<!--quoteo(post=1946829:date=Jun 26 2012, 08:00 PM:name=VoodooHex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VoodooHex @ Jun 26 2012, 08:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946829"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This would definitely put a damper on base turtling, however, this would really sting when laying down initial defense in the early game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? Usually defensive structures like sentries and whips don't go up until the game has progressed a bit. If you mean things like infantry portal, those can be well under the one extractor cap.
Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be able to turtle up and slow down the entire map <i>in the early game</i>. Bunkers, spinecrawlers and cannons are all expensive when you haven't even saturated 1 base yet in SC2, and it's for good reason :)
<!--quoteo(post=1946173:date=Jun 23 2012, 05:43 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jun 23 2012, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually like the idea of costing tres to spawn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've mentioned this before somewhere, but the way Science & Industry did this was cool. Your team's "score" is the bank account balance of the company you work for. When you die, they have to clone you, and it costs $750 ($500 if you research advanced cloning techniques!). The comparison isn't exact because you aren't willfully spending your money elsewhere (it mostly just goes up when you play well, and down when the opponent deals damage to you, but it's not a 'resource' the way TRes is), but it's close!
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1946862:date=Jun 26 2012, 06:26 PM:name=internetexplorer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (internetexplorer @ Jun 26 2012, 06:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946862"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've mentioned this before somewhere, but the way Science & Industry did this was cool. Your team's "score" is the bank account balance of the company you work for. When you die, they have to clone you, and it costs $750 ($500 if you research advanced cloning techniques!). The comparison isn't exact because you aren't willfully spending your money elsewhere (it mostly just goes up when you play well, and down when the opponent deals damage to you, but it's not a 'resource' the way TRes is), but it's close!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Empires mod does something similar, but they use tickets instead of resources. Each respawn takes a ticket and you have a limited number of tickets each round. It helps prevent the 1+hr slogfests that are all too common in NS2.
Just to recap, what is the problem to which supply is the solution? To me, the problem is the current freedom with which commanders can create a disproportionate number of NPC agressors (ARCs, Sentries, Whips and Hydras[except hydras are currently capped]). Disproportionate quantities, firepower and hitpoints compared to the player characters.
This comes about because of problems with the resource model, where income is a flow and expenditure is a transaction. In the early game your rate of income is limited and it has to be spread across buildings & research. Later your rate of income maxes out, research is complete so all that's left is to dump res in to buildings.
The solution shouldn't interfere with the early game resource model but changes the late game one. (I haven't played SC2 but I remember the supply model from SC1 so that's what I'm going off when i say...) I don't think supply is a good solution because you have to devote a certain percentage of your time & resources to unlocking more supply cap in the early game, which is a bit boring anyway. Once unlocked it's irrelevant, so it becomes just another thing competing for resources at the start of the game until you hit some kind of hard cap anyway. (Please correct me if I've got the wrong idea here)
I think a better solution is resource consumption for NPC agressors.
For example, an arc gets 5 shots at which point the comm has to spent tRes to "resupply" it. Go back to the model where sentries had finite rounds. This creates a late game resource sink. It also means that economy remains important throughout the game. It should prevent late game stalemates where marines are boxed in to their base because one extractor shouldn't be enough to feed a huge number of ARCs or sentries. It would be eaiser for aliens to inflict economic damage simply by probing the defences.
There's also a diminishing returns effect created by the administritive burden of keeping those NPCs supplied.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
I'd say no to ARC/sentry resupply because 1) it didn't really work and 2) it was very tedious for the comm. The only viable alternative I see to a cap of some sort is an upkeep system (think WC3) in which more structures/AI = less res flow (because some of that resflow is dedicated to upkeeping the existing structures).
<!--quoteo(post=1946891:date=Jun 27 2012, 03:39 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Jun 27 2012, 03:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946891"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd say no to ARC/sentry resupply because 1) it didn't really work and 2) it was very tedious for the comm. The only viable alternative I see to a cap of some sort is an upkeep system (think WC3) in which more structures/AI = less res flow (because some of that resflow is dedicated to upkeeping the existing structures).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd focus more on the idea of having those units consume resources <i>per shot</i> than the notion of having the comm clicking stuff. Perhaps it could be a little more thought through? F. eg. Sentries automatically restock at a fixed rate in exchange for a trickle of res. <i>Maybe</i> the comm can completely resupply it by clicking (at a penalty rate). That can be worked through for balance. Last time it was a one-patch wonder without any chance of refinement... I don't even remember if it cost anything to resupply, was it energy? It was trivial whatever it was.
