<!--quoteo(post=1854510:date=Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the standard will always be one main commander followed....but by supporting commanders when needed. These are commanders that will probably not stay as commanders the entire time, and only hop now and then when the need arises.As games get larger, more of the supporting comms will stay in the chairs longer. Its a tradeoff. Its not too much of stretch to imagine there being one main commander with supporting commanders in pub games. Just pointing this out, and is not a direct contradiction to what you are saying.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, but the problem is that the <u>current</u> resource model effectively <b>necessitates</b> multiple commanders, or commander rotations (temporary commanders), which I think is a very bad idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1854510:date=Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am also leaning towards RFK going to Tres and Tres being used for support abilities as well. Though this does go counter to Charlie's wish of team size not affecting the pace of the game... but yea...in theory it should be offset by having more players means more support needed. Its a tradeoff<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see what you mean here. Assuming that RFK&Support move to Tres, then the way I see it is, ideally: your Tres income from your towers would be spent on the usual things - whatever they're being spent on now, and maybe MACs and ARCs - you know, structures, units and tech. But your Tres income from RFK would be spent on your players. With more players on either side, you'd have more RFK, but you'd also have more players to support; i.e. you'd be spending just as much <b>per capita</b>. Therefore it scales - therefore, it <b>doesn't</b> affect the pace of the game. Yeah, things don't always work ideally, if your team isn't getting hurt or wasting ammo you might have excess RFK, but if your team is constantly getting hurt or wasting ammo you'd be cutting into your standard Tres income; and then there's support costs to consider*, the value of RFK*, the amount of support actually required**, and the number of kills you're getting** - it gives the system more randomisation. But I think that on the whole, it should work well, assuming you balance these* things with these** things on a 'typical' game (which you can work out by recording stats). The better your team does (i.e. above the typical), then the easier your resource situation is, and the less trade-offs you have to consider; the worse your team does, the more focused you'll have to be on opportunistic trade-off decisions.
<!--quoteo(post=1854510:date=Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just axe pres use by commanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But then you have this problem with commanders just having ridiculous amounts of Pres later in the game, because they've spent none of it. I think it's actually fine if commanders' only use for Pres is buying spare weapons for their marines - if there's no Pres from RFK then I can see this feature actually being used. Or maybe with this new model that I proposed we could move sentries back to Pres, just a thought.
Haven't really got much to comment about the other things in your post.
<!--quoteo(post=1854701:date=Jun 20 2011, 07:42 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 20 2011, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854701"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't see what you mean here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly what you said. In theory it should work, but I was trying to point out that initially it looks to go against Charlie's wish.
<!--quoteo(post=1854701:date=Jun 20 2011, 07:42 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 20 2011, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854701"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But then you have this problem with commanders just having ridiculous amounts of Pres later in the game, because they've spent none of it. I think it's actually fine if commanders' only use for Pres is buying spare weapons for their marines - if there's no Pres from RFK then I can see this feature actually being used. Or maybe with this new model that I proposed we could move sentries back to Pres, just a thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know it was a wall of text and at the end of a page, but read my <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1854090" target="_blank">initial post </a>if you want to see where I'm going with this. The short and sweet is I don't think Commander should be use PRes. It needlessly complicates things and makes it hard to balance either, since they both affect each other...and are mechanically quite distinct from each other (player pres use vs comm pres use). Instead as a commander, the player stops generating PRes for himself, and starts generating a commander only resources for all commanders to use, which I simply called command res. The more commanders you have the more command resource you are generating...however it stops the necessity of commander rotations. Then we can go with a more tried and tested 2 resource model, where items have a costs ratio of Tres:Cres (0 possible for either) and Cres acting as the limiting, bottleneck resource. Support abilities can be more CRes heavy, allowing to scale with player count. RFK going to commander can still work, but could go to CRes pool instead (name of cres can always be changed so it makes more sense).
<!--quoteo(post=1854730:date=Jun 20 2011, 10:50 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 10:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly what you said. In theory it should work, but I was trying to point out that initially it looks to go against Charlie's wish.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point was that I don't see how it does go against it; in fact I think it goes WITH Charlie's wish for the game to scale well.
