<!--quoteo(post=1858486:date=Jul 7 2011, 12:35 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 7 2011, 12:35 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>??<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. It's thanks to the <b><i>number of resource nodes you hold</i></b>, which is how it should be.
<!--quoteo(post=1858486:date=Jul 7 2011, 12:35 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 7 2011, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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. <u>i think thats all there is left to say on this thread..</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The solution I propose is far, far simpler, gives more meaningful choices, and shifts the focus to taking and holding territory, by making it more apparent that you need to play for the TEAM if you PERSONALLY wish to succeed.
Slippery slopes (and in fact, any kind of significant advantage) from PRFK are only present with really powerful characters and the really good [at killing] players who play them (they get a lot more kills, so they get a lot more PR, so they keep their better characters more consistently, so they get more kills and so on - PRFK for these players is significant to their resource flow). Otherwise the PRFK is insignificant compared to a single player's overall resource flow, just as <!--coloro:#9999FF--><span style="color:#9999FF"><!--/coloro-->Chris0<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> previously postulated; the average player does not gain any significant advantage from PRFK. But those slippery slopes from those good [at killing] players are exactly what you want to avoid; they, of all players, don't need the advantage.
Let me address each of your "circumventions" (or not) in turn: - Pres for turrets - Read <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858394" target="_blank">Schimmel's post</a> above, where <b>he convinced me that this was a bad idea</b>, and my response to it just below it. - Armories <b>are</b> medical stations that heal multiple persons. An AOE spell to replace medpacks that heals a constant amount of health to each marine may be a viable PR expenditure, because it would scale with the number of players. At the same time though... it could be too powerful or too difficult to use, and increases the dilemmas (complexity) while reducing the options (who to medpack). For example, if it cost 10 res, and healed 40 hp, but 4 out of your 6 marines are on full HP already, it's hardly an efficient purchase. Or, if you had your entire team in a close-knit mass, you could ostensibly heal all 15 players or something, that's <b>too</b> efficient. And what if you had 4 marines, not at max HP, in the room, but they were all too far apart from each other for you to heal more than one or two? - Tres for IP - I explained in the response I just spoke about, how IPs do scale with the number of players, if TRFK were involved. It went something like this: more players = more TRFK = more TR available for IPs = more IPs as necessary = more players spawning = supports more players.
The difference with the alien team is considerable, for reasons I've expressed in a post above, and I've come up with a very simple ideal that provides solutions to that consideration. I hope you'll properly read <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858416" target="_blank">that post</a>. If there are any reasons that you see that I have missed, please tell me, and if they are the reasons why my ideal does not work (or if there are other reasons why my ideal does not work), tell me why.
<u>Also</u>, I didn't like how you decided to unilaterally "wrap up the thread". Don't. It doesn't help your argument at all.
Bit of a sidetrack, but how will we deal with the situation of most of the alien team going onos? What I'm getting at is the problem old Combat mode had where aliens would inevitably win if they all went for higher lifeforms, as those get disproportionally more health than any other upgrade path; ultimately, you'd need 3 times as many marines as aliens to get enough firepower. With little to spend Pres on other than lifeforms we'll probably see the same effect.
I LOVE having the ability to have multiple commanders and once the game is able to properly support 16 v 16 players, I expect to see at least 2 commanders for most of the final game. Having to micro-manage (drop health, way-points, tell players your plan, warn advancing teams about ambushes) and macro-manage (build defenses, research tech, make sure areas are being defended when they fall under attack) becomes very stressful late game. Having a 2nd player handle the macro elements while another commander handles the tactical attack ellements makes the game soooo much eaiser for the marines.
As far as the rest of the IDEAS in this thread are concerned, I say WAIT! Wait till the Onos / other structures and Exo-suit / heavy weapons / jet-packs are in. Making changes to the game right now to deal with our current situation would result in changes needing to be made again and again later on once things are added and balance changes in game by these additions.
