<!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro--><b>One more wall of text from me on this topic before 180 comes out</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
We need acknowledge that unlike traditional RTS games there are things in NS2 that are significantly impacted by team size. I know this is something that may seem obvious when you read it, but its something that has been crystallizing as one of the main problem with the res model. The current res model isn't properly taking it into account. Medpacks are simply the most immediate and obvious example for this. The more players, the more medpacks a comm will need.
Then there things that are not all affected by team size. Whether its 6v6 or 16v16 it doesn't matter. Perfect example are extractors/harvesters. Their construction is dictated by the map and not by team size.
So what we need a resource model that takes this into account, otherwise we have drastically different games depending on the team size ...and UWE will be spending all their time stamping out endless balance brush fires for essentially multiple games. The problem with the res model is that certain things are not priced according to the res type they should be priced as, and commander pres is not scaling properly due to various issues.
Look at the current main resources as such (just ignore what their names are): <b>Tres</b> is currently dependent solely on the number of extractors/harvesters , and is not affected by team size. <b>Pres</b> is currently dependent mainly on player number, and scales with team size (call it player resource or something if you are hung up on the name).
If some things are dependent on team size and others are not, the logical conclusion is that things that are dependent on team size should cost pres and thing that are not dependent on team size should cost tres. This is a bit of a departure to what I have been promoting earlier, but I now feel this is the least painful and most efficient direction UWE can take with NS2's resource model. In fact they're already going down this road, they just some changes to get off the dirt side road.
If you want simple rules, think of it like this <b>Tres is for items that are not affected by the number of players. Pres is for items that are affected by the number of players.</b>
Again, the problem with the res model is that certain things are not priced according to the res type they should be priced as, and commander pres is not scaling properly due to various issues. We could dedicate an entire thread on just these two points, but lets take turrets as example.
The first problem is that certain things are not priced properly with respect to resource type. Turrets are very dependent on team size. A singe turret is going to be less effective in a 16v16 then in a 6v6. In other words turrets don't scale well. You will be building, and rebuilding more turrets in larger games, however you will be using Tres to pay for them even though Tres does not scale up with team size. This is a problem since for example turrets could be weak in 16v16 games, but in a 6v6 there are way too many of them. They should really cost Pres, since Pres scales with team size. The less players in the game, the less turrets there will be since there is less Pres to acquire them with. The solution to this is to figure out what is and isn't affected by team size and price accordingly. This could take up an entire thread
Unfortunately the second problem is that only a commander can pay for turrets, and commander Pres is not scaling up properly with team size. Before I was against commander using Pres due to Pres use for player and commander being mechanically different. However if Pres is ONLY used for things that are affected by player size, then it doesn't matter if comm or player uses it. They are mechanically the same regardless. The problem comes in when there are things that <b>only commanders </b>can buy with Pres and players can't. Commander pres doesn't scale well, and that is were the second problem really lies.
So we need a way for commander pres to scale with team size. Multiple comms doesn't scale very well, since it will scale in 'chunks' as teams build additional CC/hives. Plus for marines there is less incentive to build CC. Which means that additional CCs for marines would be very dependent on team size. Charlie has proposed a Pres "tax". I think something like this could work. Allow the comm to toggle it...or slider. However "taxed Pres" should go to a different, commander-wide pres pool than a commander's own Pres pool.
One other solution (<b>in addition to the above</b>) is to allow players to purchase more of the commander items that require pres, and to give commanders more support abilities that cost tres and are not affected by team size. Commander should have abilities that affect multiple players at once and are less dependent on the team size. So for instance, instead of just being able to drop individual medpacks at the cost of pres, comm could also drop "med crates" costing Tres that act as a mini-armories or something similar that not as affected by team size. I really have no problem if players can buy items that allow them to drop medpacks, ammo packs, cat packs, turrets and other individual items that require pres. It would help in easing the scale issues with commander pres, and give marine players more goodies to play with and to support sqaud mates.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
whats about changing rfk that it give 1-3 res to players and aswell 50% pres to the comm(s) (shared by multiple comms, for each kill) this would promote med, ammo and catalyst pack drops and if you move sentries to pres it would solve this problem aswell.
of course its abuseable to some degree, hop in the chair, wait for some res income, grab your weapon and be happy, but then again: you cannot avoid griefing completely!
your wall of text before said one thing: the resource system how it is implemented currently isn't satisfying, and I agree with that completely. you have some nice ideas there, but im afraid everything that is not a fast solution (minimal amount of coding, changing few numbers, no additional units / models / graphics) will not get accepted.
and, you missed a few other things when you talked about scaling with team size: all passive upgrades (cost tres but are much more worth in bigger games) all deployed structures (they die much faster in bigger games)
well, actually everything scales with team size to some degree... its not so easy to differentiate.
<!--quoteo(post=1858133:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->whats about changing rfk that it give 1-3 res to players and aswell 50% pres to the comm(s) (shared by multiple comms, for each kill) this would promote med, ammo and catalyst pack drops and if you move sentries to pres it would solve this problem aswell.
of course its abuseable to some degree, hop in the chair, wait for some res income, grab your weapon and be happy, but then again: you cannot avoid griefing completely!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why I think "taxed pres" should go into its own pool, useable by comms only (but all comms).
<!--quoteo(post=1858133:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->your wall of text before said one thing: the resource system how it is implemented currently isn't satisfying, and I agree with that completely. you have some nice ideas there, but im afraid everything that is not a fast solution (minimal amount of coding, changing few numbers, no additional units / models / graphics) will not get accepted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That last part is more long term thinking. However the vast majority of what I suggested are tweaks to assets and coding already in the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1858133:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and, you missed a few other things when you talked about scaling with team size: all passive upgrades (cost tres but are much more worth in bigger games) all deployed structures (they die much faster in bigger games)
well, actually everything scales with team size to some degree... its not so easy to differentiate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a difference. Team wide passive upgrades affect the entire team regardless of team size. Tres is gained regardless of team size. Whether you are playing 6v6 or 16v16, you will want these upgrades and they will cost the same in both. Team size will always affect how the game will be played, but we can take steps to mitigate the disparity as much as possible.