<!--quoteo(post=1854730:date=Jun 20 2011, 10:50 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 10:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The short and sweet is I don't think Commander should be use PRes. ... Instead as a commander, the player stops generating PRes for himself, and starts generating a commander only resources for all commanders to use, which I simply called command res. The more commanders you have the more command resource you are generating...however it stops the necessity of commander rotations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only thing this removes is commander rotations, but this still means you'd be forced to have as many permanent commanders as you can, which takes players out of the field among other things. It's also rather clunky to suddenly decide a player is no longer gonna get PRes and suddenly get CRes instead. What happens if the commander steps out of the seat for a moment? He has no Pres, and his Cres stops producing. Your suggestion is essentially the same as having a commander spend out of his personal res along with team res, the only difference is that all commanders who have spent time in the chair have a shared pool of resources now, dependent on time spent in the command chair. Now, if the third resource were independent of who is in the chair(s) and time spent in the command chair(s), maybe it's workable. But then I think it'd be the same as just splitting team res into two portions...
<!--quoteo(post=1854573:date=Jun 19 2011, 05:43 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 19 2011, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854573"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->B) All types of item can be bought with a combination of resources...the "scarcer" resource acts as a bottleneck for high tech and spamming (Example: SC2 does this)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You must be right about the names of these resources getting in the way, because I never really thought of having costs that are both P.Res and T.Res, but honestly that could work if UWE was so strongly opposed to a third resource.
<!--quoteo(post=1854738:date=Jun 20 2011, 11:40 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 20 2011, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What happens if the commander steps out of the seat for a moment? He has no Pres, and his Cres stops producing.
Now, if the third resource were independent of who is in the chair(s) and time spent in the command chair(s), maybe it's workable. But then I think it'd be the same as just splitting team res into two portions...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's how I understood it to begin with. And this is sort of leaning towards what I was suggesting as well.
While Commanding, any P.Res you'd normally gain is added to the Command Stations' C.Res/Energy pool. Each Chair has it's own C.Res pool Any Commander that steps into that chair can spend it's C.Res.
But then it <b>isn't</b> independent. The two parts of my post you quoted are complete opposites. If you have no one in the chair, then you have no one producing Cres; in effect, most people have to act as batteries to charge command chairs (or charge the commander res pool), at least for some time. But if you had a third resource that was independent of the players, but scaled with their number (in order to allow for increasing support requirements)*, it would work nicely. *One way in which they might scale quite naturally is RFK. However, it'd be little different from having team res scale with the number of players; so it would effectively just be splitting team res into two portions, but would cause your expenditure to be less flexible (you couldn't choose between supporting your players or saving for a tech).
...
One way that I envision a three-resource system to work might be... (with provisional names)
Resources: A team resource, gained only through resource towers. Credits: A personal resource, gained only through resource towers (but generated for each player independently). Bounty: A team resource, gained only through RFK.
-Most researches would cost just Resources (so as not to affect the pace of the game). -Most weapons and equipment would cost just Credits (so as to allow each person on the team an equal chance at getting certain equipment). -Most support abilities (like medpacks and ammunition) would cost just Bounty (so as to allow the same per-head potential for support). -Everything else (i.e. structures, units etc.) would cost a combination of two or three of these resources (so as to facilitate 'opportunity cost' decisions, as well as manage the scarcity or abundance of resources or items).
Basically, Resources and Credits are your map-control rewards, and Bounty is your combat-proficiency reward. -Of your map-control rewards: Resources do not scale with the number of players, but as they set the pace of the game (researches, key structures), they generally do not need to; on the other hand, Credits scale with the number of players due to independent generation of personal resources, and primarily determine the availability of better-than-vanilla weaponry. -Your combat-proficiency reward, Bounty, scales naturally with the number of players due to greater availability of targets and greater availability of killers. I guess the idea is that greater map-control leads to more structures and weapons; while greater combat-proficiency leads to better potential for overhead support. So the idea is to give every item in the game a cost appropriate to: team size scaling, and to what degree it should reward or reflect either map-control or combat-proficiency.
But, I'm operating on the assumption that all resources will be appropriately scarce.
The main point I really want to get across is the reason for splitting team res into two (or types of commander only resources). One resource acts as the "scarcer" resource that is used to tweak balance, builds and pacing ...just like in many RTS games. Its a balancing tool. Imo this is the most important part and my main concern. It leads to deeper and more interesting builds and strategies with tough trade offs to consider. Currently the two commander resources are disconnected from each. PRes buys X, the TRes buys Y...and never shall the two meet. It simplifies the decision making on what to spend you resources on ...and leads to predictable and uninteresting choices.