<!--quoteo(post=1858627:date=Jul 8 2011, 04:03 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jul 8 2011, 04:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858627"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bit of a sidetrack, but how will we deal with the situation of most of the alien team going onos? What I'm getting at is the problem old Combat mode had where aliens would inevitably win if they all went for higher lifeforms, as those get disproportionally more health than any other upgrade path; ultimately, you'd need 3 times as many marines as aliens to get enough firepower. With little to spend Pres on other than lifeforms we'll probably see the same effect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's exactly the problem I've detailed in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114073&view=findpost&p=1858599" target="_blank">this post</a>, but it's a case for why we need to tighten the unit power tiers and/or add fail-safes.
<u><b>Majin</b></u>: It's not so much about making changes to the game right now to deal with our <b>current</b> situation, it's about building a <b>robust foundation</b>, which the game currently does not have.
<!--quoteo(post=1858678:date=Jul 8 2011, 05:41 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 8 2011, 05:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858678"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's exactly the problem I've detailed in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114073&view=findpost&p=1858599" target="_blank">this post</a>, but it's a case for why we need to tighten the unit power tiers and/or add fail-safes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or rework the resource system, just saying because it has brought up more problems than gains :(
Skulk and Rifle need to have at least some affect late game.
People don't choose the rifle because it isn't very good at killing Fades and Fades are currently the highest lifeforms so late game you will see a few of them.
<!--quoteo(post=1858684:date=Jul 8 2011, 11:57 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Jul 8 2011, 11:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858684"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or rework the resource system, just saying because it has brought up more problems than gains :(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In what way, specifically? Surely not a return to the NS1 model of a single team-controlled resource?
Whatever we do, I think it needs to meet these criteria: <!--quoteo(post=1855585:date=Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the criteria we have to work with is: 1) maintains a similar overall pace from game to game 2) player equipment scales with the number of players (the same resources for equipment available per head from game to game) 3) commander support scales with the number of players (the same resources for support available per head from game to game) 4) allows players in the field to make their own decisions about their equipment/lifeform 5) balanced and does not lead to slippery slopes
IMO, what the <u>current</u> system fails to do right now are criteria 3, and criteria 5 (due to PRFK).
You could, of course, very simply have a numerical multiplier on certain resources (that cover criteria 2 and 3), but I think it's a bit of a clumsy system to work with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The NS1 model doesn't meet criteria 1, 2, 3, or 4; though RFK helps its situation with criteria 2 and 3 - but on the whole, the system is not built on criteria 2 and 3 (and 4 only applies to the alien team). Whether it meets criteria 5 is a matter of opinion, but I think that on the whole it does, since the game is balanced around team strength (and economy) rather than individual strength.
<!--quoteo(post=1858724:date=Jul 8 2011, 10:31 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jul 8 2011, 10:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858724"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In what way, specifically? Surely not a return to the NS1 model of a single team-controlled resource?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I knew I would surely try to express it, I preferred NS1 style it was so unique and diverse but put too much strain on one player.
Right now you are exploding with res, you would probably get away buying 3 shotguns everytime you die. Since fade is impossible to kill, you can take ridiciously risks and still end up 350 res by the time you die. Commander's are both extremely boring, it will improve a lot after controls get better and strats start to emerge but I dont see any sane person doing it over and over again. In PCW's this probably means that someone is just forced to go in there and it sucks horsass.
Lowering resflow extreme amount would be alright for "higher level" players for lack of a better word as they can probably think when it is worth to take the gun instead of taking it first chance you get making guns actually meaningful element but the "lower level" players would straggle as they lose the gun more often. Commander's would also have to capture more resource towers and there would be meaning in destroying the res towers. At the moment you'll end up with "gargage res" too soon woth 2-3 towers.
The currect system makes very poor use of great diverse features such as RFK, since marine commander does not get it, it doesnt mean that the upgrades are coming any faster, guns are not distruted any more or less or chances of shotgun rush increase since commander has a spare res for health and ammo. On alien side fast fade, hive or lerk are not dependable on the skulks performance they'll come in high numbers free of effort endlessly.