Its true that in bigger games there are more players to take down structures, but there is also more players defending and repairing structures (healspray for aliens....welders if marines had them) plus more hydras defending (and turrets if they cost pres and comm pres scaled well). It may not scale perfectly, but its scales well enough ...and we are never going to hit perfection with this.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858135:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:43 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 5 2011, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is a difference. Team wide passive upgrades affect the entire team regardless of team size. Tres is gained regardless of team size. Whether you are playing 6v6 or 16v16, you will want these upgrades and they will cost the same in both.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats true, the <b>time to acquire those upgrades is the same</b> (unless the map is enormous and you could build 8 RTs in 8 different directions -> faster built up economy) but the result has bigger impact. instead of increasing the firepower by 5x5%, it would be 10x5%.
<!--quoteo(post=1858135:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:43 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 5 2011, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its true that in bigger games there are more players to take down structures, but there is also more players defending and repairing structures (healspray for aliens....welders if marines had them) plus more hydras defending (and turrets if they cost pres and comm pres scaled well).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if "healing" stacks the same as dealing damage, then thats valid counter argument.
so except for the upgrades, which have theoretically not such a major impact if there always exist a counter upgrade (in our case -dmg taken 5x5% or 10x5%) there really is only missing:
scalable support (med, ammo...) scalable turrets
with some additional pres income (created by RFK) and moving turret costs to pres it could work out better still missing is the alien commander, no usage for pres at all :X which is also annoying
<!--quoteo(post=1858137:date=Jul 5 2011, 12:03 PM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->thats true, the <b>time to acquire those upgrades is the same</b> (unless the map is enormous and you could build 8 RTs in 8 different directions -> faster built up economy) but the result has bigger impact. instead of increasing the firepower by 10x5%, it would be 10x5%.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but in relation to what? If its in relation to the other side's players, they too will be upgrading. So its really 10x5% vs 10x5%, and not 10x5% vs 5x5%. Those upgrades will have a similar impact to both those games.
<!--quoteo(post=1858137:date=Jul 5 2011, 12:03 PM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if "healing" stacks the same as dealing damage, then thats valid counter argument.
so except for the upgrades, which have theoretically not such a major impact if there always exist a counter upgrade (in our case -dmg taken 5x5% or 10x5%) there really is only missing:
scalable support (med, ammo...) scalable turrets
with some additional pres income (created by RFK) and moving turret costs to pres it could work out better still missing is the alien commander, no usage for pres at all :X which is also annoying<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I think alien side in general needs a hard long look at why exactly there should be alien comms (much less multiple comms). But I think once all alien structure are in including all their abilities, aliens comms could use their pres and/or tres on babblers, phantasm, cloak, energize, echo and even umbra..which would give them something cool and interesting to do.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858141:date=Jul 5 2011, 12:15 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 5 2011, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858141"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yea, I think alien side needs a hard long look at why exactly there should alien comms (or even multiple comms). But I think once all alien structure are in including all their abilities, aliens comms could use their pres on babblers, phantasm, cloak, energize, echo and umbra..which would give them something cool and interesting to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and then we have the same discussion about resource model again!
Hrm... Pres could be said to scale up with team size in a sense, but the individual doesn't get more resources, so we can't use Pres for things that cost more with more players. Like medpacks. I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858159:date=Jul 5 2011, 01:43 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 5 2011, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hrm... Pres could be said to scale up with team size in a sense, but the individual doesn't get more resources, so we can't use Pres for things that cost more with more players. Like medpacks. I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i had the same logic before, and another positive aspekt would be that it could fasten up games (reward the winner -> faster upgrades -> more expansion -> more rfk etc) but could also been seen as downside (less room for making mistakes, early kills could have exponential effects).
further it could allow a side to have a come back, by sitting in the base behind good (very good) defense and collect res (by kills) but this could also be seen as a downside: unnecessary prolonging an already lost games (good defense -> more rfk -> more defense etc) which promotes turtling.
team res for kills could be a nice system, but i think its easier to balance the game with more predictable t.res flow, so i changed my mind about this recently and im against it
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2011
I just like to point out that alien (defensive) structures actually have decent effect scaling, ie they work well for all team sizes. That is because the Whips and Crags have area effect abilities. The Whip attack hits all nearby marines, and Fury buffs all nearby aliens. The Crag currently heals up to 3 nearby aliens (perhaps that restriction should be removed), and Umbra protects all nearby aliens. Hopefully the unimplemented Kharaa structures will follow the same design logic.
Since Hydras cost personal resources, they too scale decently well with player count, with the exception of being weak against AOE marine attacks.
The Marine Armory also works effectively, independent of team size.
The most notable problematic unit whose overall effectiveness drops as player count increases, is the Sentry. In order to maintain a similar pace of the game across all team sizes, static defenses need to be able to hold off more attackers in games with more players. For example, if one Sentry/Whip can deter an early game 2-man attack in a 6v6 match, its power needs to scale, so it can beat back 4 enemies in a 12v12 match.
<b>Non-scaling health of (especially static defensive) structures is one problem that needs to be addressed.</b>
The cost of Med and Ammo drops, MACs and ARCs do not scale well either, but for a different reason, which has already been discussed thoroughly in this thread. Changing the cost of drop packs to Team Res, as well as making their effects AOE is one possible solution.
<!--quoteo(post=1858263:date=Jul 6 2011, 06:37 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 6 2011, 06:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858263"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just like to point out that alien (defensive) structures actually have decent effect scaling, ie they work well for all team sizes. That is because the Whips and Crags have area effect abilities. The Whip attack hits all nearby marines, and Fury buffs all nearby aliens. The Crag currently heals up to 3 nearby aliens (perhaps that restriction should be removed), and Umbra protects all nearby aliens. Hopefully the unimplemented Kharaa structures will follow the same design logic.
Since Hydras cost personal resources, they too scale decently well with player count, with the exception of being weak against AOE marine attacks.
The Marine Armory also works effectively, independent of team size.
The most notable problematic unit whose overall effectiveness drops as player count increases, is the Sentry.
The cost of Med and Ammo drops, MACs and ARCs do not scale well either, but for a different reason, which has already been discussed thoroughly in this thread. Changing the cost of drop packs to Team Res, as well as making their effects AOE is one possible solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> How do you count balance, because I have no clue how hydras or any other chambers do. Is 1 hydra / 70(?) sec worth / 1 player on marine side? Lets take a lerk, I can pretty certainly count as non-balansive spore aoe obviously effects more the better. How about 1 Whip it isnt the effect it does but it does matter if you can get 3 in 5min against 3 players or 12 players because the way they work is area denial however 5 marine can blast it in one or is the effect fury really scaling well?
There will never be such a thing as perfect balance anyway all we can really count on is statistics which can be really hard to obtain and will get overwritten on different skill levels no to mention, as time flies by skill levels rises aswell.