A second point is to not use the same resource for commander and player. Like I mentioned, it needlessly complicates things for the developers, and will give them endless headaches trying to get it right. Player Pres use and Comm Pres are obviously mechanically different ..almost two different games, but where changes to one will affect the other. I likened it to WoW trying for years to balance talent trees for both PvP and PvE. They finally saw the light and made separate talent trees for PvP and PvE.
I'm not particallry married to my idea on how CRes (or the 2nd commander only resource) is generated. Im still considering various different ways. Obviously I want something that scales properly and isn't annoying and gamey. These are the fine details that play testing will determine...but I do like the Resources, Credits, Bounty system Harimau suggested.
Anything personal res could be used for, could be done with timers.
If you die with a shotgun you can't get another one for X minutes. This timer is effected by the number of Res points captured, number of enemies you kill, and the number of armories the commander has built.
If the commander wants more weapons on the field, he builds more armories and the players are responsible to fight within the overall tech strategy the commander provides. Same can be done with alien lifeforms.
This takes away all bookkeeping from the players and gives a natural stalemate ender when total map control is gained. And allows natural forward momentum the same way as RTSs (build time on units), in that you know it will take a awhile to rebuild an army so you can advance after you win a battle.
This also balances nicely regardless of player count if you tweak the timers.
<!--quoteo(post=1854776:date=Jun 20 2011, 02:11 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 20 2011, 02:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854776"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you have no one in the chair, then you have no one producing Cres; in effect, most people have to act as batteries to charge command chairs (or charge the commander res pool), at least for some time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Someone is always going to be in the Comm chair, I don't see this being an issue.
It's an issue when you're using that mechanic as the basis for scaling available res for support - which it does not do well. Not just this, it's just simply unwieldy. Having human players be the 'battery' in a command chair.
...
I'm also wondering how the game might be affected if we had player equipment cost not just Pres but also a bit of Tres. Tres might limit the abundance of expensive equipment; however, as it does not scale with team size, it would be a bit of a bottleneck for larger games. Or if we used the Resources/Credits/Bounty system I suggested, player equipment would cost not just Credits (personal resources) but also Resources or Bounty (both team resources).
Another comparison of the three-resource system I'm proposing: Credits: Personal, does scale; towers. Bounty: Team, does scale; RFK. Resources: Team, does not scale; towers.
So I can imagine high-tier player equipment could cost Credits and Bounty; Credits would limit the player's ability to get this equipment, and Bounty would limit the number of this equipment on the team (and is balanced against the commander's support costs).
There is a potential issue that the commander loses control over a portion of the team resources.
I feel that the easiest solution is to introduce a system based on 2 resources (as several others have suggested), both of which are gained and spent by the commander. For the sake of simplicity lets call them carbon and plasma (^-).
This resource system would work in the following way: -Every purchase costs carbon, be it weapons, upgrades, or structures. However, only upgrades and (some?) structures cost plasma. -The production of carbon scales with the number of resource towers and the number of players. The production of plasma only scales with the number of resource towers. Thus, plasma acts as a limiting resource which allows the pacing of the upgrades to be the same every game, while carbon scales and allows commanders to buy more weapons for larger teams. Trade-offs are also possible: the commander can decide to put all the carbon into weapons (as they are not limited by plasma), and completely ignore upgrades...
The only potential problem I see at the moment (as far as balance goes), is that if, with the current system, the entire team can have a shotgun by time X, with this 2 resource system, while all the team members still have shotguns at X, the first shotgun is bought quite a lot earlier. This can however be fixed by tweaking upgrade times or costs.
Finally, I am against the inclusion of RFK that pays into the commanders resources, because this will change the timings in the game, making things a lot less predictable. You might decide to keep a personal res (or income) with which players can buy (low tech?) weapons, to make sure that no player is left out of the team.
<!--QuoteBegin-Flayra+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...] It will take too much time to go into depth explaining my logic but another reason why resources are split into two pools is to reduce the dependence on the Commander. Ie, players on the ground should be able to make some choices about how they play. I don't want the Commander determining if a player gets a shotgun - I want the player using it to decide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that, no matter the resource system, this problem will still exist: even with the current system, while a player might want a flamethrower, the commander might not research them until much later, or not at all if the game ends relatively quickly. To avoid commanders refusing to give any weapons to a specific player, make it so the commander buys the weapon, and then the players must come to pick it up at the armory (so it becomes a first come, first served kind of thing). At the end of the day though, bad commanders will be kicked out of the command chair if the players aren't having fun (maybe even add in a 'vote to kick' feature?).
