<!--quoteo(post=1946510:date=Jun 25 2012, 07:06 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jun 25 2012, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't care what exact 'timing' is better and balanced, whether its 10 minutes or greater than 10 minutes or even 10 seconds. This essentially doesn't matter in a 'better balanced economy' because both teams reach the same point at the same time. That is a <b>pacing</b> and accessibility issue. Basically, i have been assuming balanced timings between both teams the whole time (whether 10 minutes, 10 seconds, 10 hours is largely irrelevant). I'm talking about the fundamental system and the bad incentives it creates. I think you have me backwards.
*long post*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is missing in your theory is that more support is likely going to result in superior map control, which in turn leads to a resource income advantage. My impression is that the economy is too broken at the moment to really see this effect. Once resources are scarce, commanders will need to find a balance between teching and supporting. Then, giving no support at all is going to be a very risky option at best. So I would say that a 'better balanced economy', like you called it, <i>does</i> matter.
<!--quoteo(post=1946515:date=Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM:name=swalk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you misunderstood me. Energy powered abilities didn't make teams sit back in the base. It gave them the ability to keep fighting, when they had already lost, ie. pushed back into the base. Things such as beacon, meds and nano are really powerful abilities, that should NOT be "free"(regenerate automaticly over time). Energy was a bad mechanic, since using the abilities that used it, didn't take away from teching up, or map control. Putting it all on TRes was a good idea, as that creates TRes sinks in lategame, which both sides need. The costs/resflow needs to be adjusted, but that's not breaking news. The point is, the res model is on the right way. Energy just doesn't fit into NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with most of what you said, except that energy doesn't fit into NS2. It's a shame that the recent energy discussions here on the forum have drifted into such absolute directions - either there's no problem with energy, or it should be removed completely. What about using energy where it makes sense? The energy concept in itself is not a bad mechanic, what was bad is how it was used in NS2 (e.g. for meds or cysts). Energy can be used to create soft cooldowns, meaning you can use an ability x times before it goes on cooldown, as opposed to 1 time with a hard cooldown. For example Nano Shield could use a soft cooldown along the TRes cost and in my opinion Scan would work perfectly with just energy. You'd still have the trade-off to either scan less or buy another observatory. However the current all-TRes model is an improvement over the mess we had before.
<!--quoteo(post=1946505:date=Jun 26 2012, 02:42 AM:name=Jayaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jayaris @ Jun 26 2012, 02:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946505"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have also built a second Obs for more energy numerous times and seen other people do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Same here
<!--quoteo(post=1946533:date=Jun 26 2012, 04:26 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jun 26 2012, 04:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Energy was probably removed because...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reading this thread made me realise why energy was removed: Nano-shield & Nano-construct.
Up until this moment in this thread I haven't minded these abilities but it suddenly occurs to me that both are terrible features and should be removed completely.
Nano-construct is the worst offender. It undermines the balance efforts put in to structure build times. It also rarifies one of those key NS elements of the risk of building an extractor on your own (or the need for guarding, or the oportunity for a skulk to ambush). <i>And</i> it makes marines act like they're doing the comm a <i>favour</i> when they build a structure and that the comm should <i>at least</i> nano-construct them. (That last part is kinda meant to be humorous but you do actually hear it in the voice requests "Comm can you nano-construct me?")
Nano-shield has the potential to make for very interesting play. If you have to sacrifice something (a bit of res or a bit of energy) to protect an extractor while some marines sprint out there to protect it, that's engaging. Unfortunately it can be used on every marine just as they wade in to a hive, undermining all HP/dmg balance efforts (marines get twice as long to react & kill). Or it can be used to shield ARCs.
Now we suddenly have 4 energy based transactions spread across 2 classes of building, of which you may have many spread across the map.... time to consolidate!... and now we have the current system.
So I'm all for going back the old system and ok maybe Nano-shield can be reworked (just a simple cooldown would prevent its spamming).
I agree with the removal of energy, and i believe most problems can be alleviated with the introduction of cooldowns and the balancing of costs.
What if the abilities were made to be on long cooldowns on each building, and nano-construct were repurposed to reduce those cooldowns when cast on the relevant building?
for example let's say nanoshield is on a 30s cd. but you can nano-construct the CC for 5 tres and reduce the cd by 15s for the next cast? 10 tres + nanoshield cost to instantly nano more than 1 marine.
This simulates "floating energy" without having to add a 3rd resource type. it gives incentive to build extra buildings, as well as giving aliens priority targets (example: you see a nanoconstructed obs and attack it, you either force the comm to dump the nano immediately, wasting his res, or you kill the building and he doesn't use the ability which means even more wasted res).
<!--quoteo(post=1946510:date=Jun 25 2012, 07:06 PM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jun 25 2012, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let us take a point in time called x1 which marks the beginning of lategame where the team that does not use any supporting abilities obtains all its useful lategame tech researched. For whatever value of x1, the commander who keeps his troops ALIVE with things like scans, nanos and medpacks will reach full lategame tech at x1 + t = x2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are building your argument on wrong facts. x1 is NOT a fix time. It is variable and dependent on how many RTs you hold. And if the use of Nanoshield and Medpacks helps your team to secure this one RT, than it pays out easily. The only difference to energy is, that you have to decide if the nano and med is worth to be used or not. Instead of just spamming it because energy was free anyway. This introduces more decision-making into commanding.
Also you forgot, that a second obs can save your base. If you have only one obs, and you lose it, than you can't beacon. Game over... Same goes with a second CC. You simply forget important facts in your arguments.
And again, a <b>soft cooldown</b> is easier, clearer and more intuitive to implement without energy. Just add a grey scaled shadow that runns clockwise on the ability-button. Add a Number for uses on that button too and you got your cooldown soft. (=more than one use) It's way better than looking in every single structure how much energy it has.
<!--quoteo(post=1946601:date=Jun 25 2012, 06:37 PM:name=Wheeee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wheeee @ Jun 25 2012, 06:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946601"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree with the removal of energy, and i believe most problems can be alleviated with the introduction of cooldowns and the balancing of costs.
This simulates "floating energy" without having to add a 3rd resource type. it gives incentive to build extra buildings, as well as giving aliens priority targets (example: you see a nanoconstructed obs and attack it, you either force the comm to dump the nano immediately, wasting his res, or you kill the building and he doesn't use the ability which means even more wasted res).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't know how people can say they're behind energy and then go on to say cooldowns are required. Adding cooldowns is just a band-aid fix to try and fix problems made by this change..
What a great idea, let's remove energy and replace it with a more complex mechanic for the sake of having one less resource type.
I'm struggling to see what was wrong with energy, what was the reason to remove it beyond wanting everything to cost TRes?
Where there really people so uneducated in RTS that they couldn't comprehend what energy was?
<!--quoteo(post=1946651:date=Jun 26 2012, 02:12 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jun 26 2012, 02:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are building your argument on wrong facts. x1 is NOT a fix time. It is variable and dependent on how many RTs you hold. And if the use of Nanoshield and Medpacks helps your team to secure this one RT, than it pays out easily. The only difference to energy is, that you have to decide if the nano and med is worth to be used or not. Instead of just spamming it because energy was free anyway. This introduces more decision-making into commanding.
