(post=1853021:date=Jun 15 2011, 01:11 PM:name=jamin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jamin @ Jun 15 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...I like the new fade.. He could do with lower armour but ALSO adding cheaper shotguns is really going to mess him up bad. I also feel other things are contributing the terribly bad marine side.. <!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->-Lag and general hitches makes it impossible to aim accurately.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->-The lmg's muzzle flash covers the middle of the screen.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> -There's an odd delay to any actions after sprinting. -Can't initiate a reload while sprinting (even though initiated reloads will complete). -No sprint jump feels very odd <!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->-Collision is buggy and trying to walk past a team mate (or building) gives rubber banding.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
In short the core light marine gameplay needs some work imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->The muzzle flash is being toned down, and former Blizzard employee is working with UWE now on the pathing too. <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1853030:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:23 PM:name=TravCarp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TravCarp @ Jun 15 2011, 12:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853030"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->The muzzle flash is being toned down, and former Blizzard employee is working with UWE now on the pathing too. <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This just boosts my expectations from gutter trash to toilet waste, I have very little faith in anyone that once worked with blizzard.
QuovatisTeam InversionJoin Date: 2010-01-26Member: 70321Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1853047:date=Jun 15 2011, 11:26 AM:name=RichardRahl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RichardRahl @ Jun 15 2011, 11:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This just boosts my expectations from gutter trash to toilet waste, I have very little faith in anyone that once worked with blizzard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, obviously blizzard has no idea how to make games. I mean they don't have any successful games out and haven't made any money. /sarcasm
Why? They're incredibly successful developers, just because I don't like any of their games doesn't mean they're crap at making them, it just means I don't like starcraft style RTS games or MMOs, but anyone can see that starcraft 2 is very tightly made, lots of polish and quality in it. Everything in it works, I just don't like the genre. NS2 could benefit greatly from that sort of polish and attention to detail.
<!--quoteo(post=1853047:date=Jun 15 2011, 02:26 PM:name=RichardRahl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RichardRahl @ Jun 15 2011, 02:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853047"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This just boosts my expectations from gutter trash to toilet waste, I have very little faith in anyone that once worked with blizzard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your first post and you post this junk, get the ###### out of here. I'd like to see you do what they do.
<!--quoteo(post=1853052:date=Jun 15 2011, 02:44 PM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Jun 15 2011, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, obviously blizzard has no idea how to make games. I mean they don't have any successful games out and haven't made any money. /sarcasm<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hes obviously just looking to stir up a fight, he has no idea what he is even talking about.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1852873:date=Jun 14 2011, 08:41 PM:name=Ryo-Ohki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ryo-Ohki @ Jun 14 2011, 08:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852873"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just curious here Flayra, with regards to the comment on damage-dealing costing personal res, is the intention for commanding to be something a single player doesn't do for the whole game? Are we playing the game correctly? Because Coms burn through PR fast. Is your intention that one guy gets in the chair, does stuff for 5 minutes or so, then cycles out with someone else?
It sounds good in theory but even with the commanding changes in NS2, I still don't find many people keen on doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This might work for the alien comm, but I find as marine comm I have to be in the CS nearly 100% of the time (the only time to logout is to build things before you get MACs or help kill rampaging fades in marine start). Alien comm has much less to do and is less reliant on overall strategy so part-time comms could be fine.
<!--quoteo(post=1852909:date=Jun 15 2011, 03:00 AM:name=Papayas)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Papayas @ Jun 15 2011, 03:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852909"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Commanders should get res faster.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This just encourages more Comm swapping to boost res flow. Pretty soon we'll have rotations.
Reducing P.Res costs for things the Commander purchases accomplishes the same thing as the former without introducing it's side-affect.
<!--quoteo(post=1852985:date=Jun 15 2011, 10:51 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 15 2011, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852985"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that most of the P res is always going to be in the hands of other players. So it's always going to be preferable at some point to get someone else to hop in the comm and pay for something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then the average rates of P.Res spending for Ground Units and Commanders need to be more evenly matched, no? Is that not just a matter of tweaking costs?