Removing RFK would even worsen this, because that would mean every fade, lerk, onos gets the res at very same time and there's barely a chance that any of them will die between.
But I meant was before the comment you replied is that before we go turning the game upsidedown on the lifeform side, we should see if theres an option before that.
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->1. TRFK should be introduced (because RFK naturally scales with the number of players); all support costs should be moved to TR (support must be scalable for player-count), and PRFK removed (to reduce the effect of "slippery slope").<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->2. Rework the income from TRFK and extractors, and rework the costs of player-scaled support (ammo, medpacks, etc.) so that <i>resources spent on support = resources gained through RFK</i>, and rework the costs of the standard pace-setting technologies (structures, researches, etc.) so that <i>resources spent on the tech tree = resources gained through extractors</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->3. Rework the individual "unit" balance AND tighten the difference in power-levels of the different units, AND/OR add fail-safes; this is necessary because of the relative abundance of units in NS2, and because with NS2's 2-resource model units cannot simply be balanced around the resource model as it was in NS1's 1-resource model.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1858734:date=Jul 8 2011, 05:13 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Jul 8 2011, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858734"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I knew I would surely try to express it, I preferred NS1 style it was so unique and diverse but put too much strain on one player.
Right now you are exploding with res, you would probably get away buying 3 shotguns everytime you die. Since fade is impossible to kill, you can take ridiciously risks and still end up 350 res by the time you die. Commander's are both extremely boring, it will improve a lot after controls get better and strats start to emerge but I dont see any sane person doing it over and over again. In PCW's this probably means that someone is just forced to go in there and it sucks horsass. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 2.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Lowering resflow extreme amount would be alright for "higher level" players for lack of a better word as they can probably think when it is worth to take the gun instead of taking it first chance you get making guns actually meaningful element but the "lower level" players would straggle as they lose the gun more often. Commander's would also have to capture more resource towers and there would be meaning in destroying the res towers. At the moment you'll end up with "gargage res" too soon woth 2-3 towers. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 1.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The currect system makes very poor use of great diverse features such as RFK, since marine commander does not get it, it doesnt mean that the upgrades are coming any faster, guns are not distruted any more or less or chances of shotgun rush increase since commander has a spare res for health and ammo. On alien side fast fade, hive or lerk are not dependable on the skulks performance they'll come in high numbers free of effort endlessly. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 1.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Removing RFK would even worsen this, because that would mean every fade, lerk, onos gets the res at very same time and there's barely a chance that any of them will die between. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 3. and **]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
But I meant was before the comment you replied is that before we go turning the game upsidedown on the lifeform side, we should see if theres an option before that. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 3.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My solution has three parts to it... hopefully they address your concerns.
Take the current system, and add the following changes:
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->1. TRFK should be introduced (because RFK naturally scales with the number of players); all support costs should be moved to TR (support must be scalable for player-count), and PRFK removed (to reduce the effect of "slippery slope").<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
This is most likely very simple to implement. It would involve the following things: - change the "on kill" award from PR to TR - change medpack, ammopack, ARC, and MAC costs from PR to TR (this would involve changing the "item type"); and any equivalent "items" on the alien team
More in-depth reasons can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858385" target="_blank">in this post</a> as well as <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858620" target="_blank">this post</a>.
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->2. Rework the costs of player-scaled support (ammo/medpacks, etc.); AND rework the costs of the standard pace-setting technologies (structures, researches etc.); AND/OR rework the income from TRFK or extractors.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> The goal is to: - have your support costs such that support "items" (or other player-scaled commander "items", e.g. Infantry Portals) are purchased primarily through your incoming TRFK, <i>i.e. resources spent on support = resources gained through RFK</i>. This would be the 'combat performance' component of the resource model. - have your tech tree costs such that tech tree "items" (or other "standard" purchases, e.g. MACs) are purchased primarily through your incoming TRFK, <i>i.e. resources spent on the tech tree = resources gained through extractors</i>. This would be the 'pace-setting' component of the resource model.