Also you forgot, that a second obs can save your base. If you have only one obs, and you lose it, than you can't beacon. Game over... Same goes with a second CC. You simply forget important facts in your arguments.
And again, a <b>soft cooldown</b> is easier, clearer and more intuitive to implement without energy. Just add a grey scaled shadow that runns clockwise on the ability-button. Add a Number for uses on that button too and you got your cooldown soft. (=more than one use) It's way better than looking in every single structure how much energy it has.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, let's add all these other things to make up for the lack of energy.
I'm getting tired of people arguing about Nano/Med/Ammo what exactly was wrong with Umbra or Echo? There were more mechanics that used energy than the ones you have a problem with.
Seems to me people only had a problem with Cysts and CC abilities - They should of been adjusted on their own instead of this sloppy decision.
You can't spam Nano on one CC, period. You simply don't get enough energy, so you had the decision between Nano or having enough energy for Medpacks etc.
"It's way better than looking in every single structure how much energy it has."
Could of added visual indicators over buildings as well, could of just changed the CC's support mechanics.
I never had an isue checking structures or keeping mental tabs on how much energy I had, don't really think anyone in silver league onwards would in SC2 either. Is this meant to be taken as a a somewhat serious RTS system? Or simply diluted to the point that anyone can command?
How are soft-cooldowns going to be any better in terms of 'looking at every building' how will I see your mystical greyshadow clocks if I'm not on the building it belongs to?
You've stated a problem and then suggested a solution that fails to fix it.
Most people it seems didn't wanted a complete removal of energy, but to limit it to temporary abilities, in contrast with permanent structures like cysts.
What I don't like about the change is that we've gone from a 3 res system in NS1 (Pres for meds and ammo, Tres and energy) to a single resource economy. Simpler for the player but more complicated to balance without cooldowns and such.
If you're going to add cooldowns to abilities then this change seems like a waste of time. A better method would have been to unify all energy abilities, cap the max energy at a low number (say 20 or so if a beacon costs 15 energy) and have extra CCs provide an increased energy cap. Energy regen could be based on number of players combined with territory controlled (make the power nodes useful again?). Nano shield shouldn't be an early game ability so that could be researched at the armory.
<!--quoteo(post=1946663:date=Jun 26 2012, 11:59 AM:name=Jayaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jayaris @ Jun 26 2012, 11:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How are soft-cooldowns going to be any better in terms of 'looking at every building' how will I see your mystical greyshadow clocks if I'm not on the building it belongs to?
You've stated a problem and then suggested a solution that fails to fix it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, that I could not make it clearer. The buttons for abilities are in the Assist-Tab of the commander menu. No need to click on any building All buttons are there. And thats where the clock goes. Like in C&C. No need to click on buildings or look at some numbers that are different for every building.
Energy was nothing else than a soft cooldown. Energy filled up over time = cooldown. It was soft because you could use the ability more than one time before the cooldown stopped you. It's way more clear to have all the abilities in the Assist-tab with the cooldown visible right there. (If a cooldown is necessary! We will only see this, when the res income is balanced.) If the building for a abiltie is missing, it is grayed out.
Having abilities cost res just added more decisions for the com. Instead of spamming it mandatory. (When your energy was full, you wasted an advantage. The ability was mandatory to use.) There was no decision-making in dropping Nano, etc. you had to do it to play effective. Now you have to think if the res investment in using the ability will pay off.
<!--quoteo(post=1946668:date=Jun 26 2012, 03:19 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jun 26 2012, 03:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946668"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, that I could not make it clearer. The buttons for abilities are in the Assist-Tab of the commander menu. No need to click on any building All buttons are there. And thats where the clock goes. Like in C&C. No need to click on buildings or look at some numbers that are different for every building.
Energy was nothing else than a soft cooldown. Energy filled up over time = cooldown. It was soft because you could use the ability more than one time before the cooldown stopped you. It's way more clear to have all the abilities in the Assist-tab with the cooldown visible right there. (If a cooldown is necessary! We will only see this, when the res income is balanced.) If the building for a abiltie is missing, it is grayed out.
Having abilities cost res just added more decisions for the com. Instead of spamming it mandatory. (When your energy was full, you wasted an advantage. The ability was mandatory to use.) There was no decision-making in dropping Nano, etc. you had to do it to play effective. Now you have to think if the res investment in using the ability will pay off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A soft cooldown is a soft cooldown.
Energy allows for stockpiling, different starting energy values that are more flexible than a soft cooldown a soft cooldown is as rigid as you can get.
So now you need to set some buildings abilities to start on cooldown if you want the Crag to not be able to Umbra immediately(as it should be).
And you'll never be able to use the ability more than once in X seconds because of the cooldown.
Energy is of course free as well.
More choices, more choices - Because in 209 all commanders did was spam Nano, no wait that didn't happen. Because in 209 all commanders did was spam scan when it became available, no wait that didn't happen. Because in 209 all Khaamanders did was use Umbra when the energy rolled round even if no marines were present, no wait..
It seems that contrary to your statement that Energy is holding people at gunpoint to play like baddies and just spam abilities isn't true.
You don't even generate enough energy to spam Nano you can construct maybe 3-5 times if you're lucky, shield 1-2. You think that the Comm has been given more options, but you're wrong all he's been given is the ability to get to a specific destination faster.
If support abilities cost energy, they now cost TRes and the TRes model is changed to increase the amount of Resources gained. Then the developers have clearly accounted your overall income in regards to the new costs of support abilities. So you're essentially getting what the developers feel is an acceptable amount of resources to properly support/expand/research etc.
So you can not support and get more Resources sure, but if that's what the Developers wanted they would of left the resource model the same as it was.
Before you had to balance Nano with Ammo/Health, the reason this didn't work was because your starting energy was too high and the regen etc. were poorly balanced if they had changed that it would of :
- Made a second CC more desirable - Allowed real decisions how to balance your support energy
Instead you've got an overabundance of a singular resource that can be used for anything and at the end of the day this will eventually dilute strategy, because as players get better it will be more effective to simply bumrush a tech branch instead of giving away any support early game.
<!--quoteo(post=1946668:date=Jun 26 2012, 11:19 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jun 26 2012, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946668"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having abilities cost res just added more decisions for the com. Instead of spamming it mandatory. (When your energy was full, you wasted an advantage. The ability was mandatory to use.) There was no decision-making in dropping Nano, etc. you had to do it to play effective. Now you have to think if the res investment in using the ability will pay off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There can be a plenty of depth in when and how you burn the energy even if you're going to use it anyway. A well designed energy ability requires smart use just as your average res ability does. Even something as simple as NS1 scan still has some pretty interesting ins and outs and it probably could be refined further if necessary.
NS2 is spread out so thin into various res pools that I'm not really opposing the energy removal though. However, it's more because of how NS2 functions right now and less due to energy abilities being inheritently bad.
I think energy removal was really good. I dont think the abilitites even need any cooldowns if the economy/ability costs are fixed. Right now you just simply have way too much res if you manage to hold even a couple of rts. And then becuase of that you get everything researched way too quickly which of course leads to res that you can only use for ability spam.