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
i think the whole idea of p.res is, that field players can make their own decisions which weapon / life-form they gonna buy. the whole intention was, to remove the dependency to the comm and give everyone a chance to get their stuff. its still a shooter and people want some amount of freedom.
p.res for kills is rewarding good players. so its solely the players fault if he has no goody, and not the comms who might only give out weapons to his personal friends. and the comm doesnt have to check carefully to whom he gives stuff, this decision is already made by the res model. because of that, I would like p.res to stay in the game. the concept is nice
and as i stated several times already, but maybe a few people dont like it, <b>i prefer a system where the comm uses only t.res and has no p.res income during commanding.</b>
I think the criteria we have to work with is: 1) maintains a similar overall pace from game to game 2) player equipment scales with the number of players (the same resources for equipment available per head from game to game) 3) commander support scales with the number of players (the same resources for support available per head from game to game) 4) allows players in the field to make their own decisions about their equipment/lifeform 5) balanced and does not lead to slippery slopes
IMO, what the <u>current</u> system fails to do right now are criteria 3, and criteria 5 (due to PRFK).
You could, of course, very simply have a numerical multiplier on certain resources (that cover criteria 2 and 3), but I think it's a bit of a clumsy system to work with.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1854204:date=Jun 18 2011, 05:33 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 18 2011, 05:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A commander could also drop "ammo crates" and "medical supply crates" (instead of just individual packs). They cost more, only last a limited time (10-30secs), but are able heal larger number of players simultaneously (think of it as a mini armory). In smaller games they might not be as efficient, but in larger games it beats spamming ammo/medpacks all over the place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thissss... such an outdated hl1 engine method. needs creative re imagining like all the other features got for NS2. would also solve these issues:
1a) player(s) not noticing that small item b) that may have just fallen through the crack in the map c) that may not have produced sound or flashed light 2a) lack of scalability 3a) lack of regrouping when items dropped 3b) lack of staying in that "safe zone" the commander just spammed on the ground to save you.
i agree these odds and ends should be treated like the crag / armory : they produce scalability and teamwork tactics.
Another option would be to move purchasing of ammo/med/catalyst packs to the Marine side (rather than Commander side) of the equation, as they're the element of this system that seems to be causing the most scaling difficulties. Make it so that marines can mash a key and get a pack drop, paid for out of their own res. The pack drops out of thin air (just like we're used to), the only difference is that it's automated, rather than requiring the commander to be hovering over the combat and drop the packs in for the players involved.
I seem to recall a script/mod that did something like this back in the NS1 days, but my memory isn't great. For things like healthpacks, it might be beneficial to have the healing happen over time, so that someone with a huge slough of resources can't make himself effectively invulnerable by machinegunning his medpack key.
What this will accomplish is making pack purchasing scale 1:1 with the number of players on the team, while leaving things that don't need to necessarily scale to team size (armories, observatories, etc) still come out of a different pool than someone's ammo dump.
<!--coloro:#7070FF--><span style="color:#7070FF"><!--/coloro--><b>Personal Resources:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(coming into personal pool ... per player)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "PRes" will be used only in FPS part of game to buy stuff like weapons.
<!--coloro:#70F0F0--><span style="color:#70F0F0"><!--/coloro--><b>Team Resources:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(coming into shared pool ... per side: marine or alien)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "TRes" will be used by commander/commanders to build stuff; upgrades; <u>ARCs</u>.
<!--coloro:#FF7000--><span style="color:#FF7000"><!--/coloro--><b>Energy:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(always regenerating in CC / hive ... per tech point)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "Energy" will be used by commander to drop: - med packs; ammo; MACs, <strike>ARCs</strike>, ... on marine side - drifters; pustules (infestation), ... on alien side
<!--coloro:#9932CC--><span style="color:#9932CC"><!--/coloro-->The commander can use only energy from it's own com chair / hive. <i>This will like Charlie: >> more commanders == more energy to spend <<<</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The last, but not least thinking: - Hydras need to expire after time, the Hive commander can re-seed them before they die (and spend some TRes) - The turrets will also go out of bullets .. and can be re-loaded by commander (also spend TRes)
... this re-seed / re-load mechanic is great think to draw off some TRes from pool in later games. i.e. the aliens cower 4/5 of map and have hydras everywhere ... then commander need to re-seed each of them after some time. the more hydras / turrets the team have .. the more TRes will be spend (and they will not stock as now)
How to re-seed / re-load ? commander must click on that "unit/building" and in menu will have button to do this action. This can be also re-searchable (maybe in crag?)