Of course the <i>above situation</i> will never truly occur (and can only be <b>approached</b>), but what this means is that if your team is doing well on the field, then your commander will have more leeway (more TR) that he can put towards either support or climbing the tech tree, whereas if your team is doing poorly on the field, then your commander is under more pressure to weigh out the costs and benefits of dedicating resources towards support or spending it on climbing the tech tree. And of course, if you hold more resource towers, then your commander is better able to spend on both support AND climbing the tech tree.
Because game paces do vary and player combat performance varies even more, <b>approaching</b> this ideal would require playtesting and stats-tracking - ideally you would balance for the average situation at mostly higher levels of play, and ignore any outliers.
Other details on this idea can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858401" target="_blank">here</a> for marines and <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858416" target="_blank">here</a> for aliens.
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->3. Rework the individual "unit" balance AND tighten the difference in power-levels of the different units, AND/OR add fail-safes.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> This is necessary because of the increased abundance of super-units in NS2, as well as the the two-resource model causing unit balance around the economy to be unviable, compared to NS1's single-resource model. For details, see <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114073&view=findpost&p=1858599" target="_blank">this post</a>.
This would involve making the super-units a little weaker (particularly hit-point-wise), and the weaker units much more effective; as well as adding fail-safes so that in any situation, one unit does not outclass any other, and one strategy does not outclass any other. This will be a difficult task without significant playtesting.
Yes, it's going to be some work, but I would rather that they overhaul and renovate the system now - that they build a robust foundation for the game - than that they constantly just "patch up the leaks" and hope for the best.
** Regarding the issue of getting high-level equipment/life-forms at the same time, I acknowledge that that's a problem - that's what I talk about in <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->3.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The likelihood of an "onos rush" for instance is high with the current system (as well as my proposed system). This would not always occur en masse simultaneously of course, because each person's resource situation will be offset positively or negatively by their spending (for equipment) and their dying (losing equipment). And if you are too stingy with your resources, you will be stuck playing skulk for most of the time - most players will not do this: they will continue to weigh up their options and save or spend.
You're right that PRFK may offset the time each person gets a certain piece of equipment or life-form, but it does so subtractively: it exacerbates the balance issue by allowing you to get that first onos <b>even faster</b> than "usual" (if you had not spent anything, and if you had not gotten any kills).
"At the very same time" is an over-exaggeration, but the issue of <b>abundance</b> is real, and <u>that's exactly why the individual balance, and the presence of super-units needs to be looked at</u> - which is what I talk about in <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:gray--><span style="color:gray"><!--/coloro-->Edited for readability.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Comments
No. It's thanks to the <b><i>number of resource nodes you hold</i></b>, which is how it should be.
<!--quoteo(post=1858486:date=Jul 7 2011, 12:35 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jul 7 2011, 12:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858486"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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. <u>i think thats all there is left to say on this thread..</u><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The solution I propose is far, far simpler, gives more meaningful choices, and shifts the focus to taking and holding territory, by making it more apparent that you need to play for the TEAM if you PERSONALLY wish to succeed.
Slippery slopes (and in fact, any kind of significant advantage) from PRFK are only present with really powerful characters and the really good [at killing] players who play them (they get a lot more kills, so they get a lot more PR, so they keep their better characters more consistently, so they get more kills and so on - PRFK for these players is significant to their resource flow). Otherwise the PRFK is insignificant compared to a single player's overall resource flow, just as <!--coloro:#9999FF--><span style="color:#9999FF"><!--/coloro-->Chris0<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> previously postulated; the average player does not gain any significant advantage from PRFK. But those slippery slopes from those good [at killing] players are exactly what you want to avoid; they, of all players, don't need the advantage.
Let me address each of your "circumventions" (or not) in turn:
- Pres for turrets - Read <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858394" target="_blank">Schimmel's post</a> above, where <b>he convinced me that this was a bad idea</b>, and my response to it just below it.