I still like the idea of ARCs needing quite a lot of res to fire because then if you overdo it you'll run out of res and then half of your arc train becomes useless.
It's funny that you mentioned the upkeep system in WC3 because I absolutely hated it. I basically stopped playing RTS for years after that. I like the theory of it but it just had too much impact on my decision making. Anyway that kind of model won't solve the problem as I described above because it only consumes a percentage of your income. So long as I'm still getting income, I'll spam, albeit at a slower rate. Those NPC agressors represent a one-off investment which deal out damage for free and may even soak up some enemy agression which just allows my guys to do stuff unchallenged. The more of them I build, the greater the returns because of a geometric effect HP * Dmg.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1946921:date=Jun 27 2012, 04:38 AM:name=AuroN2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AuroN2 @ Jun 27 2012, 04:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946921"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->supply? what about an upkeep system? Like for every building u have you lose some income? that ups the tactics and downs the spamtics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's pretty much the only viable alternative besides a supply cap that I see. The downside is that many players hate upkeep systems (look at the rage towards WC3's upkeep system and how Blizzard didn't put it in SC2). Best to try a supply cap system first, since its both easily noticeable and common to RTSs.
I think the simplest solution is to have AI and comm/khamm controlled units capped in relation to occupied tech points. The in-game explanation would be that a hive or commstation can only support a specific number of NPC units. This would be useful for limiting ARCs, turrets, MACs, whips and drifters from being spammed. It would also connect map control to siege capability.
The specific mechanic could be setup a few different ways. You could assign units a numerical value (ARC/whip = 5, MAC/drifter = 2, etc) and have each occupied tech point have a value (~30) that it can support. This is just one random example of an implementation.
<!--quoteo(post=1947322:date=Jun 28 2012, 08:13 AM:name=culprit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (culprit @ Jun 28 2012, 08:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1947322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the simplest solution is to have AI and comm/khamm controlled units capped in relation to occupied tech points. The in-game explanation would be that a hive or commstation can only support a specific number of NPC units. This would be useful for limiting ARCs, turrets, MACs, whips and drifters from being spammed. It would also connect map control to siege capability.
The specific mechanic could be setup a few different ways. You could assign units a numerical value (ARC/whip = 5, MAC/drifter = 2, etc) and have each occupied tech point have a value (~30) that it can support. This is just one random example of an implementation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about instead of having that 30 point value, the capped tech points contribute to a set number per.
1 tech point gives access to put down 4 sentry guns/whips and 2 arcs?
The specific implementation and numbers aren't really that important to me. The main issue is that control of Tech Points should be made very valuable to the comm/khamm and the team as a whole. I think tying NPC unit availability to Tech Points creates a strong incentive for comm players to have a larger territory control strategy.
Linking NPC unit availability to territory control is what I am proposing. Think of it as 'territory supply'. I'm open to ideas on how to implement it cleanly.
The more I think about it the more I like this idea. Most games shouldn't be affected by a supply cap but the ones that are will be the ones that are currently the least fun. The ones with endless static defense spam. Late game will no longer be how many structures can I place, but how well can I place my structures. I would really genuinely like to try this out modded or official.
Comments
How so? Usually defensive structures like sentries and whips don't go up until the game has progressed a bit. If you mean things like infantry portal, those can be well under the one extractor cap.
Bunkers, spinecrawlers and cannons are all expensive when you haven't even saturated 1 base yet in SC2, and it's for good reason :)
<!--quoteo(post=1946173:date=Jun 23 2012, 05:43 PM:name=GORGEous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GORGEous @ Jun 23 2012, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946173"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I actually like the idea of costing tres to spawn.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've mentioned this before somewhere, but the way Science & Industry did this was cool.
Your team's "score" is the bank account balance of the company you work for. When you die, they have to clone you, and it costs $750 ($500 if you research advanced cloning techniques!). The comparison isn't exact because you aren't willfully spending your money elsewhere (it mostly just goes up when you play well, and down when the opponent deals damage to you, but it's not a 'resource' the way TRes is), but it's close!