EDIT: Commander will not spend it's own "PRes" while he/she is in comm chair/hive. EIDT2: I fully Agree ARCs are attack unit (and need to be classified as building), then they will cost "TRes"
<!--quoteo(post=1855661:date=Jun 23 2011, 08:34 AM:name=ZycaR)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZycaR @ Jun 23 2011, 08:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855661"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:#FF7000--><span style="color:#FF7000"><!--/coloro--><b>Energy:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(always regenerating in CC / hive ... per tech point)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "Energy" will be used by commander to drop: - med packs; ammo; MACs, ARCs, ... on marine side - drifters; pustules (infestation), ... on alien side<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like this idea, if the ARCs still cost Tres. I don't think its fair to get base attacking units for "free" (time). but to have it for ammo and medpacks is good. they should be free, but still not spammable. thou a decay time would have to be implemented to avoid bunkering up lots of them in a area. maybe 1-2 min
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1853998:date=Jun 17 2011, 03:29 PM:name=Flayra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra @ Jun 17 2011, 03:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1853998"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... It will take too much time to go into depth explaining my logic but another reason why resources are split into two pools is to reduce the dependence on the Commander. Ie, players on the ground should be able to make some choices about how they play. I don't want the Commander determining if a player gets a shotgun - I want the player using it to decide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats perfectly fine and i like the idea behind it! but you are mixing commander with personal res, because you want to create a gameplay where its necessary to have multiple comms. this decision was already made a year ago. people said that its difficult to find competent commanders in public games, now in ns2 you need ~4 each round? :(
it would be better if 1 comm could achieve theoretically the same as 3 comms together. the only limitation should be reflexes / skill
<!--quoteo(post=1855631:date=Jun 23 2011, 12:23 AM:name=Shrike3O)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shrike3O @ Jun 23 2011, 12:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another option would be to move purchasing of ammo/med/catalyst packs to the Marine side (rather than Commander side) of the equation, as they're the element of this system that seems to be causing the most scaling difficulties. Make it so that marines can mash a key and get a pack drop, paid for out of their own res. The pack drops out of thin air (just like we're used to), the only difference is that it's automated, rather than requiring the commander to be hovering over the combat and drop the packs in for the players involved.
I seem to recall a script/mod that did something like this back in the NS1 days, but my memory isn't great. For things like healthpacks, it might be beneficial to have the healing happen over time, so that someone with a huge slough of resources can't make himself effectively invulnerable by machinegunning his medpack key.
What this will accomplish is making pack purchasing scale 1:1 with the number of players on the team, while leaving things that don't need to necessarily scale to team size (armories, observatories, etc) still come out of a different pool than someone's ammo dump.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't move it to just Marine side. Some comms like that aspect of being a commander. Its just that it doesn't scale and with larger games it runs dry quick. Individuals drops can used along side drops that can help multiple players quickly at once (which are needed).
But I do thinking moving a bit of the support to the marine side would help with support scaling. The welder for one is a good example. Im not sure about the idea of letting everyone being able to heal themselves whenever they want. Instead of just pressing a button to magnanoically drop packs, I would love seeing a medkit item a player can purchase at the armory. For example, spend 15 pres and receive the medkit which essentially gives you 10 medpacks that players can drop on the floor for someone to pick up (similar to the medic in the BF games). There would be a small delay between each drop, so they are not spammed quickly. Perhaps the player with a medkit can only use a rifle in order to present a tradeoff, see rifle more play, and so that whole team are not medic rambos.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited June 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1855796:date=Jun 23 2011, 09:41 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 23 2011, 09:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855796"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Zycar's got the same idea I did! +1<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yea theres a good half dozen or so of you on the forums that have this idea, albeit some small differences. the commonalities are :
<ul><li>comm doesnt use pres when in chair</li><li>seperate res for comm chair, not for player. (still keeping incentive for multiple comms)</li><li>new ammo / medpack delivery system that scales like the crag</li><li>attacking structures need to use tres</li></ul>
i think these are great improvements from the current model, a good compromise.