I'm afraid trying to balance too hard as UWE did with the major resmodel changes will not lead anywhere, making it fun and interesting should be top priority.
<!--quoteo(post=1858159:date=Jul 5 2011, 01:43 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 5 2011, 01:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hrm... Pres could be said to scale up with team size in a sense, but the individual doesn't get more resources, so we can't use Pres for things that cost more with more players. Like medpacks. I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing costs more with more with more players.... However some things a comm needs more with more players. The problem is not with the individual, its with the commander. Commander pres doesn't scale up with more players, so he cant buy more items that scale up with team size. A Pres Tax would be very similar to what you are suggesting, but instead of Tres its Pres. Unfortunately I believe that things that are affected and not affected by team size are too distinct to mix match with the same resource type...and mixing them up would just cause unnecessary balance headaches.
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1858266:date=Jul 5 2011, 08:59 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Jul 5 2011, 08:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858266"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel an AOE healing would be too powerful for marines. If they had a good com they would pretty much be invincible.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is not too difficult to balancing the effectiveness of AOE healing by changing the amount of HP healed, or the HP regenerated each second, or adding spacial limitations, for example, Marines have to walk very close to the Med drop to be healed. The current implementation of the Medpack is less than desirable. You cannot drop them directly on a Marine, and most of them end up being wasted.
<!--quoteo(post=1858268:date=Jul 5 2011, 09:05 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Jul 5 2011, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858268"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How do you count balance, because I have no clue how hydras or any other chambers do. Is 1 hydra / 70(?) sec worth / 1 player on marine side? Lets take a lerk, I can pretty certainly count as non-balansive spore aoe obviously effects more the better. How about 1 Whip it isnt the effect it does but it does matter if you can get 3 in 5min against 3 players or 12 players because the way they work is area denial however 5 marine can blast it in one or is the effect fury really scaling well?
There will never be such a thing as perfect balance anyway all we can really count on is statistics which can be really hard to obtain and will get overwritten on different skill levels no to mention, as time flies by skill levels rises aswell.
I'm afraid trying to balance too hard as UWE did with the major resmodel changes will not lead anywhere, making it fun and interesting should be top priority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You brought up an excellent point. Health of structures need to scale, so strategic choke points and important tech structures are not too easily raided and destroyed in large games.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858273:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:33 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 6 2011, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is not too difficult to balancing the effectiveness of AOE healing by changing the amount of HP healed, or the HP regenerated each second, or adding spacial limitations, for example, Marines have to walk very close to the Med drop to be healed. The current implementation of the Medpack is less than desirable. You cannot drop them directly on a Marine, and most of them end up being wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> this would even promote marines to move out in squads (armor repair from mates, aoe healing from comm)
<!--quoteo(post=1858273:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:33 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 6 2011, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You brought up an excellent point. Health of structures need to scale, so strategic choke points and important tech structures are not too easily raided and destroyed in large games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its logic, more players -> more damage -> structures need more health. but, what you forget are 2 important things here: - more enemies mean more distraction -> less attacks on structures - more players increase the likelyhood that structures get healed/repaired
the damage can become overwhelming, what then you should try to identify this player number and buff overall health accordingly. maybe there are some golden numbers that work in high player counter and in low?
twilitebluebug stalkerJoin Date: 2003-02-04Member: 13116Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited July 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1858289:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:03 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 6 2011, 12:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->its logic, more players -> more damage -> structures need more health. but, what you forget are 2 important things here: - more enemies mean more distraction -> less attacks on structures - more players increase the likelyhood that structures get healed/repaired<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have seen Marines suicide Shotgun blitz on a Hive, then the problem becomes apparent. The purpose of scaling structure health is to give the defenders appropriate time to respond to attacks, before too much damage can be done, regardless of team size.
<!--quoteo(post=1858289:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:03 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 6 2011, 12:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the damage can become overwhelming, what then you should try to identify this player number and buff overall health accordingly. maybe there are some golden numbers that work in high player counter and in low?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you asked. Allow me to quote from an earlier discussion in another thread. :P
<!--quoteo(post=1857519:date=Jul 1 2011, 07:59 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 1 2011, 07:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857519"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In regard to structures having too little health large games, but are too tough in smaller games, one solution would be to dynamically scale their health, based on the team size.
However, rather than changing the health of every structure on the map each time a player joins/leaves the game (which could be buggy, as well as inefficient), player vs structure damage can be calculated differently via a function, which reduces damage structures take as more players join the server. This will allow dynamic effective health scaling without significant changes to strategic balance, as static defense cost Team Resources, which does not scale based on team size.
For example, when there are 12 players on a server (6v6), players deal normal (100%) damage against structures. But when more players join the game, damage against structures would be gradually reduced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The damage dropoff does not even have to be linear. After all, NS2 should be about player-vs-player combat, rather than holding down mouse1 on structures.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
seems to me that would be the best solution. but healing could become then overpowered, so you have to be careful and find the <!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->golden number<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> for a non linear scaling :)
this idea should be preserved somewhere, its an elegant way to balance ns2 for all team sizes. so the only real factor which remains is then only team res, which should then have (regardless of team size) the same "value" and you can adjust structure / upgrade costs unified
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
One thing that probably will show up as needing balancing is number of eggs on the alien side. The marines can choose to build more IPs to ensure that their respawn capacity is scaled to their needs. Aliens OTOH are limited by number of eggs, which are limited by number of hives. In a 16vs16 game, a relentless early marine pressure can probably keep half the alien team in the respawn queue.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
easy solution would be to remove the queue. when you are dead, an alien egg spawns (for you to hatch) and is usable after X seconds. so instead of having a shared queue, you have your individual respawn timer
<!--quoteo(post=1858270:date=Jul 6 2011, 06:15 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 6 2011, 06:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858270"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nothing costs more with more with more players.... However some things a comm needs more with more players. The problem is not with the individual, its with the commander. Commander pres doesn't scale up with more players, so he cant buy more items that scale up with team size. A Pres Tax would be very similar to what you are suggesting, but instead of Tres its Pres. Unfortunately I believe that things that are affected and not affected by team size are too distinct to mix match with the same resource type...and mixing them up would just cause unnecessary balance headaches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Pres tax would mean a player has reason to jump into the comm chair to leech, so it shouldn't increase his Pres. And it shouldn't be called a Tax because that just makes players feel the game is robbing them; having RFK simply also add Tres makes them feel like they're contributing.