- Armories <b>are</b> medical stations that heal multiple persons. An AOE spell to replace medpacks that heals a constant amount of health to each marine may be a viable PR expenditure, because it would scale with the number of players. At the same time though... it could be too powerful or too difficult to use, and increases the dilemmas (complexity) while reducing the options (who to medpack). For example, if it cost 10 res, and healed 40 hp, but 4 out of your 6 marines are on full HP already, it's hardly an efficient purchase. Or, if you had your entire team in a close-knit mass, you could ostensibly heal all 15 players or something, that's <b>too</b> efficient. And what if you had 4 marines, not at max HP, in the room, but they were all too far apart from each other for you to heal more than one or two?
- Tres for IP - I explained in the response I just spoke about, how IPs do scale with the number of players, if TRFK were involved. It went something like this: more players = more TRFK = more TR available for IPs = more IPs as necessary = more players spawning = supports more players.
The difference with the alien team is considerable, for reasons I've expressed in a post above, and I've come up with a very simple ideal that provides solutions to that consideration. I hope you'll properly read <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858416" target="_blank">that post</a>. If there are any reasons that you see that I have missed, please tell me, and if they are the reasons why my ideal does not work (or if there are other reasons why my ideal does not work), tell me why.
<u>Also</u>, I didn't like how you decided to unilaterally "wrap up the thread". Don't. It doesn't help your argument at all.
I HATE IT!!!!
What I'm getting at is the problem old Combat mode had where aliens would inevitably win if they all went for higher lifeforms, as those get disproportionally more health than any other upgrade path; ultimately, you'd need 3 times as many marines as aliens to get enough firepower. With little to spend Pres on other than lifeforms we'll probably see the same effect.
As far as the rest of the IDEAS in this thread are concerned, I say WAIT!
Wait till the Onos / other structures and Exo-suit / heavy weapons / jet-packs are in.
Making changes to the game right now to deal with our current situation would result in changes needing to be made again and again later on once things are added and balance changes in game by these additions.
What I'm getting at is the problem old Combat mode had where aliens would inevitably win if they all went for higher lifeforms, as those get disproportionally more health than any other upgrade path; ultimately, you'd need 3 times as many marines as aliens to get enough firepower. With little to spend Pres on other than lifeforms we'll probably see the same effect.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly the problem I've detailed in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114073&view=findpost&p=1858599" target="_blank">this post</a>, but it's a case for why we need to tighten the unit power tiers and/or add fail-safes.
<u><b>Majin</b></u>: It's not so much about making changes to the game right now to deal with our <b>current</b> situation, it's about building a <b>robust foundation</b>, which the game currently does not have.
Or rework the resource system, just saying because it has brought up more problems than gains :(
People don't choose the rifle because it isn't very good at killing Fades and Fades are currently the highest lifeforms so late game you will see a few of them.
In what way, specifically? Surely not a return to the NS1 model of a single team-controlled resource?
Whatever we do, I think it needs to meet these criteria:
<!--quoteo(post=1855585:date=Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 23 2011, 09:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the criteria we have to work with is:
1) maintains a similar overall pace from game to game
2) player equipment scales with the number of players (the same resources for equipment available per head from game to game)
3) commander support scales with the number of players (the same resources for support available per head from game to game)
4) allows players in the field to make their own decisions about their equipment/lifeform
5) balanced and does not lead to slippery slopes
IMO, what the <u>current</u> system fails to do right now are criteria 3, and criteria 5 (due to PRFK).
You could, of course, very simply have a numerical multiplier on certain resources (that cover criteria 2 and 3), but I think it's a bit of a clumsy system to work with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The NS1 model doesn't meet criteria 1, 2, 3, or 4; though RFK helps its situation with criteria 2 and 3 - but on the whole, the system is not built on criteria 2 and 3 (and 4 only applies to the alien team). Whether it meets criteria 5 is a matter of opinion, but I think that on the whole it does, since the game is balanced around team strength (and economy) rather than individual strength.