NS2HD's commentary on some of his recent games has been interesting... confronted with this same problem, he's started dropping Armories near the front lines as heal/ammo points, only using packs during aggressive pushes. I don't really have an issue with that, either, and it might lead to some more intelligent use of flamers to clear spots in infestation so that you CAN get an armory down and heal up your assault force...
<!--quoteo(post=1855984:date=Jun 24 2011, 06:31 AM:name=Shrike3O)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shrike3O @ Jun 24 2011, 06:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1855984"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2HD's commentary on some of his recent games has been interesting... confronted with this same problem, he's started dropping Armories near the front lines as heal/ammo points, only using packs during aggressive pushes. I don't really have an issue with that, either, and it might lead to some more intelligent use of flamers to clear spots in infestation so that you CAN get an armory down and heal up your assault force...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the reason this is a more effective tactic at the moment is because of the lack of commander notifications. It's very difficult to get the commanders attention especially for ammo (since there is no way for the commander to see if a player is low). Most of the time players get fed up and just run back to the base so it makes sense to build forward armouries to encourage the marines to stay and fight in specific areas.
Perhaps once the commander stuff has been improved we will see more people using ammo and medpacks as the marines request them and the armouries won't be necessary for forward pushes.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1856007:date=Jun 24 2011, 12:20 AM:name=Shrike3O)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shrike3O @ Jun 24 2011, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1856007"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I prefer 'em, personally :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea, ditto. I use them in forward positions where phase gates aren't present, and only if the area is secured enough. Drop the price slightly (10?) And then med packs might become obsolete. you don't need power for med packs but if armories are frequent enough it will do, and create that same crag like tactic on the front lines.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
you can request for stuff, commander can even see who made a request. but the comm interface is still buggy (not recognizing some actions) which is my main problem to drop supplies. sometimes the interface is just not reacting, doesnt matter how much i focus on my marines, the bug hinders me from helping them
<!--quoteo(post=1854550:date=Jun 19 2011, 10:36 AM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Jun 19 2011, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Unlikely. I don't believe they'll go back to the unified resource model. But what you could do is remove personal res from players and assign it to a big pool of personal res the commander uses to buy equipment, med packs etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree - Again thanks to RFK, NS1 had relatively similar gameplays (in pubs at least >.>) whether it's 7v7 or 16v16.
Of course the major differences is that in 7v7, aliens *"as a whole" will "tech up" a lot faster due to resources being split to only few players as opposed to 16v16 (for example).
*Note "aliens as a whole". Even in 16v16, due to RFK, aliens could possibly get a hive as fast as a 7v7.
Now I'm only talking about the alien side. As for marines the commander decided everything (due to the res pooling to the com only) and I agree that aspect may not be as appealing being able to decide what you can do yourself.
<b>Hmm how about this for a new resource model - Resources are still split but buying weapons/etc also causes "team resource" (from the commander) though to a lesser extent.</b>
For example a shotgun could cost 10 personal res and 5 team resource.
To make things easier, a commander can "reserve" a percentage of res for the team to use (like the commander can set 20% resources reserved for the team.).
Finally - Make it so players have to "earn" the ability to buy things using team resources. <b>Option #1:</b> Now this could be done by either making so "player resources" cannot be gained through RTs anymore but by actions. Welding will grant Personal Resource (PR for short from now on). Killing an enemy or "assisting"(doing damage to an enemy) will grant PR.
Building structures will grant PR.
Again remember that this time, equipment will cost team resources too "but" PR isn't automatically gained anymore.
<b>Option #2 (can be combined with the above too but may be redundant)</b> Another way is to make it so players require "privilege" to use team resources (lets say early game when team resources are lacking and advancing tech is more important). "Privilege" would be gained via above actions and I guess it could be considered a third resource type (except it's earned through actions like the above). Accidentally to avoid confusion, this is basically the same as "Option #1" so disregard if this seems redundant >.>.
Mix or match.