If Medpacks are draining P.Res, maybe Medpacks need a change so they aren't spammed. Larger collision radius so Comms can target groups/squads (maybe that'll encourage people to stick together!). Total heal amount could stay the same and get divided between the number of affected players (to minimize wasted over-healing); or it could be reduced and additionally provide healing over time.
<!--quoteo(post=1853016:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:51 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 15 2011, 12:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just seems like what costs Pres and what costs Tres is chosen arbitrarily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It isn't arbitrary. P.Res purchases are those that aren't used to progress the Tech Tree. Turrets are the exception to the rule, and I think that should change.
<!--quoteo(post=1853021:date=Jun 15 2011, 01:11 PM:name=jamin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jamin @ Jun 15 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-No sprint jump feels very odd<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Would open up some design space for pitfalls, to separate areas that more grounded entities (ARCs, Heavies, Onos' and Gorge's) would be unable to access.
<!--quoteo(post=1853635:date=Jun 16 2011, 08:56 PM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 16 2011, 08:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853635"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then the average rates of P.Res spending for Ground Units and Commanders need to be more evenly matched, no? Is that not just a matter of tweaking costs?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really.
If all players can spend their p res on commander stuff, you're always going to reach the point where the commander has spent all their P res and some other player has more of it, at which point it's going to be preferable to tell that player to buy some comm stuff with his money.
The only other solution would be to simply give everyone in the game infinite p res, if you give only the commander lots of p res then people are going to sit in comm stations to get more money and then spend it on guns.
Basically, the whole idea of your personal money being spent on team stuff just doesn't work.
The basic theory is sound: team resources for the team, personal resources for players*; it manages the player number scaling issue from NS1 well, but it's suffering from a bit of misdirection.
*As Jaweese states, yes, this is really just team assets in the hands of players. However, I don't consider this a problem - it just affects the degree of abundance. Due to the greater degree of abundance, it pushes (or should) the balance focus more towards a player-vs-player basis than a team-vs-team basis - which is, imo, perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged. Gone should be the days of high-cost super-units. Sure, it does take much of the focus away from the economy game, but that was an inevitable side-effect (fortunate or unfortunate depends on your opinion) of this team/personal resource model and as long as we have this, it will always be an issue.
tl;dr: 1a) Team res does not scale, but largely unnecessary. 1b) Personal res scales perfectly. 2a) Personal res should not have RFK since it messes up the scaling. 2b) Team res should have RFK since it helps scaling. Team res should be more important. 3a) Change mantra to: Personal resources for personal things (ammo, medpack, weapons); team resources for team things (ARC, MAC, structures, tech). 3b) Basic theory of independent personal and team resources is sound, but needs tweaking (see above). 4a) Increased abundance of better units should be managed through unit-vs-unit balance, rather than team-vs-team balance. (No more high-cost super-units.) 4b) Focus on economy game is reduced, but inevitable (and imo acceptable).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo(post=1852893:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:53 PM:name=Jaweese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jaweese @ Jun 15 2011, 12:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know that, but you're missing my point. The game was designed based on this idea. The allocation of resources is predetermined and it eliminates strategic choice.
Like I said, everything is ultimately team-based. There is nothing personal about weapons or medpacks because helping an individual means helping the team. Also, team upgrades and structures help an individual just as directly as a shotgun.
If personal resources only affected things "personally", then gorges would be unable to build hydras. If all damage-dealing structures cost personal res as Flayra said, then whips and sentries (and probably, crags and armories since they are the reverse of damage) would have to cost personal res as well. Somewhere the roles get blurred. And even if the role of personal res could be clarified, it would still be bad design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with your <b>point</b> is that resources are not actually allocated - it is not a finite stream that is being split 50/50 as you imply. The actual "total flow" of resources is indeterminate, and scales directly with the number of players on the team. The "team" (commander) receives resources. The player (on the ground) receives resources. It is a split economy, but the flow of resources is not split; team and player economy are rather independent. It's like... there's only a finite amount of natural resources being mined out of the ground; but the government is still printing money.