Also, if you can effectively pressure and take down enemy rt's to the point of winning the game with no support, then id say you deserve the win. Realistically your marines are going to take hits, get parasited, need ammo and scans to be effective.
<!--quoteo(post=1946582:date=Jun 26 2012, 09:27 AM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Jun 26 2012, 09:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946582"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is missing in your theory is that more support is likely going to result in superior map control, which in turn leads to a resource income advantage. My impression is that the economy is too broken at the moment to really see this effect. Once resources are scarce, commanders will need to find a balance between teching and supporting. Then, giving no support at all is going to be a very risky option at best. So I would say that a 'better balanced economy', like you called it, <i>does</i> matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1946651:date=Jun 26 2012, 07:12 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jun 26 2012, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are building your argument on wrong facts. x1 is NOT a fix time. It is variable and dependent on how many RTs you hold. And if the use of Nanoshield and Medpacks helps your team to secure this one RT, than it pays out easily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea guys i already considered map control... I'm only arguing for stuff like obs energy, shift energy, shade energy, crag energy. These are all abilities that are not tied directly to map control. I already stated the following :s. *edit* perhaps a dual energy/res cost system would work better for alien chambers imho. But energy is needed to prevent spamming of abilities off one chamber. <!--quoteo(post=1946510:date=Jun 26 2012, 03:06 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jun 26 2012, 03:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... I agree that med/ammo should cost res....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dont think using energy <b>tastefully</b> for specific abilities is unecessarily complex if the energy limitations provide interesting and meaningful gameplay choices and timings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Additionally, the problem was cysts/nano/med/ammo costing energy and it not being a scarce resource for those options. This was a very different picture to obs energy, shift energy, shade energy, crag energy.
Instead of addressing the majority of posts individually, I'll just address the most common points I've seen:
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>Energy is intuitive:</u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
One very common argument here is that energy is unintuitive. I really wonder how it may be unintuitive; in the UI it was clear whether something costs energy or not. Some say that having multiple buildings with energy was rather complicated, but that is just a matter of implementing the GUI for the game. Though you could also go for a shared energy pool game-design wise. If you look at traditional RTS games, they usually had a per-unit or per-building energy (/mana/rage/whatever) pool though. Also, the conecept of energy isn't new at all. I mentioned other RTS games, look at warcraft 3 for example; almost every unit had abilities and many units had their own pool of energy ("mana") and it was one of the most popular & successful games.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>Cooldown is a simplified version of energy:</u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Some people want to add a cooldown, but think that energy is inherently bad. This really surprise me, since it's actually sort-of the same thing. Energy however, is more flexible then a regular cooldown.
If you don't see what I'm getting at: -> 30 secs cooldown -> == energy pool of 30 with regeneration of 1 energy per sec
It is the same thing!
Though, what energy allowed is a pool rather then just a simple cooldown. This a much better approach for things like nano shield, so you are actually able to more then one at a time; it adds some more tactical depth then just having a cooldown.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>Arguable: TRes gives more strategical depth:</u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
As I've explained in my OP:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My major concern with switching over is that abilities just get too dependant on the resources. It doesn't really matter whether it is TRES or PRES since both are tied to RTs. This means abilities that cost TRES will get very little use on low tres and get spammed with high tres. Ultimately this just ends up a slippery slope, no matter how you adjust the costs; since the team with the extractor advantage can just spam abilities and advance their advantage even further with little chance of the enemy team competing..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To put it differently:
Low income -> Abilities don't get used High income -> Abilities get spammed
I can see where you (those, who think TRes -> more strategical depth) are coming from, but ultimately, long-term planning is usually superior to short-term. I see it has some depth to it when you can make the decision to support with medpacks and delay your weapon upgrades/tech in order to achieve a long-term victory (let's say securing an extractor). But as far as I can tell, that is the only situation where it adds some sort of strategical depth. Otherwise I think it's more crippling after all, since as I've pointed out above, you'll be more driven to spam with lots of money and driven to avoid that decision with low income (as the risk gradually increases with lower income).
Now if you look at the way I proposed for medpacks/ammo it is not as much about your current res situation, which can be good or bad, but rather your current stockpile of medpacks/ammo. It is a different decision you need to make - do you want to play safe, and sparingly use medpacks / ammo in case a dire situation arises? Or do you want to drop them more regularly to strengthen your marines on the field, but risk that you lack the required supplies when a situation arises (eg. new hive dropped/extractors under attack/sudden fade you might take down with meds etc).
This decision is clearly different from the res based on, but I think it's much better. Why? Because it is true throughout the entire game as it is independent from the res flow; res flow just too heavily impacts the decision regardless of the overall state - so I think the latter option is actually more tactical.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><u><b>It <strike>will</strike> won't be better as the res flow improves</b></u><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I partially explained it in the section above (so read it first :P), but again, this isn't quite true. When res flow is improved only the point of where you have to make the decision changes, but the problems won't get fixed.
While this doesn't exactly map to reality, we can look at this to understand it a bit:
This example is far from perfect, but it can show a few things: the horizontal line represents the "ideal" case, where with 50% probability the com will go for a medpack. With this, we can easily observe that if we increase the cost, this point changes to be further away when we have more extractors. On the opposite, if we reduce the cost, the point comes closer to having 1 extractor.
Basically, no matter how we adjust the res, we just move that point around. If you have enough extractors, you can always spam. If you don't have enough res, you won't be using medpacks (or not as much). Merely the point changes when you can or can not spam or drop medpacks with adjusting the cost and resflow. While this graph doesn't reflect human behaviour (how it could it anyway, human behaviour is far to complex), it should show the fundamental problem I see here; no matter how you adjust the costs, it just shifts the viability around and won't fix any problems.
Though, of course you could shift it to the extremes. So either that you'll never see medpacks unless you are already winning anyway, but then again, it's that other issue - slippery slope; the team that is already winning just gets another boost. And in addition, we'll have a feature that gets little to no use. Or we make it viable at any time, but then again, we'll get ######loads of spam without really hurting the team. If it is somewhere in the middle we'll get a bit of both, uselessness early on and spam later on. Having it on a more constant basis is MUCH better.
On a last note, this is only true in the current resource system. So the other option is to make radical changes, so at ANY given time, with low or high res income you still have to make that decision to drop meds or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1946340:date=Jun 24 2012, 08:51 PM:name=Jayaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jayaris @ Jun 24 2012, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In regards to the OP suggestion of a specialized team based resource, it already exists - It's called personal resources. You want there to be a scalable model by which each player has a reasonable access to Ammo/Health just let requests automatically drop Health/Ammo at the cost of PRes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mh, how would that work? If you could just do it instantly it's just like a hp boost for pres. Also it gives the com less work - the current system keeps the com busy at least and requires team communitcation (either though ingame menus, voice or chat).
Also it is a bit different. PRes depends on extractors. What I suggested does not.
<!--quoteo(post=1946515:date=Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM:name=swalk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Energy powered abilities didn't make teams sit back in the base. It gave them the ability to keep fighting, when they had already lost, ie. pushed back into the base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TBH I think that is a different problem, alien sort of lack that finisher kind of attack. Marines have ARCs and on lv3 weapons/armor they are incredibly powerful vs just a base of skulks. Aliens on the other hand struggle against a well defended base, even with good support. It has gotten better tbh, but it still isn't good.