<b>Basically(Important points bolded):</b>
<b>1. All weapons and equipment cost team resources. Team resources are granted through resource towers. </b>
<b>2. Personal resources are no longer granted through resource towers but through actions (kills, building, welding, etc). This can be reworded as Personal Resources gives players the "privilege" to use the team's resources to purchase equipment.</b>
<b>3.</b> The commander can "reserve" a percentage of team resources for players to use to buy equipment. <b>A minimum of 10% or so resources has to be reserved (to prevent commanders from using up all the resources).</b> <b> This makes it similar to NS1 in that the commander decides when and how much players get equipment. However this time players will decide it for themselves by purchasing it with their own Personal Resource (or "Privilege").</b>
<b>4. </b>Another addition is the cost of equipment could scale or increase the longer the game goes on. For example maybe 5 minutes into the game, a Shotgun costs 10 "Team Resource" and 5 "Personal Resource".
However later game it could cost maybe "10 Team Resource" and 10 "Personal Resource" (or it could cost 15 TR and 10 PR).
<b>Depends which resources is "overflowing" or not being "consumed" enough. Make it so resources is still always needed throughout the entire game length.</b>
<b>5.</b> Actually it could scale based on player size (for example a shotgun would cost more "Personal Resource" on a 15v15 game as opposed to 7v7 game). <b>Now this kind of sounds like aliens in NS1 "except" tech (which is the commander's job in NS2 for both aliens and marines) won't scale based on player size. Just weapons and lifeforms.</b>
So while does seem like aliens in NS1, it's only "half" like aliens. Tech isn't scaled but weapons and lifeforms are.
Now this should only be needed if there is a problem of too much personal resources vs team resource. It can be made so PR doesn't scale but this means whoever upgrades or buys a weapon first gets it.
<b>6. </b>Finally this can be the same for Aliens too (everything costs Team Resource but aliens need "Privilege" to use it by earning Personal Resources through actions like kills or healing teammates, etc).
<b>Conclusion</b> - Essentially this is similar to NS1 style resource model for Marines (where the commander had all the resources and dropped the equipment using said resource) "except" this time players can earn the privilege to use team resources directly without the need of commander dropping the weapon manually.
- Where is pressure to have more than one Com chair ? The NS1 res model was based for 1 CC, where economic was centric to commander.
- What prevents to jump into second com chair, and make changes to percentage "reservation" on resource flow, to get all res into guns ? .. this can result into fight of two commanders to setup resources into guns / buildings
.. my thoughts are still, that NS2 need to split TRes for buildings / PRes for guns (and energy for stuff like meds, ammo drops, drifters ..) There you have reward for more res. towers to TRes pool and PRes (RFK will give marines in field better weaps .. as reward), and so ...
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
edited June 2011
@Petco:
you system is way too difficult to understand. always keep in mind that not only freak and theory-crafters are playing, but also "casuals" or new players. no-one of the will have the time or enthusiasm to try understanding such a complicated system. people want to see one (maximum two) numbers and a number on the equipment (structure) which they want to buy. not some slide-bar or % number to represent a system which side-effects they dont understand completely.
i prefer to stick with current res model, just adjust some numbers to make comms use t.res only, and field players p.res only. i see nothing wrong about that (easy to balance, easy to understand)
edit: if the comms keep p.res incoming during sitting in hive / cc, they should be able to drop / buy stuff which they could also buy as a field player. marine comm: can drop weapons, equipment (exo, JP). alien comm: can drop eggs (press use to evolve to lerk/fade etc), drop hydra/mini pustule (only indirectly by selecting a gorge and having a button that makes the next hydra drop (s) free for the gorge, paid by the comm)
Comments
Right, but the problem is that the <u>current</u> resource model effectively <b>necessitates</b> multiple commanders, or commander rotations (temporary commanders), which I think is a very bad idea.
<!--quoteo(post=1854510:date=Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am also leaning towards RFK going to Tres and Tres being used for support abilities as well. Though this does go counter to Charlie's wish of team size not affecting the pace of the game... but yea...in theory it should be offset by having more players means more support needed. Its a tradeoff<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see what you mean here.
Assuming that RFK&Support move to Tres, then the way I see it is, ideally: your Tres income from your towers would be spent on the usual things - whatever they're being spent on now, and maybe MACs and ARCs - you know, structures, units and tech. But your Tres income from RFK would be spent on your players. With more players on either side, you'd have more RFK, but you'd also have more players to support; i.e. you'd be spending just as much <b>per capita</b>. Therefore it scales - therefore, it <b>doesn't</b> affect the pace of the game.