"Everything is ultimately team-based." Yes, but no. The resource model is ultimately <b>not</b> team-based (see above). <b>That's the point.</b> Because the resource model is not team-based (see above), why then should the expenditure be balanced and designed on a purely team-based focus? The resource model does create a split (see above), and that's fine - that's the point, it addresses <u>scaling</u> issues. Team/personal roles may blend a little, but that's fine too - some things, however, like the ARC (which has a very specific role - destroy enemy structures) should not blend (should not cost personal resources) in the same way that the personal resource.
If your underlying argument is that NS2 should return to the NS1 resource model, then I'm sorry but I don't think that's going to happen. But hey, I could be wrong, NS2 has done a lot of regression lately.
<!--quoteo(post=1853735:date=Jun 16 2011, 10:38 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 16 2011, 10:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853735"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We're going in circles now. Sorry that my previous post wasn't very clear.
Personal res wouldn't be a bottleneck if team res could always be spent in a helpful way. What if team upgrades required team res to maintain, and could be increased/decreased? It would allow the commander to adapt to a situation (like attacking a hive) by adjusting team upgrades temporarily. It would work as long as the maintenance rates for late-game upgrades are steep enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1853625:date=Jun 17 2011, 05:23 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jun 17 2011, 05:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853625"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This might work for the alien comm, but I find as marine comm I have to be in the CS nearly 100% of the time (the only time to logout is to build things before you get MACs or help kill rampaging fades in marine start). Alien comm has much less to do and is less reliant on overall strategy so part-time comms could be fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly my point; I don't think it's a particularly viable setup, but it does seem like the devs want us to play like that. At the end of the day, there just aren't that many people who want to com, either part time or full time. I don't see the point of saying to the people who want to com "hey, you can't do this for very long".
Frankly I think everything a Com does should cost Team Res. Is the reason why anything that deals damage has to cost PR due to RFK? i.e. player builds turret, gets any res from it for rest of game/until it's destroyed. Simple fix: damage dealing items doled out by Com produce TR from any kills they make. This could even apply to weapons spawned by the Com; you can get a weapon without spending PR, but in exchange, any kills you make give the team some res, not you.
The main point of the Marines having a commander was to make either side different (In NS1).
I still don't like the armoury system. They are making NS2 more like NS1 Combat instead of NS1 Vanilla/Classic.
And by: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Commanders should get res faster<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My initial idea was that if a Commander was in there for lets say ~3 minutes then he would start to get the res faster. It wouldn't be instant. The only problem with this is that if they wanted to get out of the command chair then they would have to wait another ~3 minutes before they would get the res again. I suppose making it so there is a timer like ~3 minutes so it gives you time to build/repair (When we get welders) and get back in the CC again.
<!--quoteo(post=1853756:date=Jun 17 2011, 12:19 PM:name=Jaweese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jaweese @ Jun 17 2011, 12:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We're going in circles now. Sorry that my previous post wasn't very clear.