Nice post I agree with the two first points but I don't really understand the two last ones.
A simple example, let's say you start the game as marine, you drop an armory, maybe an obs. You have low income and low res. Now your marines try to secure your two first RTs, will you drop them medpacks even though you have low income ? Sure you will, since securing the first RTs is very important.
Abilities will get used even at low income <i>if</i> they are cost efficient. We could have a problem if medpacks were always less efficient than say, an early upgrade.
*
I think we should also distinguish two game regimes, in the first one, the resource limited regime, you wait for resources to buy the next upgrade. Since the cost of upgrades (e.g. weapon/armor level) is increasing along the tech tree, this can be quite long even if you have several RTs. In this regime, the trade-offs between support and tech should works well, assuming things are balanced correctly.
In the second one, you have bought everything and you are free to spam. The game is a bit silly at this stage.
I think the game should be balanced to spend most of time in the first regime. In a typical game, the full tech tree shouldn't be researched, this allow to have some diversity between games.
Note that both starcraft 1 and 2 have this kind of dynamic, for example the zergs starts spamming spines when he's maxed.
*
About the slippery slope, I'm not sure it's a bad thing, is there too much slippery slope right now ?
AurOn2COOKIES! FREEDOM, AND BISCUITS!AustraliaJoin Date: 2012-01-13Member: 140224Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Forum staff
Right now, especialu late game, everything is easy to get, medpacks? might aswell just give you an armory to hold that point, as medpacks are only woth dropping on parasited, or hive/harvester/upgrade ninjas. This new model is Ugly, unbalanced, and just plain unintuitive. the energy system was perfect, it made sense, PLUS it was intuitive, you couldn't spam anything without consequences. now, the consequence is very small, a few res? takes a few ticks to get it back, but you didn't use up much. Energy however, gives you a dynamic, decided-by-you cooldown, Instead of a hardcoded cooldown, you had a choice to "give nanoconstruct to this guy" or "nano shield to this guy", now, 3 res nano construct to someone building an extractor is a must, as you get it back nearly instantly after the res tower is done.
<!--quoteo(post=1950256:date=Jul 10 2012, 05:45 AM:name=AuroN2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AuroN2 @ Jul 10 2012, 05:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950256"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right now, especialu late game, everything is easy to get, medpacks? might aswell just give you an armory to hold that point, as medpacks are only woth dropping on parasited, or hive/harvester/upgrade ninjas. This new model is Ugly, unbalanced, and just plain unintuitive. the energy system was perfect, it made sense, PLUS it was intuitive, you couldn't spam anything without consequences. now, the consequence is very small, a few res? takes a few ticks to get it back, but you didn't use up much. Energy however, gives you a dynamic, decided-by-you cooldown, Instead of a hardcoded cooldown, you had a choice to "give nanoconstruct to this guy" or "nano shield to this guy", now, 3 res nano construct to someone building an extractor is a must, as you get it back nearly instantly after the res tower is done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problems you have described are not caused of having no more energy. If there is to much tRes, additional armories will be build. No matter if MedPacks are on energy or tRes. The new model is clearer, creates more decisions and is much more intuitive for new players. You can't spam anything without consequences. Dropping to much MedPacks will delay your economy. With the new system you have much more options and decisions to take.
<!--quoteo(post=1950293:date=Jul 10 2012, 02:24 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jul 10 2012, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problems you have described are not caused of having no more energy. If there is to much tRes, additional armories will be build. No matter if MedPacks are on energy or tRes. The new model is clearer, creates more decisions and is much more intuitive for new players. You can't spam anything without consequences. Dropping to much MedPacks will delay your economy. With the new system you have much more options and decisions to take.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asif Medpacks costing money = More options. Gameplay hasn't evolved at all, it's devolved.
The new game system is terrible, I'm officially done with this unintuitive game.
Half the people who like the change don't even play commander.
But, whatever - Baddie community made the game worse. I'll wait for combat mode, because the RTS element of the game is a joke.
<!--quoteo(post=1950307:date=Jul 10 2012, 01:10 PM:name=Jayaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jayaris @ Jul 10 2012, 01:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Asif Medpacks costing money = More options. Gameplay hasn't evolved at all, it's devolved. <!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->There are no arguments, backing up this opinion. Just your "I don't like it!"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> The new game system is terrible, I'm officially done with this unintuitive game. <!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->So what? Are you really thinking that this kind of "threat" will change the opinion of one single person?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> Half the people who like the change don't even play commander. <!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->And where does that fact come from? Do you have some kind of statistical tool to measure this?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> But, whatever - Baddie community made the game worse. I'll wait for combat mode, because the RTS element of the game is a joke. <!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->So basically you are saying, that your opinion is the only valid and everyone who thinks otherwise is bad and makes the game worse? Sad.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think the best solution is either a pure res or a pure energy model. dual res/energy cost system solves everything with the right tweaked values and weightings, adds more depth, and everyone is happy.
<!--quoteo(post=1950307:date=Jul 10 2012, 12:10 PM:name=Jayaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jayaris @ Jul 10 2012, 12:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Asif Medpacks costing money = More options. Gameplay hasn't evolved at all, it's devolved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note that improving balance can happen by reducing the absolute number of options in order to increase the effective number of options. That is, if you have a million options but they interact such that only five of them are any good and will always be used, reducing the options to a thousand, of which a hundred are viable, is still an improvement.
But that doesn't mean it will be more fun. Saying there are a million choices and only 5 of them work isn't a good analogy. In this case you have 2 choices, 1 is easier to balance and the 2nd is more risk reward/satisfying to all involved (in my opinion).
I think the dev's need to appreciate the fact that the more hardcore the game the better the base will be for growth. I think many game developers are going the route of easy of play in order to get new people to play the game instead of making a fun game people will recommend to the friends and family. That is how I got into NS1. It wasn't some cool trailer or neat feature. It was my friend telling me that is was epic and I needed to play. You aren't going to get a mega campaign add to bring you lots of new people. It will be slow growth through word of mouth.
So in the end, please stop removing interesting game play mechanisms in order to make it easier to balance. I would rather have you have to balance over time. It's not going to be perfect ever but it would certainly be more fun with energy rather than tres. (And make a whole lot more sense from a RTS game standpoint.)
Im glad its gone, I can't help but laugh at the people commanding sometimes when im biting down on a marine and there dumping endless waves of health packs and nano shields, sure usually die but the amount of res they wasted is always worth it.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1946582:date=Jun 26 2012, 01:27 AM:name=Raza.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Raza. @ Jun 26 2012, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946582"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->in my opinion Scan would work perfectly with just energy. You'd still have the trade-off to either scan less or buy another observatory. However the current all-TRes model is an improvement over the mess we had before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That would just make scan less interesting. On teamres, it's a trade-off to everything else you can get. On energy, it becomes an ability that's mandatory to use as much as possible if you have an obs.
The question is, does Scan need to be more interesting than it would be with a pure energy cost?