If I knew I would surely try to express it, I preferred NS1 style it was so unique and diverse but put too much strain on one player.
Right now you are exploding with res, you would probably get away buying 3 shotguns everytime you die. Since fade is impossible to kill, you can take ridiciously risks and still end up 350 res by the time you die. Commander's are both extremely boring, it will improve a lot after controls get better and strats start to emerge but I dont see any sane person doing it over and over again. In PCW's this probably means that someone is just forced to go in there and it sucks horsass.
Lowering resflow extreme amount would be alright for "higher level" players for lack of a better word as they can probably think when it is worth to take the gun instead of taking it first chance you get making guns actually meaningful element but the "lower level" players would straggle as they lose the gun more often. Commander's would also have to capture more resource towers and there would be meaning in destroying the res towers. At the moment you'll end up with "gargage res" too soon woth 2-3 towers.
The currect system makes very poor use of great diverse features such as RFK, since marine commander does not get it, it doesnt mean that the upgrades are coming any faster, guns are not distruted any more or less or chances of shotgun rush increase since commander has a spare res for health and ammo. On alien side fast fade, hive or lerk are not dependable on the skulks performance they'll come in high numbers free of effort endlessly.
Removing RFK would even worsen this, because that would mean every fade, lerk, onos gets the res at very same time and there's barely a chance that any of them will die between.
But I meant was before the comment you replied is that before we go turning the game upsidedown on the lifeform side, we should see if theres an option before that.
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->1. TRFK should be introduced (because RFK naturally scales with the number of players); all support costs should be moved to TR (support must be scalable for player-count), and PRFK removed (to reduce the effect of "slippery slope").<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->2. Rework the income from TRFK and extractors, and rework the costs of player-scaled support (ammo, medpacks, etc.) so that <i>resources spent on support = resources gained through RFK</i>, and rework the costs of the standard pace-setting technologies (structures, researches, etc.) so that <i>resources spent on the tech tree = resources gained through extractors</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->3. Rework the individual "unit" balance AND tighten the difference in power-levels of the different units, AND/OR add fail-safes; this is necessary because of the relative abundance of units in NS2, and because with NS2's 2-resource model units cannot simply be balanced around the resource model as it was in NS1's 1-resource model.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--quoteo(post=1858734:date=Jul 8 2011, 05:13 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Jul 8 2011, 05:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858734"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I knew I would surely try to express it, I preferred NS1 style it was so unique and diverse but put too much strain on one player.
Right now you are exploding with res, you would probably get away buying 3 shotguns everytime you die. Since fade is impossible to kill, you can take ridiciously risks and still end up 350 res by the time you die. Commander's are both extremely boring, it will improve a lot after controls get better and strats start to emerge but I dont see any sane person doing it over and over again. In PCW's this probably means that someone is just forced to go in there and it sucks horsass. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 2.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Lowering resflow extreme amount would be alright for "higher level" players for lack of a better word as they can probably think when it is worth to take the gun instead of taking it first chance you get making guns actually meaningful element but the "lower level" players would straggle as they lose the gun more often. Commander's would also have to capture more resource towers and there would be meaning in destroying the res towers. At the moment you'll end up with "gargage res" too soon woth 2-3 towers. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 1.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The currect system makes very poor use of great diverse features such as RFK, since marine commander does not get it, it doesnt mean that the upgrades are coming any faster, guns are not distruted any more or less or chances of shotgun rush increase since commander has a spare res for health and ammo. On alien side fast fade, hive or lerk are not dependable on the skulks performance they'll come in high numbers free of effort endlessly. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 1.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Removing RFK would even worsen this, because that would mean every fade, lerk, onos gets the res at very same time and there's barely a chance that any of them will die between. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 3. and **]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
But I meant was before the comment you replied is that before we go turning the game upsidedown on the lifeform side, we should see if theres an option before that. <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->[See 3.]<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My solution has three parts to it... hopefully they address your concerns.