Don't forget the commander is an individual. It's just that, being the only one capable of spending resources on the team, he's the only one that needs to get more resources (of some type or another) as the team grows larger. Still, you have a point in that mixing and matching isn't the best idea; the commander getting more Pres isn't so good for the above-mentioned reason, Tres isn't so good because it might also make teching and expansion speed up with more players; as such, a third resource isn't a bad idea.
I'm thinking these are the commander items that are purchased more often with more players, and would need to cost this theoretical third resource: * Medpacks, Ammopacks (and Catpacks if we get those) * Sentries * Infantry Portals
<!--quoteo(post=1858359:date=Jul 6 2011, 09:32 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 6 2011, 09:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858359"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Pres tax would mean a player has reason to jump into the comm chair to leech, so it shouldn't increase his Pres. And it shouldn't be called a Tax because that just makes players feel the game is robbing them; having RFK simply also add Tres makes them feel like they're contributing.
Don't forget the commander is an individual. It's just that, being the only one capable of spending resources on the team, he's the only one that needs to get more resources (of some type or another) as the team grows larger. Still, you have a point in that mixing and matching isn't the best idea; the commander getting more Pres isn't so good for the above-mentioned reason, Tres isn't so good because it might also make teching and expansion speed up with more players; as such, a third resource isn't a bad idea.
I'm thinking these are the commander items that are purchased more often with more players, and would need to cost this theoretical third resource: * Medpacks, Ammopacks (and Catpacks if we get those) * Sentries * Infantry Portals<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm calling it "tax" because that is what charlie called in the design log. I'm sure they won't call a tax in 1.0. Like I said earlier, all "taxed pres" should go into its own separate pool that can only be used by commanders. This basically makes it a 3rd resource type of sorts.
Infantry portals in another good example of something that teams need more with more players, but currently costs tres. If you are following my logic, it shouldn't. It should ideally cost pres. Alien hive eggs is another scaling problem, and a trickier one to solve. I'm starting to think that hives should start with no eggs (just like marines start with no IPs). The alien comm then pays pres to upgrade the hive to "lay eggs" at the start of the game (just like marines have build an IP). These upgrades come in increments. First upgrade allows 1 egg, second upgrade 2 eggs..and so on. In larger games you alien comm will spend more pres so hives can lay more eggs, but he should also have more pres.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->seems to me that would be the best solution. but healing could become then overpowered, so you have to be careful and find the golden number for a non linear scaling :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not totally against scaling down structure damage, but as you point out, if we scale one thing we'll need to scale down other things. It might cause more problems then it solves. This is the kinda stuff that will prevent a perfection of scaling. We definitely would need to scale down structure healing, otherwise gorges will have an easier time keeping hives and other structures up during assaults in larger games.
Hydras are problematic. They are structures paid by pres but that deal AOE damage. In larger games there will be more of them, but with scaled down structure damage it will take marines longer to take them down. This mean we would need to also scale down hydra damage exponentially due to its AOE damage, either that or make it so hydras can only focus on one player at a time just like turrets. We'd also have to take into account focus fire (when dealing with players versus turrts/whips/hydras), which linear scaling will not take into account. You can see this can quickly turn into a slippery slope.
<!--quoteo(post=1858159:date=Jul 6 2011, 02:43 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 6 2011, 02:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hrm... Pres could be said to scale up with team size in a sense, but the individual doesn't get more resources, so we can't use Pres for things that cost more with more players. Like medpacks. I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've been saying this for the last four pages... at least.
The reasons I think PRFK should be removed entirely and replaced solely with TRFK (with TR costs for support) include the fact that PRFK leads to slippery slopes and the theory that removing it would cause players on the field to place a greater importance with (defending, acquiring) the resource towers (and somewhat increased dependence on the commander). This must be coupled with increased field-player awareness of the meta-game, through, for example, simple HUD icons with the number of Res Nodes / Tech Nodes held, and the base income rate.
The only alternative I've seen that works (scales) is having a "tax" on each player (which is necessarily allocated to a third pool to prevent farming issues)... but let's be honest, that's exactly the same as just having a third resource that arbitrarily scales with the number of players.
In depth, - Remove PRFK (Personal Resource For Kill). - Replace with TRFK (Team Resource For Kill). - Decrease TR costs on support. - Have "tier 1" units yield 1 res upon kill, "tier 2" units yield 2 res upon kill, and "tier 3" units yield 3 res upon kill. <strike>- <i>[conceded]</i></strike> - Higher "tier" structures should cost drastically more than basic structures (IPs, RTs) to allow for the early game to progress at a decent pace, yet keep TR a scarce resource. - IP cost should be reduced. More players are supported because more IPs will be made viable due to more TRFK. (However, dependence upon proximity to command chair, i.e. the tech node placement, should be revisited.) Therefore, PR is used solely for player-offensive purchases; and TR is used for team-related purchases (structures, researches, support). All player-dependent technologies scale with the number of players.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858385:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:20 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 6 2011, 12:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858385"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Move sentries back to PR and increase the cost and link to player commanders in the same way hydras are linked to player gorges.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so promote comm cycling again? if you put rfk to team res, it makes no sense that sentries cost p.res. you should leave them at t.res then in your system.
Hmmmmmmmmmm, you may be right. I'll concede that. But TRFK may need to be increased (e.g. 2, 4, 6 instead of 1, 2, 3), or TR costs decreased further. It's just that there's now a lot (that scales) that now needs to be covered by TR*, so you would have to increase the influence of (scalable) TRFK. * a short list: - IPs - Sentries - Medpacks - Ammo I do think that it should be TR gained from RFK rather than a third resource, so that it gives the commander the chance to make decisions based on trade-offs.
Now the only issue is, what does a commander do with his PR? Maybe purchasing spare weapons is sufficient, due to the increased scarcity of PR.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858401:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:51 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 6 2011, 12:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858401"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hmmmmmmmmmm, you may be right. I'll concede that. But TRFK may need to be increased (e.g. 2, 4, 6 instead of 1, 2, 3), or TR costs decreased further. It's just that there's now a lot (that scales) that now needs to be covered by TR*, so you would have to increase the influence of (scalable) TRFK. * a short list: - IPs - Sentries - Medpacks - Ammo I do think that it should be TR gained from RFK rather than a third resource, so that it gives the commander the chance to make decisions based on trade-offs.