Med and ammo packs are used much more, they have a very direct effect on combat (difference between life and death) and holding or securing territory, they keep equipment in the game that was purchased for resources itself. Therefore they should cost TRes. Scan on the other hand works indirect and is mostly a tool to gain additional information. Here I don't see how Scan costing TRes instead of energy is significantly better <i>for the gameplay</i>.
Even if it generally makes sense to have a support vs. tech/economy/weapons trade-off, it doesn't mean that absolutely everything has to cost TRes.
<!--quoteo(post=1950293:date=Jul 10 2012, 02:24 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jul 10 2012, 02:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are no arguments, backing up this opinion. Just your "I don't like it!"
So what? Are you really thinking that this kind of "threat" will change the opinion of one single person?
And where does that fact come from? Do you have some kind of statistical tool to measure this?
So basically you are saying, that your opinion is the only valid and everyone who thinks otherwise is bad and makes the game worse? Sad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are no arguments backing the contrary up, just your "I like it".
Threat? No, I haven't played in weeks - Just saying that the reason I've quit is because of this change.
I've seen the people play dozens of times and never as a commander.
My opinion isn't only valid, it's just <b>more</b> valid, and yeah you're a baddie.
But, hey man you can have fun being bad at the bad game so you're the real winner here. I'll have to go find a new game.
<!--quoteo(post=1950323:date=Jul 10 2012, 01:32 PM:name=Asimov)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asimov @ Jul 10 2012, 01:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1950323"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But that doesn't mean it will be more fun. Saying there are a million choices and only 5 of them work isn't a good analogy. In this case you have 2 choices, 1 is easier to balance and the 2nd is more risk reward/satisfying to all involved (in my opinion).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Generally, better balance leads to more fun overall... and you misunderstand me, the choice thing isn't regarding the balance guys, it's the players. You have the choice of spending your resources on a ton of different things now, and that forces you to prioritize. When the abilities are split into res and energy, choosing anything but to use energy abilities when they're available and useful would be intentionally playing weakly, so it was more a matter of reacting fast enough to use them than making any sort of decision.
Or at least, that sort of thing is the gist of the argument; I haven't played enough with either system to form an opinion of my own.
I see what you are saying and I guess it has been my experience has been a bit different. I don't think balance necessarily leads to more fun. Now I don't play in the competitive environment. I usually play pug games where the balance is more on who has the better players on a team. Normally I see the better players switching sides and whatever side they are on normally wins. I think the balance aspect of the game needs to come but much later. I don't think we will truly understand the balance for a long time and therefor making this change now is not in the best interest of further growth and development. I think there are more urgent needs that need to be looked at that would get us closer faster. There are probably 5 items that I think need priority and this change just doesn't fit.
They need to figure out the late game econ more before making a change like this. Try other options first with tweaking values and actual income. These are just my thoughts but perhaps I am stuck in NS1 mode. I am one of those strange ones who would rather just play an updated graphics NS1 with a few more weapons for marines and an additional form for aliens.
there are psychological studies done showing that a person getting something without having a choice in the matter will be more satisfied with that item than if they had picked it from amongst many. sometimes it really is better to have less options.
that said. the reason medpacks and ammo spam is worse now is because the costs haven't been properly balanced.
This also allows a skilled team to leverage their skill advantage to an economic advantage - less medspam and ammospam required by the players = faster economy/more rt's/more tech.
before, when meds and ammo were on the armory, it was simulated t-res cost: more armories = more medspam/ammospam, and it also required assigning armories to control groups. i prefer to have my obs and arcs on control groups instead of a bunch of armories.
Comments
*long post*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is missing in your theory is that more support is likely going to result in superior map control, which in turn leads to a resource income advantage. My impression is that the economy is too broken at the moment to really see this effect. Once resources are scarce, commanders will need to find a balance between teching and supporting. Then, giving no support at all is going to be a very risky option at best. So I would say that a 'better balanced economy', like you called it, <i>does</i> matter.
<!--quoteo(post=1946515:date=Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM:name=swalk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you misunderstood me.
Energy powered abilities didn't make teams sit back in the base.
It gave them the ability to keep fighting, when they had already lost, ie. pushed back into the base.
Things such as beacon, meds and nano are really powerful abilities, that should NOT be "free"(regenerate automaticly over time).
Energy was a bad mechanic, since using the abilities that used it, didn't take away from teching up, or map control.
Putting it all on TRes was a good idea, as that creates TRes sinks in lategame, which both sides need.
The costs/resflow needs to be adjusted, but that's not breaking news.
The point is, the res model is on the right way. Energy just doesn't fit into NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with most of what you said, except that energy doesn't fit into NS2.
It's a shame that the recent energy discussions here on the forum have drifted into such absolute directions - either there's no problem with energy, or it should be removed completely. What about using energy where it makes sense?
The energy concept in itself is not a bad mechanic, what was bad is how it was used in NS2 (e.g. for meds or cysts).
Energy can be used to create soft cooldowns, meaning you can use an ability x times before it goes on cooldown, as opposed to 1 time with a hard cooldown.
For example Nano Shield could use a soft cooldown along the TRes cost and in my opinion Scan would work perfectly with just energy. You'd still have the trade-off to either scan less or buy another observatory.
However the current all-TRes model is an improvement over the mess we had before.
Same here
Reading this thread made me realise why energy was removed: Nano-shield & Nano-construct.
Up until this moment in this thread I haven't minded these abilities but it suddenly occurs to me that both are terrible features and should be removed completely.
Nano-construct is the worst offender. It undermines the balance efforts put in to structure build times. It also rarifies one of those key NS elements of the risk of building an extractor on your own (or the need for guarding, or the oportunity for a skulk to ambush). <i>And</i> it makes marines act like they're doing the comm a <i>favour</i> when they build a structure and that the comm should <i>at least</i> nano-construct them. (That last part is kinda meant to be humorous but you do actually hear it in the voice requests "Comm can you nano-construct me?")
Nano-shield has the potential to make for very interesting play. If you have to sacrifice something (a bit of res or a bit of energy) to protect an extractor while some marines sprint out there to protect it, that's engaging. Unfortunately it can be used on every marine just as they wade in to a hive, undermining all HP/dmg balance efforts (marines get twice as long to react & kill). Or it can be used to shield ARCs.
Now we suddenly have 4 energy based transactions spread across 2 classes of building, of which you may have many spread across the map.... time to consolidate!... and now we have the current system.
So I'm all for going back the old system and ok maybe Nano-shield can be reworked (just a simple cooldown would prevent its spamming).
What if the abilities were made to be on long cooldowns on each building, and nano-construct were repurposed to reduce those cooldowns when cast on the relevant building?
for example let's say nanoshield is on a 30s cd. but you can nano-construct the CC for 5 tres and reduce the cd by 15s for the next cast? 10 tres + nanoshield cost to instantly nano more than 1 marine.
This simulates "floating energy" without having to add a 3rd resource type. it gives incentive to build extra buildings, as well as giving aliens priority targets (example: you see a nanoconstructed obs and attack it, you either force the comm to dump the nano immediately, wasting his res, or you kill the building and he doesn't use the ability which means even more wasted res).