Personal res wouldn't be a bottleneck if team res could always be spent in a helpful way. What if team upgrades required team res to maintain, and could be increased/decreased? It would allow the commander to adapt to a situation (like attacking a hive) by adjusting team upgrades temporarily. It would work as long as the maintenance rates for late-game upgrades are steep enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, well, how do you find this?:
<!--quoteo(post=1853840:date=Jun 17 2011, 07:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 17 2011, 07:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853840"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally though, I think there should be no personal RFK, only team RFK. Then switch medpacks, ammo, MACs and ARCs to team res. This way: + The availability of life-forms/equipment will depend only on those res towers, so you better defend and capture. + RFK is going to the same place that you're getting your med and ammo from. + Less of a slippery slope since "good" players can't always afford good stuff just because they're doing all the killing. Basically, as an example, less early / easy / common fades. + Lives for both sides are more precious*. * Of course, they'd be even more precious if you gave a penalty for death, but then you end up with that slippery slope again. Problems I can think of: - Less hydra spam, more sentry spam. - Much less for the alien "team" to spend res on so they don't benefit as much from team RFK. In NS1, the most significant expense for the alien "team" was life-forms, but in NS2 these are purchased with personal resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
+1
In RTS games with a 2 resources model, such as SC2, the costs and resource needed is based on pacing and balance. Right now it seems we are arguing for the resource type cost of certain items based solely on the <i>name </i>of the resource that would be used. Seems odd.
Dropped weapons shouldn't cost Tres simply because Tres has "team" in its name, and that it just <i>'makes more sense' </i>that dropped weapons should cost "personal" res. These are not a good arguments.
Base off arguments on gameplay, pace and balance instead.
In SC2, two resources are used in order to have one common resource (mineral) and a rare resource (vespene). Mineral is used to build common low tech units. Vespene is used to make certain things more expensive, but without breaking your mineral bank. It bottlenecks certain units, without hindering you ability to make lower tier units. That basically how it is in most RTS games. It seems like in NS2 there are 2 resources for commanders 'just because'.
Either switch to a one resource model, or have better reasons to have two. I feel the names "team" resources and "personal" resources are getting in the way of these discussions.
<img src="http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k210/concep7/ns22011-06-1400-36-57-24.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
He could do with lower armour but ALSO adding cheaper shotguns is really going to mess him up bad.
I also feel other things are contributing the terribly bad marine side..
-Lag and general hitches makes it impossible to aim accurately.
-The lmg's muzzle flash covers the middle of the screen.
-There's an odd delay to any actions after sprinting.
-Can't initiate a reload while sprinting (even though initiated reloads will complete).
-No sprint jump feels very odd
-Collision is buggy and trying to walk past a team mate (or building) gives rubber banding.
In short the core light marine gameplay needs some work imo.
He could do with lower armour but ALSO adding cheaper shotguns is really going to mess him up bad.
I also feel other things are contributing the terribly bad marine side..
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->-Lag and general hitches makes it impossible to aim accurately.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->-The lmg's muzzle flash covers the middle of the screen.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
-There's an odd delay to any actions after sprinting.
-Can't initiate a reload while sprinting (even though initiated reloads will complete).
-No sprint jump feels very odd
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->-Collision is buggy and trying to walk past a team mate (or building) gives rubber banding.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
In short the core light marine gameplay needs some work imo.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->The muzzle flash is being toned down, and former Blizzard employee is working with UWE now on the pathing too. <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
This just boosts my expectations from gutter trash to toilet waste, I have very little faith in anyone that once worked with blizzard.
Yeah, obviously blizzard has no idea how to make games. I mean they don't have any successful games out and haven't made any money. /sarcasm
Your first post and you post this junk, get the ###### out of here. I'd like to see you do what they do.
<!--quoteo(post=1853052:date=Jun 15 2011, 02:44 PM:name=Quovatis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Quovatis @ Jun 15 2011, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, obviously blizzard has no idea how to make games. I mean they don't have any successful games out and haven't made any money. /sarcasm<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hes obviously just looking to stir up a fight, he has no idea what he is even talking about.
It sounds good in theory but even with the commanding changes in NS2, I still don't find many people keen on doing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This might work for the alien comm, but I find as marine comm I have to be in the CS nearly 100% of the time (the only time to logout is to build things before you get MACs or help kill rampaging fades in marine start). Alien comm has much less to do and is less reliant on overall strategy so part-time comms could be fine.
This just encourages more Comm swapping to boost res flow. Pretty soon we'll have rotations.