Take the current system, and add the following changes:
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->1. TRFK should be introduced (because RFK naturally scales with the number of players); all support costs should be moved to TR (support must be scalable for player-count), and PRFK removed (to reduce the effect of "slippery slope").<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
This is most likely very simple to implement. It would involve the following things:
- change the "on kill" award from PR to TR
- change medpack, ammopack, ARC, and MAC costs from PR to TR (this would involve changing the "item type"); and any equivalent "items" on the alien team
More in-depth reasons can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858385" target="_blank">in this post</a> as well as <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858620" target="_blank">this post</a>.
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->2. Rework the costs of player-scaled support (ammo/medpacks, etc.); AND rework the costs of the standard pace-setting technologies (structures, researches etc.); AND/OR rework the income from TRFK or extractors.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The goal is to:
- have your support costs such that support "items" (or other player-scaled commander "items", e.g. Infantry Portals) are purchased primarily through your incoming TRFK, <i>i.e. resources spent on support = resources gained through RFK</i>. This would be the 'combat performance' component of the resource model.
- have your tech tree costs such that tech tree "items" (or other "standard" purchases, e.g. MACs) are purchased primarily through your incoming TRFK, <i>i.e. resources spent on the tech tree = resources gained through extractors</i>. This would be the 'pace-setting' component of the resource model.
Of course the <i>above situation</i> will never truly occur (and can only be <b>approached</b>), but what this means is that if your team is doing well on the field, then your commander will have more leeway (more TR) that he can put towards either support or climbing the tech tree, whereas if your team is doing poorly on the field, then your commander is under more pressure to weigh out the costs and benefits of dedicating resources towards support or spending it on climbing the tech tree. And of course, if you hold more resource towers, then your commander is better able to spend on both support AND climbing the tech tree.
Because game paces do vary and player combat performance varies even more, <b>approaching</b> this ideal would require playtesting and stats-tracking - ideally you would balance for the average situation at mostly higher levels of play, and ignore any outliers.
Other details on this idea can be found <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858401" target="_blank">here</a> for marines and <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1858416" target="_blank">here</a> for aliens.
<!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->3. Rework the individual "unit" balance AND tighten the difference in power-levels of the different units, AND/OR add fail-safes.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
This is necessary because of the increased abundance of super-units in NS2, as well as the the two-resource model causing unit balance around the economy to be unviable, compared to NS1's single-resource model. For details, see <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114073&view=findpost&p=1858599" target="_blank">this post</a>.
This would involve making the super-units a little weaker (particularly hit-point-wise), and the weaker units much more effective; as well as adding fail-safes so that in any situation, one unit does not outclass any other, and one strategy does not outclass any other. This will be a difficult task without significant playtesting.
Yes, it's going to be some work, but I would rather that they overhaul and renovate the system now - that they build a robust foundation for the game - than that they constantly just "patch up the leaks" and hope for the best.
** Regarding the issue of getting high-level equipment/life-forms at the same time, I acknowledge that that's a problem - that's what I talk about in <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->3.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The likelihood of an "onos rush" for instance is high with the current system (as well as my proposed system). This would not always occur en masse simultaneously of course, because each person's resource situation will be offset positively or negatively by their spending (for equipment) and their dying (losing equipment). And if you are too stingy with your resources, you will be stuck playing skulk for most of the time - most players will not do this: they will continue to weigh up their options and save or spend.
You're right that PRFK may offset the time each person gets a certain piece of equipment or life-form, but it does so subtractively: it exacerbates the balance issue by allowing you to get that first onos <b>even faster</b> than "usual" (if you had not spent anything, and if you had not gotten any kills).
"At the very same time" is an over-exaggeration, but the issue of <b>abundance</b> is real, and <u>that's exactly why the individual balance, and the presence of super-units needs to be looked at</u> - which is what I talk about in <!--coloro:#99FF99--><span style="color:#99FF99"><!--/coloro-->2.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:gray--><span style="color:gray"><!--/coloro-->Edited for readability.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->