You are building your argument on wrong facts. x1 is NOT a fix time. It is variable and dependent on how many RTs you hold. And if the use of Nanoshield and Medpacks helps your team to secure this one RT, than it pays out easily. The only difference to energy is, that you have to decide if the nano and med is worth to be used or not. Instead of just spamming it because energy was free anyway. This introduces more decision-making into commanding.
Also you forgot, that a second obs can save your base. If you have only one obs, and you lose it, than you can't beacon. Game over...
Same goes with a second CC. You simply forget important facts in your arguments.
And again, a <b>soft cooldown</b> is easier, clearer and more intuitive to implement without energy. Just add a grey scaled shadow that runns clockwise on the ability-button. Add a Number for uses on that button too and you got your cooldown soft. (=more than one use)
It's way better than looking in every single structure how much energy it has.
This simulates "floating energy" without having to add a 3rd resource type. it gives incentive to build extra buildings, as well as giving aliens priority targets (example: you see a nanoconstructed obs and attack it, you either force the comm to dump the nano immediately, wasting his res, or you kill the building and he doesn't use the ability which means even more wasted res).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly don't know how people can say they're behind energy and then go on to say cooldowns are required. Adding cooldowns is just a band-aid fix to try and fix problems made by this change..
What a great idea, let's remove energy and replace it with a more complex mechanic for the sake of having one less resource type.
I'm struggling to see what was wrong with energy, what was the reason to remove it beyond wanting everything to cost TRes?
Where there really people so uneducated in RTS that they couldn't comprehend what energy was?
Also you forgot, that a second obs can save your base. If you have only one obs, and you lose it, than you can't beacon. Game over...
Same goes with a second CC. You simply forget important facts in your arguments.
And again, a <b>soft cooldown</b> is easier, clearer and more intuitive to implement without energy. Just add a grey scaled shadow that runns clockwise on the ability-button. Add a Number for uses on that button too and you got your cooldown soft. (=more than one use)
It's way better than looking in every single structure how much energy it has.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, let's add all these other things to make up for the lack of energy.
I'm getting tired of people arguing about Nano/Med/Ammo what exactly was wrong with Umbra or Echo? There were more mechanics that used energy than the ones you have a problem with.
Seems to me people only had a problem with Cysts and CC abilities - They should of been adjusted on their own instead of this sloppy decision.
You can't spam Nano on one CC, period. You simply don't get enough energy, so you had the decision between Nano or having enough energy for Medpacks etc.
"It's way better than looking in every single structure how much energy it has."
Could of added visual indicators over buildings as well, could of just changed the CC's support mechanics.
I never had an isue checking structures or keeping mental tabs on how much energy I had, don't really think anyone in silver league onwards would in SC2 either. Is this meant to be taken as a a somewhat serious RTS system? Or simply diluted to the point that anyone can command?
How are soft-cooldowns going to be any better in terms of 'looking at every building' how will I see your mystical greyshadow clocks if I'm not on the building it belongs to?
You've stated a problem and then suggested a solution that fails to fix it.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=118603" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=118603</a>
Most people it seems didn't wanted a complete removal of energy, but to limit it to temporary abilities, in contrast with permanent structures like cysts.
If you're going to add cooldowns to abilities then this change seems like a waste of time. A better method would have been to unify all energy abilities, cap the max energy at a low number (say 20 or so if a beacon costs 15 energy) and have extra CCs provide an increased energy cap. Energy regen could be based on number of players combined with territory controlled (make the power nodes useful again?). Nano shield shouldn't be an early game ability so that could be researched at the armory.
Not sure if any of this makes sense.
You've stated a problem and then suggested a solution that fails to fix it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, that I could not make it clearer. The buttons for abilities are in the Assist-Tab of the commander menu. No need to click on any building All buttons are there. And thats where the clock goes. Like in C&C. No need to click on buildings or look at some numbers that are different for every building.
Energy was nothing else than a soft cooldown. Energy filled up over time = cooldown. It was soft because you could use the ability more than one time before the cooldown stopped you. It's way more clear to have all the abilities in the Assist-tab with the cooldown visible right there. (If a cooldown is necessary! We will only see this, when the res income is balanced.) If the building for a abiltie is missing, it is grayed out.
Having abilities cost res just added more decisions for the com. Instead of spamming it mandatory. (When your energy was full, you wasted an advantage. The ability was mandatory to use.) There was no decision-making in dropping Nano, etc. you had to do it to play effective. Now you have to think if the res investment in using the ability will pay off.
Energy was nothing else than a soft cooldown. Energy filled up over time = cooldown. It was soft because you could use the ability more than one time before the cooldown stopped you. It's way more clear to have all the abilities in the Assist-tab with the cooldown visible right there. (If a cooldown is necessary! We will only see this, when the res income is balanced.) If the building for a abiltie is missing, it is grayed out.
Having abilities cost res just added more decisions for the com. Instead of spamming it mandatory. (When your energy was full, you wasted an advantage. The ability was mandatory to use.) There was no decision-making in dropping Nano, etc. you had to do it to play effective. Now you have to think if the res investment in using the ability will pay off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A soft cooldown is a soft cooldown.
Energy allows for stockpiling, different starting energy values that are more flexible than a soft cooldown a soft cooldown is as rigid as you can get.
So now you need to set some buildings abilities to start on cooldown if you want the Crag to not be able to Umbra immediately(as it should be).
And you'll never be able to use the ability more than once in X seconds because of the cooldown.
Energy is of course free as well.
More choices, more choices - Because in 209 all commanders did was spam Nano, no wait that didn't happen. Because in 209 all commanders did was spam scan when it became available, no wait that didn't happen. Because in 209 all Khaamanders did was use Umbra when the energy rolled round even if no marines were present, no wait..
It seems that contrary to your statement that Energy is holding people at gunpoint to play like baddies and just spam abilities isn't true.
You don't even generate enough energy to spam Nano you can construct maybe 3-5 times if you're lucky, shield 1-2. You think that the Comm has been given more options, but you're wrong all he's been given is the ability to get to a specific destination faster.
If support abilities cost energy, they now cost TRes and the TRes model is changed to increase the amount of Resources gained. Then the developers have clearly accounted your overall income in regards to the new costs of support abilities. So you're essentially getting what the developers feel is an acceptable amount of resources to properly support/expand/research etc.
So you can not support and get more Resources sure, but if that's what the Developers wanted they would of left the resource model the same as it was.
Before you had to balance Nano with Ammo/Health, the reason this didn't work was because your starting energy was too high and the regen etc. were poorly balanced if they had changed that it would of :
- Made a second CC more desirable
- Allowed real decisions how to balance your support energy
Instead you've got an overabundance of a singular resource that can be used for anything and at the end of the day this will eventually dilute strategy, because as players get better it will be more effective to simply bumrush a tech branch instead of giving away any support early game.
There can be a plenty of depth in when and how you burn the energy even if you're going to use it anyway. A well designed energy ability requires smart use just as your average res ability does. Even something as simple as NS1 scan still has some pretty interesting ins and outs and it probably could be refined further if necessary.
NS2 is spread out so thin into various res pools that I'm not really opposing the energy removal though. However, it's more because of how NS2 functions right now and less due to energy abilities being inheritently bad.