Your team's "score" is the bank account balance of the company you work for. When you die, they have to clone you, and it costs $750 ($500 if you research advanced cloning techniques!). The comparison isn't exact because you aren't willfully spending your money elsewhere (it mostly just goes up when you play well, and down when the opponent deals damage to you, but it's not a 'resource' the way TRes is), but it's close!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Empires mod does something similar, but they use tickets instead of resources. Each respawn takes a ticket and you have a limited number of tickets each round. It helps prevent the 1+hr slogfests that are all too common in NS2.
This comes about because of problems with the resource model, where income is a flow and expenditure is a transaction. In the early game your rate of income is limited and it has to be spread across buildings & research. Later your rate of income maxes out, research is complete so all that's left is to dump res in to buildings.
The solution shouldn't interfere with the early game resource model but changes the late game one. (I haven't played SC2 but I remember the supply model from SC1 so that's what I'm going off when i say...) I don't think supply is a good solution because you have to devote a certain percentage of your time & resources to unlocking more supply cap in the early game, which is a bit boring anyway. Once unlocked it's irrelevant, so it becomes just another thing competing for resources at the start of the game until you hit some kind of hard cap anyway. (Please correct me if I've got the wrong idea here)
I think a better solution is resource consumption for NPC agressors.
For example, an arc gets 5 shots at which point the comm has to spent tRes to "resupply" it. Go back to the model where sentries had finite rounds. This creates a late game resource sink. It also means that economy remains important throughout the game. It should prevent late game stalemates where marines are boxed in to their base because one extractor shouldn't be enough to feed a huge number of ARCs or sentries. It would be eaiser for aliens to inflict economic damage simply by probing the defences.
There's also a diminishing returns effect created by the administritive burden of keeping those NPCs supplied.
Not sure how it could work for hydras or whips...
What about a low maintenance fee on some structures.
No need of res and structure cap.
You need to keep only what you really need on strategic area.
No more turtling, spamming.
I'd focus more on the idea of having those units consume resources <i>per shot</i> than the notion of having the comm clicking stuff. Perhaps it could be a little more thought through? F. eg. Sentries automatically restock at a fixed rate in exchange for a trickle of res. <i>Maybe</i> the comm can completely resupply it by clicking (at a penalty rate). That can be worked through for balance. Last time it was a one-patch wonder without any chance of refinement... I don't even remember if it cost anything to resupply, was it energy? It was trivial whatever it was.
I still like the idea of ARCs needing quite a lot of res to fire because then if you overdo it you'll run out of res and then half of your arc train becomes useless.
It's funny that you mentioned the upkeep system in WC3 because I absolutely hated it. I basically stopped playing RTS for years after that. I like the theory of it but it just had too much impact on my decision making. Anyway that kind of model won't solve the problem as I described above because it only consumes a percentage of your income. So long as I'm still getting income, I'll spam, albeit at a slower rate. Those NPC agressors represent a one-off investment which deal out damage for free and may even soak up some enemy agression which just allows my guys to do stuff unchallenged. The more of them I build, the greater the returns because of a geometric effect HP * Dmg.
Like for every building u have you lose some income? that ups the tactics and downs the spamtics.
Like for every building u have you lose some income? that ups the tactics and downs the spamtics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's pretty much the only viable alternative besides a supply cap that I see. The downside is that many players hate upkeep systems (look at the rage towards WC3's upkeep system and how Blizzard didn't put it in SC2). Best to try a supply cap system first, since its both easily noticeable and common to RTSs.
The specific mechanic could be setup a few different ways. You could assign units a numerical value (ARC/whip = 5, MAC/drifter = 2, etc) and have each occupied tech point have a value (~30) that it can support. This is just one random example of an implementation.
The specific mechanic could be setup a few different ways. You could assign units a numerical value (ARC/whip = 5, MAC/drifter = 2, etc) and have each occupied tech point have a value (~30) that it can support. This is just one random example of an implementation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about instead of having that 30 point value, the capped tech points contribute to a set number per.
1 tech point gives access to put down 4 sentry guns/whips and 2 arcs?
2 tech points- 8 sentry guns/whips and 4 arcs
And so on.
Linking NPC unit availability to territory control is what I am proposing. Think of it as 'territory supply'. I'm open to ideas on how to implement it cleanly.