Now the only issue is, what does a commander do with his PR? Maybe purchasing spare weapons is sufficient, due to the increased scarcity of PR.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i suggested some system like this before several times, its not completely worked out though.
the basic idea was that everything a comm does, what a field player can not (so everything except buying equipment and weapons), would cost team res. the personal res are then used to drop things he could use as field player aswell.
the same concept works for aliens aswell, you can drop "eggs" which contain a pre-paid life form. press use at this egg to gestate
The problem with aliens (as in, applying my proposed changes) is that they operate somewhat differently. That is, traditionally, the aliens' primary expenditure has always been on life-forms (i.e. personal expenditure) rather than structures; the opposite for marines. But I think that's just a matter of balancing the costs (so more TR is spent) and increasing the (useful) uses of TR for the alien team (especially player-scaled uses). Basically, it's the opposite for the alien team: you increase the influence of TR from harvesters compared to TR from TRFK: unless you have many player-scaled uses like you do with the marine team; but so far I can't think of one - perhaps infestation should cost TR, since more players means more marines killing your cysts.
At first I misunderstood your idea about the eggs; I thought it was like spending TR for life-forms, like the marine team operated in NS2 for their equipment supply. But having understood it now, I like it.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1858416:date=Jul 6 2011, 11:47 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 6 2011, 11:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with aliens (as in, applying my proposed changes) is that they operate somewhat differently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in your proposed method, the only way one has resources to buy a shotgun or grenade launcher, or become a fade etc, is thanks to the<i><b> time spent in game</b></i>?? this will only encourage turtling strategies.
every PRFK issue / imbalance can be solved, as mentioned, with ideas that circumvent the scaling issue. (E.g. Pres used for turrets per the individual or medical stations that heal multiple persons etc) i know your reasons for disliking RFK are because of imbalances relating to gameplay features already implemented in-game (using Tres for IP etc) but this doesn't mean that RFK is at heart a bad thing or a game breaker (aliens really need this) - it just means we need to balance the other earlier alpha build gameplay features to scale as well. i think thats all there is left to say on this thread..
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1858486:date=Jul 6 2011, 11:35 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 6 2011, 11:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->in your proposed method, the only way one has resources to buy a shotgun or grenade launcher, or become a fade etc, is thanks to the<i><b> time spent in game</b></i>?? this will only encourage turtling strategies.
every PRFK issue / imbalance can be solved, as mentioned, with ideas that circumvent the scaling issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sure thats possible. to sum it up: its a good idea to reward the individual and a team as a whole for playing good / better. i see nothing wrong with that, as long as it incorporates with the rest of the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1858486:date=Jul 7 2011, 12:35 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 7 2011, 12:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->in your proposed method, the only way one has resources to buy a shotgun or grenade launcher, or become a fade etc, is thanks to the<i><b> time spent in game</b></i>?? this will only encourage turtling strategies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Marines got T.Res for kills, I think we could justifiably change all Comm purchases back to T.Res.
With one resource governing the entire comm experience, we're back on more familiar NS1 territory, except that with T.Res for Kills it now scales with player size! Ground units would still have a considerable level of autonomy from P.Res gained via Extractors. They would be more hard pressed to defend Extractor, which is more turtley than encouraging Marines to go out and slaughter everything on the map, but this can be easily solved by giving each Res Node a finite number of resources (which would also give the game a much needed countdown timer)!
Comments
We need acknowledge that unlike traditional RTS games there are things in NS2 that are significantly impacted by team size. I know this is something that may seem obvious when you read it, but its something that has been crystallizing as one of the main problem with the res model. The current res model isn't properly taking it into account. Medpacks are simply the most immediate and obvious example for this. The more players, the more medpacks a comm will need.
Then there things that are not all affected by team size. Whether its 6v6 or 16v16 it doesn't matter. Perfect example are extractors/harvesters. Their construction is dictated by the map and not by team size.
So what we need a resource model that takes this into account, otherwise we have drastically different games depending on the team size ...and UWE will be spending all their time stamping out endless balance brush fires for essentially multiple games. The problem with the res model is that certain things are not priced according to the res type they should be priced as, and commander pres is not scaling properly due to various issues.
Look at the current main resources as such (just ignore what their names are):
<b>Tres</b> is currently dependent solely on the number of extractors/harvesters , and is not affected by team size.
<b>Pres</b> is currently dependent mainly on player number, and scales with team size (call it player resource or something if you are hung up on the name).
If some things are dependent on team size and others are not, the logical conclusion is that things that are dependent on team size should cost pres and thing that are not dependent on team size should cost tres. This is a bit of a departure to what I have been promoting earlier, but I now feel this is the least painful and most efficient direction UWE can take with NS2's resource model. In fact they're already going down this road, they just some changes to get off the dirt side road.
If you want simple rules, think of it like this
<b>Tres is for items that are not affected by the number of players.
Pres is for items that are affected by the number of players.</b>
Again, the problem with the res model is that certain things are not priced according to the res type they should be priced as, and commander pres is not scaling properly due to various issues. We could dedicate an entire thread on just these two points, but lets take turrets as example.
The first problem is that certain things are not priced properly with respect to resource type. Turrets are very dependent on team size. A singe turret is going to be less effective in a 16v16 then in a 6v6. In other words turrets don't scale well. You will be building, and rebuilding more turrets in larger games, however you will be using Tres to pay for them even though Tres does not scale up with team size. This is a problem since for example turrets could be weak in 16v16 games, but in a 6v6 there are way too many of them. They should really cost Pres, since Pres scales with team size. The less players in the game, the less turrets there will be since there is less Pres to acquire them with. The solution to this is to figure out what is and isn't affected by team size and price accordingly. This could take up an entire thread
Unfortunately the second problem is that only a commander can pay for turrets, and commander Pres is not scaling up properly with team size. Before I was against commander using Pres due to Pres use for player and commander being mechanically different. However if Pres is ONLY used for things that are affected by player size, then it doesn't matter if comm or player uses it. They are mechanically the same regardless. The problem comes in when there are things that <b>only commanders </b>can buy with Pres and players can't. Commander pres doesn't scale well, and that is were the second problem really lies.
So we need a way for commander pres to scale with team size. Multiple comms doesn't scale very well, since it will scale in 'chunks' as teams build additional CC/hives. Plus for marines there is less incentive to build CC. Which means that additional CCs for marines would be very dependent on team size. Charlie has proposed a Pres "tax". I think something like this could work. Allow the comm to toggle it...or slider. However "taxed Pres" should go to a different, commander-wide pres pool than a commander's own Pres pool.