Reducing P.Res costs for things the Commander purchases accomplishes the same thing as the former without introducing it's side-affect.
<!--quoteo(post=1852985:date=Jun 15 2011, 10:51 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jun 15 2011, 10:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852985"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem is that most of the P res is always going to be in the hands of other players. So it's always going to be preferable at some point to get someone else to hop in the comm and pay for something.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then the average rates of P.Res spending for Ground Units and Commanders need to be more evenly matched, no?
Is that not just a matter of tweaking costs?
If Medpacks are draining P.Res, maybe Medpacks need a change so they aren't spammed.
Larger collision radius so Comms can target groups/squads (maybe that'll encourage people to stick together!).
Total heal amount could stay the same and get divided between the number of affected players (to minimize wasted over-healing); or it could be reduced and additionally provide healing over time.
<!--quoteo(post=1853016:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:51 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 15 2011, 12:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just seems like what costs Pres and what costs Tres is chosen arbitrarily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't arbitrary. P.Res purchases are those that aren't used to progress the Tech Tree. Turrets are the exception to the rule, and I think that should change.
<!--quoteo(post=1853021:date=Jun 15 2011, 01:11 PM:name=jamin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jamin @ Jun 15 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853021"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-No sprint jump feels very odd<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would open up some design space for pitfalls, to separate areas that more grounded entities (ARCs, Heavies, Onos' and Gorge's) would be unable to access.
Is that not just a matter of tweaking costs?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really.
If all players can spend their p res on commander stuff, you're always going to reach the point where the commander has spent all their P res and some other player has more of it, at which point it's going to be preferable to tell that player to buy some comm stuff with his money.
The only other solution would be to simply give everyone in the game infinite p res, if you give only the commander lots of p res then people are going to sit in comm stations to get more money and then spend it on guns.
Basically, the whole idea of your personal money being spent on team stuff just doesn't work.
The basic theory is sound: team resources for the team, personal resources for players*; it manages the player number scaling issue from NS1 well, but it's suffering from a bit of misdirection.
*As Jaweese states, yes, this is really just team assets in the hands of players. However, I don't consider this a problem - it just affects the degree of abundance. Due to the greater degree of abundance, it pushes (or should) the balance focus more towards a player-vs-player basis than a team-vs-team basis - which is, imo, perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even encouraged. Gone should be the days of high-cost super-units. Sure, it does take much of the focus away from the economy game, but that was an inevitable side-effect (fortunate or unfortunate depends on your opinion) of this team/personal resource model and as long as we have this, it will always be an issue.
tl;dr:
1a) Team res does not scale, but largely unnecessary.
1b) Personal res scales perfectly.
2a) Personal res should not have RFK since it messes up the scaling.
2b) Team res should have RFK since it helps scaling. Team res should be more important.
3a) Change mantra to: Personal resources for personal things (ammo, medpack, weapons); team resources for team things (ARC, MAC, structures, tech).
3b) Basic theory of independent personal and team resources is sound, but needs tweaking (see above).
4a) Increased abundance of better units should be managed through unit-vs-unit balance, rather than team-vs-team balance. (No more high-cost super-units.)
4b) Focus on economy game is reduced, but inevitable (and imo acceptable).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1852893:date=Jun 15 2011, 12:53 PM:name=Jaweese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jaweese @ Jun 15 2011, 12:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1852893"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know that, but you're missing my point. The game was designed based on this idea. The allocation of resources is predetermined and it eliminates strategic choice.
Like I said, everything is ultimately team-based. There is nothing personal about weapons or medpacks because helping an individual means helping the team. Also, team upgrades and structures help an individual just as directly as a shotgun.