Also, if you can effectively pressure and take down enemy rt's to the point of winning the game with no support, then id say you deserve the win. Realistically your marines are going to take hits, get parasited, need ammo and scans to be effective.
<!--quoteo(post=1946651:date=Jun 26 2012, 07:12 PM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Jun 26 2012, 07:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You are building your argument on wrong facts. x1 is NOT a fix time. It is variable and dependent on how many RTs you hold. And if the use of Nanoshield and Medpacks helps your team to secure this one RT, than it pays out easily.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea guys i already considered map control... I'm only arguing for stuff like obs energy, shift energy, shade energy, crag energy. These are all abilities that are not tied directly to map control. I already stated the following :s. *edit* perhaps a dual energy/res cost system would work better for alien chambers imho. But energy is needed to prevent spamming of abilities off one chamber.
<!--quoteo(post=1946510:date=Jun 26 2012, 03:06 AM:name=elodea)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (elodea @ Jun 26 2012, 03:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... I agree that med/ammo should cost res....<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I dont think using energy <b>tastefully</b> for specific abilities is unecessarily complex if the energy limitations provide interesting and meaningful gameplay choices and timings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Additionally, the problem was cysts/nano/med/ammo costing energy and it not being a scarce resource for those options. This was a very different picture to obs energy, shift energy, shade energy, crag energy.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>Energy is intuitive:</u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
One very common argument here is that energy is unintuitive. I really wonder how it may be unintuitive; in the UI it was clear whether something costs energy or not. Some say that having multiple buildings with energy was rather complicated, but that is just a matter of implementing the GUI for the game. Though you could also go for a shared energy pool game-design wise.
If you look at traditional RTS games, they usually had a per-unit or per-building energy (/mana/rage/whatever) pool though.
Also, the conecept of energy isn't new at all. I mentioned other RTS games, look at warcraft 3 for example; almost every unit had abilities and many units had their own pool of energy ("mana") and it was one of the most popular & successful games.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>Cooldown is a simplified version of energy:</u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Some people want to add a cooldown, but think that energy is inherently bad. This really surprise me, since it's actually sort-of the same thing. Energy however, is more flexible then a regular cooldown.
If you don't see what I'm getting at:
-> 30 secs cooldown
-> == energy pool of 30 with regeneration of 1 energy per sec
It is the same thing!
Though, what energy allowed is a pool rather then just a simple cooldown. This a much better approach for things like nano shield, so you are actually able to more then one at a time; it adds some more tactical depth then just having a cooldown.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b><u>Arguable: TRes gives more strategical depth:</u></b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
As I've explained in my OP:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My major concern with switching over is that abilities just get too dependant on the resources. It doesn't really matter whether it is TRES or PRES since both are tied to RTs. This means abilities that cost TRES will get very little use on low tres and get spammed with high tres. Ultimately this just ends up a slippery slope, no matter how you adjust the costs; since the team with the extractor advantage can just spam abilities and advance their advantage even further with little chance of the enemy team competing..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To put it differently:
Low income -> Abilities don't get used
High income -> Abilities get spammed
I can see where you (those, who think TRes -> more strategical depth) are coming from, but ultimately, long-term planning is usually superior to short-term. I see it has some depth to it when you can make the decision to support with medpacks and delay your weapon upgrades/tech in order to achieve a long-term victory (let's say securing an extractor). But as far as I can tell, that is the only situation where it adds some sort of strategical depth.
Otherwise I think it's more crippling after all, since as I've pointed out above, you'll be more driven to spam with lots of money and driven to avoid that decision with low income (as the risk gradually increases with lower income).
Now if you look at the way I proposed for medpacks/ammo it is not as much about your current res situation, which can be good or bad, but rather your current stockpile of medpacks/ammo. It is a different decision you need to make - do you want to play safe, and sparingly use medpacks / ammo in case a dire situation arises? Or do you want to drop them more regularly to strengthen your marines on the field, but risk that you lack the required supplies when a situation arises (eg. new hive dropped/extractors under attack/sudden fade you might take down with meds etc).
This decision is clearly different from the res based on, but I think it's much better. Why? Because it is true throughout the entire game as it is independent from the res flow; res flow just too heavily impacts the decision regardless of the overall state - so I think the latter option is actually more tactical.
<!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><u><b>It <strike>will</strike> won't be better as the res flow improves</b></u><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
I partially explained it in the section above (so read it first :P), but again, this isn't quite true. When res flow is improved only the point of where you have to make the decision changes, but the problems won't get fixed.
While this doesn't exactly map to reality, we can look at this to understand it a bit:
fprob(nExtractors) = 1 - CostModifer / nExtractors
Observe: <a href="http://fooplot.com/plot/4cf3tm40ek" target="_blank">http://fooplot.com/plot/4cf3tm40ek</a>
(Note: if (fprop < 0) {fprop = 0;} )
This example is far from perfect, but it can show a few things: the horizontal line represents the "ideal" case, where with 50% probability the com will go for a medpack. With this, we can easily observe that if we increase the cost, this point changes to be further away when we have more extractors. On the opposite, if we reduce the cost, the point comes closer to having 1 extractor.
Basically, no matter how we adjust the res, we just move that point around. If you have enough extractors, you can always spam. If you don't have enough res, you won't be using medpacks (or not as much). Merely the point changes when you can or can not spam or drop medpacks with adjusting the cost and resflow.
While this graph doesn't reflect human behaviour (how it could it anyway, human behaviour is far to complex), it should show the fundamental problem I see here; no matter how you adjust the costs, it just shifts the viability around and won't fix any problems.
Though, of course you could shift it to the extremes. So either that you'll never see medpacks unless you are already winning anyway, but then again, it's that other issue - slippery slope; the team that is already winning just gets another boost. And in addition, we'll have a feature that gets little to no use.
Or we make it viable at any time, but then again, we'll get ######loads of spam without really hurting the team.
If it is somewhere in the middle we'll get a bit of both, uselessness early on and spam later on. Having it on a more constant basis is MUCH better.
On a last note, this is only true in the current resource system. So the other option is to make radical changes, so at ANY given time, with low or high res income you still have to make that decision to drop meds or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1946340:date=Jun 24 2012, 08:51 PM:name=Jayaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jayaris @ Jun 24 2012, 08:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946340"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In regards to the OP suggestion of a specialized team based resource, it already exists - It's called personal resources. You want there to be a scalable model by which each player has a reasonable access to Ammo/Health just let requests automatically drop Health/Ammo at the cost of PRes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mh, how would that work? If you could just do it instantly it's just like a hp boost for pres. Also it gives the com less work - the current system keeps the com busy at least and requires team communitcation (either though ingame menus, voice or chat).
Also it is a bit different. PRes depends on extractors. What I suggested does not.
<!--quoteo(post=1946515:date=Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM:name=swalk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Jun 25 2012, 07:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Energy powered abilities didn't make teams sit back in the base.
It gave them the ability to keep fighting, when they had already lost, ie. pushed back into the base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TBH I think that is a different problem, alien sort of lack that finisher kind of attack. Marines have ARCs and on lv3 weapons/armor they are incredibly powerful vs just a base of skulks.