One other solution (<b>in addition to the above</b>) is to allow players to purchase more of the commander items that require pres, and to give commanders more support abilities that cost tres and are not affected by team size. Commander should have abilities that affect multiple players at once and are less dependent on the team size. So for instance, instead of just being able to drop individual medpacks at the cost of pres, comm could also drop "med crates" costing Tres that act as a mini-armories or something similar that not as affected by team size. I really have no problem if players can buy items that allow them to drop medpacks, ammo packs, cat packs, turrets and other individual items that require pres. It would help in easing the scale issues with commander pres, and give marine players more goodies to play with and to support sqaud mates.
this would promote med, ammo and catalyst pack drops and if you move sentries to pres it would solve this problem aswell.
of course its abuseable to some degree, hop in the chair, wait for some res income, grab your weapon and be happy, but then again:
you cannot avoid griefing completely!
your wall of text before said one thing: the resource system how it is implemented currently isn't satisfying, and I agree with that completely.
you have some nice ideas there, but im afraid everything that is not a fast solution (minimal amount of coding, changing few numbers, no additional
units / models / graphics) will not get accepted.
and, you missed a few other things when you talked about scaling with team size:
all passive upgrades (cost tres but are much more worth in bigger games)
all deployed structures (they die much faster in bigger games)
well, actually everything scales with team size to some degree... its not so easy to differentiate.
this would promote med, ammo and catalyst pack drops and if you move sentries to pres it would solve this problem aswell.
of course its abuseable to some degree, hop in the chair, wait for some res income, grab your weapon and be happy, but then again:
you cannot avoid griefing completely!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why I think "taxed pres" should go into its own pool, useable by comms only (but all comms).
<!--quoteo(post=1858133:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->your wall of text before said one thing: the resource system how it is implemented currently isn't satisfying, and I agree with that completely.
you have some nice ideas there, but im afraid everything that is not a fast solution (minimal amount of coding, changing few numbers, no additional
units / models / graphics) will not get accepted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That last part is more long term thinking. However the vast majority of what I suggested are tweaks to assets and coding already in the game.
<!--quoteo(post=1858133:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->and, you missed a few other things when you talked about scaling with team size:
all passive upgrades (cost tres but are much more worth in bigger games)
all deployed structures (they die much faster in bigger games)
well, actually everything scales with team size to some degree... its not so easy to differentiate.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a difference. Team wide passive upgrades affect the entire team regardless of team size. Tres is gained regardless of team size. Whether you are playing 6v6 or 16v16, you will want these upgrades and they will cost the same in both. Team size will always affect how the game will be played, but we can take steps to mitigate the disparity as much as possible.
Its true that in bigger games there are more players to take down structures, but there is also more players defending and repairing structures (healspray for aliens....welders if marines had them) plus more hydras defending (and turrets if they cost pres and comm pres scaled well). It may not scale perfectly, but its scales well enough ...and we are never going to hit perfection with this.
thats true, the <b>time to acquire those upgrades is the same</b> (unless the map is enormous and you could build 8 RTs in 8 different directions -> faster built up economy) but the result has bigger impact. instead of increasing the firepower by 5x5%, it would be 10x5%.
<!--quoteo(post=1858135:date=Jul 5 2011, 11:43 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jul 5 2011, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its true that in bigger games there are more players to take down structures, but there is also more players defending and repairing structures (healspray for aliens....welders if marines had them) plus more hydras defending (and turrets if they cost pres and comm pres scaled well).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if "healing" stacks the same as dealing damage, then thats valid counter argument.
so except for the upgrades, which have theoretically not such a major impact if there always exist a counter upgrade (in our case -dmg taken 5x5% or 10x5%) there really
is only missing:
scalable support (med, ammo...)
scalable turrets
with some additional pres income (created by RFK) and moving turret costs to pres it could work out better
still missing is the alien commander, no usage for pres at all :X which is also annoying
Yes, but in relation to what? If its in relation to the other side's players, they too will be upgrading. So its really 10x5% vs 10x5%, and not 10x5% vs 5x5%. Those upgrades will have a similar impact to both those games.
<!--quoteo(post=1858137:date=Jul 5 2011, 12:03 PM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 5 2011, 12:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if "healing" stacks the same as dealing damage, then thats valid counter argument.
so except for the upgrades, which have theoretically not such a major impact if there always exist a counter upgrade (in our case -dmg taken 5x5% or 10x5%) there really
is only missing:
scalable support (med, ammo...)
scalable turrets
with some additional pres income (created by RFK) and moving turret costs to pres it could work out better
still missing is the alien commander, no usage for pres at all :X which is also annoying<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea, I think alien side in general needs a hard long look at why exactly there should be alien comms (much less multiple comms). But I think once all alien structure are in including all their abilities, aliens comms could use their pres and/or tres on babblers, phantasm, cloak, energize, echo and even umbra..which would give them something cool and interesting to do.
and then we have the same discussion about resource model again!
I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.
I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i had the same logic before, and another positive aspekt would be that it could fasten up games (reward the winner -> faster upgrades -> more expansion -> more rfk etc)
but could also been seen as downside (less room for making mistakes, early kills could have exponential effects).
further it could allow a side to have a come back, by sitting in the base behind good (very good) defense and collect res (by kills) but this could
also be seen as a downside: unnecessary prolonging an already lost games (good defense -> more rfk -> more defense etc) which promotes
turtling.
team res for kills could be a nice system, but i think its easier to balance the game with more predictable t.res flow, so i changed my mind about
this recently and im against it
Since Hydras cost personal resources, they too scale decently well with player count, with the exception of being weak against AOE marine attacks.
The Marine Armory also works effectively, independent of team size.
The most notable problematic unit whose overall effectiveness drops as player count increases, is the Sentry. In order to maintain a similar pace of the game across all team sizes, static defenses need to be able to hold off more attackers in games with more players. For example, if one Sentry/Whip can deter an early game 2-man attack in a 6v6 match, its power needs to scale, so it can beat back 4 enemies in a 12v12 match.
<b>Non-scaling health of (especially static defensive) structures is one problem that needs to be addressed.</b>
The cost of Med and Ammo drops, MACs and ARCs do not scale well either, but for a different reason, which has already been discussed thoroughly in this thread. Changing the cost of drop packs to Team Res, as well as making their effects AOE is one possible solution.
Since Hydras cost personal resources, they too scale decently well with player count, with the exception of being weak against AOE marine attacks.
The Marine Armory also works effectively, independent of team size.
The most notable problematic unit whose overall effectiveness drops as player count increases, is the Sentry.