If personal resources only affected things "personally", then gorges would be unable to build hydras. If all damage-dealing structures cost personal res as Flayra said, then whips and sentries (and probably, crags and armories since they are the reverse of damage) would have to cost personal res as well. Somewhere the roles get blurred. And even if the role of personal res could be clarified, it would still be bad design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with your <b>point</b> is that resources are not actually allocated - it is not a finite stream that is being split 50/50 as you imply. The actual "total flow" of resources is indeterminate, and scales directly with the number of players on the team. The "team" (commander) receives resources. The player (on the ground) receives resources. It is a split economy, but the flow of resources is not split; team and player economy are rather independent. It's like... there's only a finite amount of natural resources being mined out of the ground; but the government is still printing money.
"Everything is ultimately team-based." Yes, but no. The resource model is ultimately <b>not</b> team-based (see above). <b>That's the point.</b> Because the resource model is not team-based (see above), why then should the expenditure be balanced and designed on a purely team-based focus? The resource model does create a split (see above), and that's fine - that's the point, it addresses <u>scaling</u> issues. Team/personal roles may blend a little, but that's fine too - some things, however, like the ARC (which has a very specific role - destroy enemy structures) should not blend (should not cost personal resources) in the same way that the personal resource.
If your underlying argument is that NS2 should return to the NS1 resource model, then I'm sorry but I don't think that's going to happen. But hey, I could be wrong, NS2 has done a lot of regression lately.
We're going in circles now. Sorry that my previous post wasn't very clear.
Personal res wouldn't be a bottleneck if team res could always be spent in a helpful way. What if team upgrades required team res to maintain, and could be increased/decreased? It would allow the commander to adapt to a situation (like attacking a hive) by adjusting team upgrades temporarily. It would work as long as the maintenance rates for late-game upgrades are steep enough.
That's exactly my point; I don't think it's a particularly viable setup, but it does seem like the devs want us to play like that. At the end of the day, there just aren't that many people who want to com, either part time or full time. I don't see the point of saying to the people who want to com "hey, you can't do this for very long".
Frankly I think everything a Com does should cost Team Res. Is the reason why anything that deals damage has to cost PR due to RFK? i.e. player builds turret, gets any res from it for rest of game/until it's destroyed. Simple fix: damage dealing items doled out by Com produce TR from any kills they make. This could even apply to weapons spawned by the Com; you can get a weapon without spending PR, but in exchange, any kills you make give the team some res, not you.
I still don't like the armoury system. They are making NS2 more like NS1 Combat instead of NS1 Vanilla/Classic.
And by:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Commanders should get res faster<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My initial idea was that if a Commander was in there for lets say ~3 minutes then he would start to get the res faster. It wouldn't be instant. The only problem with this is that if they wanted to get out of the command chair then they would have to wait another ~3 minutes before they would get the res again. I suppose making it so there is a timer like ~3 minutes so it gives you time to build/repair (When we get welders) and get back in the CC again.
Personal res wouldn't be a bottleneck if team res could always be spent in a helpful way. What if team upgrades required team res to maintain, and could be increased/decreased? It would allow the commander to adapt to a situation (like attacking a hive) by adjusting team upgrades temporarily. It would work as long as the maintenance rates for late-game upgrades are steep enough.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, well, how do you find this?:
<!--quoteo(post=1853840:date=Jun 17 2011, 07:17 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 17 2011, 07:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853840"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Personally though, I think there should be no personal RFK, only team RFK. Then switch medpacks, ammo, MACs and ARCs to team res.
This way:
+ The availability of life-forms/equipment will depend only on those res towers, so you better defend and capture.
+ RFK is going to the same place that you're getting your med and ammo from.
+ Less of a slippery slope since "good" players can't always afford good stuff just because they're doing all the killing. Basically, as an example, less early / easy / common fades.
+ Lives for both sides are more precious*.
* Of course, they'd be even more precious if you gave a penalty for death, but then you end up with that slippery slope again.
Problems I can think of:
- Less hydra spam, more sentry spam.
- Much less for the alien "team" to spend res on so they don't benefit as much from team RFK. In NS1, the most significant expense for the alien "team" was life-forms, but in NS2 these are purchased with personal resources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->