Aliens on the other hand struggle against a well defended base, even with good support. It has gotten better tbh, but it still isn't good.
A simple example, let's say you start the game as marine, you drop an armory, maybe an obs. You have low income and low res.
Now your marines try to secure your two first RTs, will you drop them medpacks even though you have low income ?
Sure you will, since securing the first RTs is very important.
Abilities will get used even at low income <i>if</i> they are cost efficient. We could have a problem if medpacks were always less efficient than say, an early upgrade.
*
I think we should also distinguish two game regimes, in the first one, the resource limited regime, you wait for resources to buy the next upgrade. Since the cost of upgrades (e.g. weapon/armor level) is increasing along the tech tree, this can be quite long even if you have several RTs. In this regime, the trade-offs between support and tech should works well, assuming things are balanced correctly.
In the second one, you have bought everything and you are free to spam. The game is a bit silly at this stage.
I think the game should be balanced to spend most of time in the first regime. In a typical game, the full tech tree shouldn't be researched, this allow to have some diversity between games.
Note that both starcraft 1 and 2 have this kind of dynamic, for example the zergs starts spamming spines when he's maxed.
*
About the slippery slope, I'm not sure it's a bad thing, is there too much slippery slope right now ?
the energy system was perfect, it made sense, PLUS it was intuitive, you couldn't spam anything without consequences. now, the consequence is very small, a few res? takes a few ticks to get it back, but you didn't use up much.
Energy however, gives you a dynamic, decided-by-you cooldown, Instead of a hardcoded cooldown, you had a choice to "give nanoconstruct to this guy" or "nano shield to this guy", now, 3 res nano construct to someone building an extractor is a must, as you get it back nearly instantly after the res tower is done.
the energy system was perfect, it made sense, PLUS it was intuitive, you couldn't spam anything without consequences. now, the consequence is very small, a few res? takes a few ticks to get it back, but you didn't use up much.
Energy however, gives you a dynamic, decided-by-you cooldown, Instead of a hardcoded cooldown, you had a choice to "give nanoconstruct to this guy" or "nano shield to this guy", now, 3 res nano construct to someone building an extractor is a must, as you get it back nearly instantly after the res tower is done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problems you have described are not caused of having no more energy.
If there is to much tRes, additional armories will be build. No matter if MedPacks are on energy or tRes.
The new model is clearer, creates more decisions and is much more intuitive for new players.
You can't spam anything without consequences. Dropping to much MedPacks will delay your economy.
With the new system you have much more options and decisions to take.
If there is to much tRes, additional armories will be build. No matter if MedPacks are on energy or tRes.
The new model is clearer, creates more decisions and is much more intuitive for new players.
You can't spam anything without consequences. Dropping to much MedPacks will delay your economy.
With the new system you have much more options and decisions to take.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asif Medpacks costing money = More options. Gameplay hasn't evolved at all, it's devolved.
The new game system is terrible, I'm officially done with this unintuitive game.
Half the people who like the change don't even play commander.
But, whatever - Baddie community made the game worse. I'll wait for combat mode, because the RTS element of the game is a joke.
<!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->There are no arguments, backing up this opinion. Just your "I don't like it!"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The new game system is terrible, I'm officially done with this unintuitive game.
<!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->So what? Are you really thinking that this kind of "threat" will change the opinion of one single person?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Half the people who like the change don't even play commander.
<!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->And where does that fact come from? Do you have some kind of statistical tool to measure this?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
But, whatever - Baddie community made the game worse. I'll wait for combat mode, because the RTS element of the game is a joke.
<!--coloro:#AFEEEE--><span style="color:#AFEEEE"><!--/coloro-->So basically you are saying, that your opinion is the only valid and everyone who thinks otherwise is bad and makes the game worse? Sad.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Note that improving balance can happen by reducing the absolute number of options in order to increase the effective number of options.
That is, if you have a million options but they interact such that only five of them are any good and will always be used, reducing the options to a thousand, of which a hundred are viable, is still an improvement.
I think the dev's need to appreciate the fact that the more hardcore the game the better the base will be for growth. I think many game developers are going the route of easy of play in order to get new people to play the game instead of making a fun game people will recommend to the friends and family. That is how I got into NS1. It wasn't some cool trailer or neat feature. It was my friend telling me that is was epic and I needed to play. You aren't going to get a mega campaign add to bring you lots of new people. It will be slow growth through word of mouth.
So in the end, please stop removing interesting game play mechanisms in order to make it easier to balance. I would rather have you have to balance over time. It's not going to be perfect ever but it would certainly be more fun with energy rather than tres. (And make a whole lot more sense from a RTS game standpoint.)
However the current all-TRes model is an improvement over the mess we had before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would just make scan less interesting.
On teamres, it's a trade-off to everything else you can get.
On energy, it becomes an ability that's mandatory to use as much as possible if you have an obs.
Med and ammo packs are used much more, they have a very direct effect on combat (difference between life and death) and holding or securing territory, they keep equipment in the game that was purchased for resources itself. Therefore they should cost TRes.
Scan on the other hand works indirect and is mostly a tool to gain additional information. Here I don't see how Scan costing TRes instead of energy is significantly better <i>for the gameplay</i>.
Even if it generally makes sense to have a support vs. tech/economy/weapons trade-off, it doesn't mean that absolutely everything has to cost TRes.
So what? Are you really thinking that this kind of "threat" will change the opinion of one single person?
And where does that fact come from? Do you have some kind of statistical tool to measure this?
So basically you are saying, that your opinion is the only valid and everyone who thinks otherwise is bad and makes the game worse? Sad.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are no arguments backing the contrary up, just your "I like it".
Threat? No, I haven't played in weeks - Just saying that the reason I've quit is because of this change.
I've seen the people play dozens of times and never as a commander.
My opinion isn't only valid, it's just <b>more</b> valid, and yeah you're a baddie.
But, hey man you can have fun being bad at the bad game so you're the real winner here. I'll have to go find a new game.
Generally, better balance leads to more fun overall... and you misunderstand me, the choice thing isn't regarding the balance guys, it's the players. You have the choice of spending your resources on a ton of different things now, and that forces you to prioritize.
When the abilities are split into res and energy, choosing anything but to use energy abilities when they're available and useful would be intentionally playing weakly, so it was more a matter of reacting fast enough to use them than making any sort of decision.
Or at least, that sort of thing is the gist of the argument; I haven't played enough with either system to form an opinion of my own.
They need to figure out the late game econ more before making a change like this. Try other options first with tweaking values and actual income. These are just my thoughts but perhaps I am stuck in NS1 mode. I am one of those strange ones who would rather just play an updated graphics NS1 with a few more weapons for marines and an additional form for aliens.
that said. the reason medpacks and ammo spam is worse now is because the costs haven't been properly balanced.
This also allows a skilled team to leverage their skill advantage to an economic advantage - less medspam and ammospam required by the players = faster economy/more rt's/more tech.
before, when meds and ammo were on the armory, it was simulated t-res cost: more armories = more medspam/ammospam, and it also required assigning armories to control groups. i prefer to have my obs and arcs on control groups instead of a bunch of armories.