The cost of Med and Ammo drops, MACs and ARCs do not scale well either, but for a different reason, which has already been discussed thoroughly in this thread. Changing the cost of drop packs to Team Res, as well as making their effects AOE is one possible solution.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you count balance, because I have no clue how hydras or any other chambers do. Is 1 hydra / 70(?) sec worth / 1 player on marine side? Lets take a lerk, I can pretty certainly count as non-balansive spore aoe obviously effects more the better. How about 1 Whip it isnt the effect it does but it does matter if you can get 3 in 5min against 3 players or 12 players because the way they work is area denial however 5 marine can blast it in one or is the effect fury really scaling well?
There will never be such a thing as perfect balance anyway all we can really count on is statistics which can be really hard to obtain and will get overwritten on different skill levels no to mention, as time flies by skill levels rises aswell.
I'm afraid trying to balance too hard as UWE did with the major resmodel changes will not lead anywhere, making it fun and interesting should be top priority.
I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing costs more with more with more players.... However some things a comm needs more with more players. The problem is not with the individual, its with the commander. Commander pres doesn't scale up with more players, so he cant buy more items that scale up with team size. A Pres Tax would be very similar to what you are suggesting, but instead of Tres its Pres. Unfortunately I believe that things that are affected and not affected by team size are too distinct to mix match with the same resource type...and mixing them up would just cause unnecessary balance headaches.
It is not too difficult to balancing the effectiveness of AOE healing by changing the amount of HP healed, or the HP regenerated each second, or adding spacial limitations, for example, Marines have to walk very close to the Med drop to be healed.
The current implementation of the Medpack is less than desirable. You cannot drop them directly on a Marine, and most of them end up being wasted.
<!--quoteo(post=1858268:date=Jul 5 2011, 09:05 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Jul 5 2011, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858268"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How do you count balance, because I have no clue how hydras or any other chambers do. Is 1 hydra / 70(?) sec worth / 1 player on marine side? Lets take a lerk, I can pretty certainly count as non-balansive spore aoe obviously effects more the better. How about 1 Whip it isnt the effect it does but it does matter if you can get 3 in 5min against 3 players or 12 players because the way they work is area denial however 5 marine can blast it in one or is the effect fury really scaling well?
There will never be such a thing as perfect balance anyway all we can really count on is statistics which can be really hard to obtain and will get overwritten on different skill levels no to mention, as time flies by skill levels rises aswell.
I'm afraid trying to balance too hard as UWE did with the major resmodel changes will not lead anywhere, making it fun and interesting should be top priority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You brought up an excellent point. Health of structures need to scale, so strategic choke points and important tech structures are not too easily raided and destroyed in large games.
The current implementation of the Medpack is less than desirable. You cannot drop them directly on a Marine, and most of them end up being wasted.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
this would even promote marines to move out in squads (armor repair from mates, aoe healing from comm)
<!--quoteo(post=1858273:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:33 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 6 2011, 12:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You brought up an excellent point. Health of structures need to scale, so strategic choke points and important tech structures are not too easily raided and destroyed in large games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its logic, more players -> more damage -> structures need more health. but, what you forget are 2 important things here:
- more enemies mean more distraction -> less attacks on structures
- more players increase the likelyhood that structures get healed/repaired
the damage can become overwhelming, what then you should try to identify this player number and buff overall health accordingly. maybe
there are some golden numbers that work in high player counter and in low?
- more enemies mean more distraction -> less attacks on structures
- more players increase the likelyhood that structures get healed/repaired<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have seen Marines suicide Shotgun blitz on a Hive, then the problem becomes apparent. The purpose of scaling structure health is to give the defenders appropriate time to respond to attacks, before too much damage can be done, regardless of team size.
<!--quoteo(post=1858289:date=Jul 6 2011, 12:03 AM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 6 2011, 12:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858289"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the damage can become overwhelming, what then you should try to identify this player number and buff overall health accordingly. maybe
there are some golden numbers that work in high player counter and in low?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you asked. Allow me to quote from an earlier discussion in another thread. :P
<!--quoteo(post=1857519:date=Jul 1 2011, 07:59 AM:name=twiliteblue)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (twiliteblue @ Jul 1 2011, 07:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857519"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In regard to structures having too little health large games, but are too tough in smaller games, one solution would be to dynamically scale their health, based on the team size.
However, rather than changing the health of every structure on the map each time a player joins/leaves the game (which could be buggy, as well as inefficient), player vs structure damage can be calculated differently via a function, which reduces damage structures take as more players join the server. This will allow dynamic effective health scaling without significant changes to strategic balance, as static defense cost Team Resources, which does not scale based on team size.
For example, when there are 12 players on a server (6v6), players deal normal (100%) damage against structures. But when more players join the game, damage against structures would be gradually reduced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The damage dropoff does not even have to be linear. After all, NS2 should be about player-vs-player combat, rather than holding down mouse1 on structures.
for a non linear scaling :)
this idea should be preserved somewhere, its an elegant way to balance ns2 for all team sizes. so the only real factor which remains
is then only team res, which should then have (regardless of team size) the same "value" and you can adjust structure / upgrade costs unified
of having a shared queue, you have your individual respawn timer
The Pres tax would mean a player has reason to jump into the comm chair to leech, so it shouldn't increase his Pres. And it shouldn't be called a Tax because that just makes players feel the game is robbing them; having RFK simply also add Tres makes them feel like they're contributing.
Don't forget the commander is an individual. It's just that, being the only one capable of spending resources on the team, he's the only one that needs to get more resources (of some type or another) as the team grows larger. Still, you have a point in that mixing and matching isn't the best idea; the commander getting more Pres isn't so good for the above-mentioned reason, Tres isn't so good because it might also make teching and expansion speed up with more players; as such, a third resource isn't a bad idea.
I'm thinking these are the commander items that are purchased more often with more players, and would need to cost this theoretical third resource:
* Medpacks, Ammopacks (and Catpacks if we get those)
* Sentries
* Infantry Portals
Don't forget the commander is an individual. It's just that, being the only one capable of spending resources on the team, he's the only one that needs to get more resources (of some type or another) as the team grows larger. Still, you have a point in that mixing and matching isn't the best idea; the commander getting more Pres isn't so good for the above-mentioned reason, Tres isn't so good because it might also make teching and expansion speed up with more players; as such, a third resource isn't a bad idea.
I'm thinking these are the commander items that are purchased more often with more players, and would need to cost this theoretical third resource:
* Medpacks, Ammopacks (and Catpacks if we get those)
* Sentries
* Infantry Portals<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm calling it "tax" because that is what charlie called in the design log. I'm sure they won't call a tax in 1.0. Like I said earlier, all "taxed pres" should go into its own separate pool that can only be used by commanders. This basically makes it a 3rd resource type of sorts.
Infantry portals in another good example of something that teams need more with more players, but currently costs tres. If you are following my logic, it shouldn't. It should ideally cost pres. Alien hive eggs is another scaling problem, and a trickier one to solve. I'm starting to think that hives should start with no eggs (just like marines start with no IPs). The alien comm then pays pres to upgrade the hive to "lay eggs" at the start of the game (just like marines have build an IP). These upgrades come in increments. First upgrade allows 1 egg, second upgrade 2 eggs..and so on. In larger games you alien comm will spend more pres so hives can lay more eggs, but he should also have more pres.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->seems to me that would be the best solution. but healing could become then overpowered, so you have to be careful and find the golden number
for a non linear scaling :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not totally against scaling down structure damage, but as you point out, if we scale one thing we'll need to scale down other things. It might cause more problems then it solves. This is the kinda stuff that will prevent a perfection of scaling. We definitely would need to scale down structure healing, otherwise gorges will have an easier time keeping hives and other structures up during assaults in larger games.
Hydras are problematic. They are structures paid by pres but that deal AOE damage. In larger games there will be more of them, but with scaled down structure damage it will take marines longer to take them down. This mean we would need to also scale down hydra damage exponentially due to its AOE damage, either that or make it so hydras can only focus on one player at a time just like turrets. We'd also have to take into account focus fire (when dealing with players versus turrts/whips/hydras), which linear scaling will not take into account. You can see this can quickly turn into a slippery slope.
I'm thinking instead: if your team received 1 Tres for every kill your team makes, Tres would scale with the number of players AND be usable by the individual (commander), so then all player-number dependant commander abilities can cost Tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've been saying this for the last four pages... at least.
The reasons I think PRFK should be removed entirely and replaced solely with TRFK (with TR costs for support) include the fact that PRFK leads to slippery slopes and the theory that removing it would cause players on the field to place a greater importance with (defending, acquiring) the resource towers (and somewhat increased dependence on the commander). This must be coupled with increased field-player awareness of the meta-game, through, for example, simple HUD icons with the number of Res Nodes / Tech Nodes held, and the base income rate.
The only alternative I've seen that works (scales) is having a "tax" on each player (which is necessarily allocated to a third pool to prevent farming issues)... but let's be honest, that's exactly the same as just having a third resource that arbitrarily scales with the number of players.
In depth,
- Remove PRFK (Personal Resource For Kill).
- Replace with TRFK (Team Resource For Kill).
- Decrease TR costs on support.
- Have "tier 1" units yield 1 res upon kill, "tier 2" units yield 2 res upon kill, and "tier 3" units yield 3 res upon kill.
<strike>- <i>[conceded]</i></strike>
- Higher "tier" structures should cost drastically more than basic structures (IPs, RTs) to allow for the early game to progress at a decent pace, yet keep TR a scarce resource.
- IP cost should be reduced. More players are supported because more IPs will be made viable due to more TRFK. (However, dependence upon proximity to command chair, i.e. the tech node placement, should be revisited.)
Therefore, PR is used solely for player-offensive purchases; and TR is used for team-related purchases (structures, researches, support). All player-dependent technologies scale with the number of players.
so promote comm cycling again? if you put rfk to team res, it makes no sense that sentries cost p.res. you should leave them at t.res then in your system.
* a short list:
- IPs
- Sentries
- Medpacks
- Ammo
I do think that it should be TR gained from RFK rather than a third resource, so that it gives the commander the chance to make decisions based on trade-offs.
Now the only issue is, what does a commander do with his PR? Maybe purchasing spare weapons is sufficient, due to the increased scarcity of PR.
* a short list:
- IPs
- Sentries
- Medpacks
- Ammo
I do think that it should be TR gained from RFK rather than a third resource, so that it gives the commander the chance to make decisions based on trade-offs.
Now the only issue is, what does a commander do with his PR? Maybe purchasing spare weapons is sufficient, due to the increased scarcity of PR.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i suggested some system like this before several times, its not completely worked out though.
the basic idea was that everything a comm does, what a field player can not (so everything except buying equipment and weapons), would
cost team res. the personal res are then used to drop things he could use as field player aswell.
the same concept works for aliens aswell, you can drop "eggs" which contain a pre-paid life form. press use at this egg
to gestate
But I think that's just a matter of balancing the costs (so more TR is spent) and increasing the (useful) uses of TR for the alien team (especially player-scaled uses). Basically, it's the opposite for the alien team: you increase the influence of TR from harvesters compared to TR from TRFK: unless you have many player-scaled uses like you do with the marine team; but so far I can't think of one - perhaps infestation should cost TR, since more players means more marines killing your cysts.
At first I misunderstood your idea about the eggs; I thought it was like spending TR for life-forms, like the marine team operated in NS2 for their equipment supply. But having understood it now, I like it.
in your proposed method, the only way one has resources to buy a shotgun or grenade launcher, or become a fade etc, is thanks to the<i><b> time spent in game</b></i>??
this will only encourage turtling strategies.
every PRFK issue / imbalance can be solved, as mentioned, with ideas that circumvent the scaling issue. (E.g. Pres used for turrets per the individual or medical stations that heal multiple persons etc) i know your reasons for disliking RFK are because of imbalances relating to gameplay features already implemented in-game (using Tres for IP etc) but this doesn't mean that RFK is at heart a bad thing or a game breaker (aliens really need this) - it just means we need to balance the other earlier alpha build gameplay features to scale as well. i think thats all there is left to say on this thread..
this will only encourage turtling strategies.
every PRFK issue / imbalance can be solved, as mentioned, with ideas that circumvent the scaling issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sure thats possible. to sum it up: its a good idea to reward the individual and a team as a whole for playing good / better. i see nothing
wrong with that, as long as it incorporates with the rest of the game.
this will only encourage turtling strategies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Marines got T.Res for kills, I think we could justifiably change all Comm purchases back to T.Res.
With one resource governing the entire comm experience, we're back on more familiar NS1 territory, except that with T.Res for Kills it now scales with player size! Ground units would still have a considerable level of autonomy from P.Res gained via Extractors. They would be more hard pressed to defend Extractor, which is more turtley than encouraging Marines to go out and slaughter everything on the map, but this can be easily solved by giving each Res Node a finite number of resources (which would also give the game a much needed countdown timer)!