Yeah, things don't always work ideally, if your team isn't getting hurt or wasting ammo you might have excess RFK, but if your team is constantly getting hurt or wasting ammo you'd be cutting into your standard Tres income; and then there's support costs to consider*, the value of RFK*, the amount of support actually required**, and the number of kills you're getting** - it gives the system more randomisation. But I think that on the whole, it should work well, assuming you balance these* things with these** things on a 'typical' game (which you can work out by recording stats). The better your team does (i.e. above the typical), then the easier your resource situation is, and the less trade-offs you have to consider; the worse your team does, the more focused you'll have to be on opportunistic trade-off decisions.
<!--quoteo(post=1854510:date=Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 12:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just axe pres use by commanders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then you have this problem with commanders just having ridiculous amounts of Pres later in the game, because they've spent none of it. I think it's actually fine if commanders' only use for Pres is buying spare weapons for their marines - if there's no Pres from RFK then I can see this feature actually being used. Or maybe with this new model that I proposed we could move sentries back to Pres, just a thought.
Haven't really got much to comment about the other things in your post.
Exactly what you said. In theory it should work, but I was trying to point out that initially it looks to go against Charlie's wish.
<!--quoteo(post=1854701:date=Jun 20 2011, 07:42 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 20 2011, 07:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854701"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But then you have this problem with commanders just having ridiculous amounts of Pres later in the game, because they've spent none of it. I think it's actually fine if commanders' only use for Pres is buying spare weapons for their marines - if there's no Pres from RFK then I can see this feature actually being used. Or maybe with this new model that I proposed we could move sentries back to Pres, just a thought.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know it was a wall of text and at the end of a page, but read my <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=113757&view=findpost&p=1854090" target="_blank">initial post </a>if you want to see where I'm going with this. The short and sweet is I don't think Commander should be use PRes. It needlessly complicates things and makes it hard to balance either, since they both affect each other...and are mechanically quite distinct from each other (player pres use vs comm pres use). Instead as a commander, the player stops generating PRes for himself, and starts generating a commander only resources for all commanders to use, which I simply called command res. The more commanders you have the more command resource you are generating...however it stops the necessity of commander rotations. Then we can go with a more tried and tested 2 resource model, where items have a costs ratio of Tres:Cres (0 possible for either) and Cres acting as the limiting, bottleneck resource. Support abilities can be more CRes heavy, allowing to scale with player count. RFK going to commander can still work, but could go to CRes pool instead (name of cres can always be changed so it makes more sense).
My point was that I don't see how it does go against it; in fact I think it goes WITH Charlie's wish for the game to scale well.
<!--quoteo(post=1854730:date=Jun 20 2011, 10:50 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 20 2011, 10:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854730"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The short and sweet is I don't think Commander should be use PRes. ... Instead as a commander, the player stops generating PRes for himself, and starts generating a commander only resources for all commanders to use, which I simply called command res. The more commanders you have the more command resource you are generating...however it stops the necessity of commander rotations.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only thing this removes is commander rotations, but this still means you'd be forced to have as many permanent commanders as you can, which takes players out of the field among other things. It's also rather clunky to suddenly decide a player is no longer gonna get PRes and suddenly get CRes instead. What happens if the commander steps out of the seat for a moment? He has no Pres, and his Cres stops producing. Your suggestion is essentially the same as having a commander spend out of his personal res along with team res, the only difference is that all commanders who have spent time in the chair have a shared pool of resources now, dependent on time spent in the command chair.
Now, if the third resource were independent of who is in the chair(s) and time spent in the command chair(s), maybe it's workable. But then I think it'd be the same as just splitting team res into two portions...
You must be right about the names of these resources getting in the way, because I never really thought of having costs that are both P.Res and T.Res, but honestly that could work if UWE was so strongly opposed to a third resource.
<!--quoteo(post=1854738:date=Jun 20 2011, 11:40 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Jun 20 2011, 11:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1854738"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What happens if the commander steps out of the seat for a moment? He has no Pres, and his Cres stops producing.
Now, if the third resource were independent of who is in the chair(s) and time spent in the command chair(s), maybe it's workable. But then I think it'd be the same as just splitting team res into two portions...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's how I understood it to begin with. And this is sort of leaning towards what I was suggesting as well.
While Commanding, any P.Res you'd normally gain is added to the Command Stations' C.Res/Energy pool. Each Chair has it's own C.Res pool Any Commander that steps into that chair can spend it's C.Res.
If you have no one in the chair, then you have no one producing Cres; in effect, most people have to act as batteries to charge command chairs (or charge the commander res pool), at least for some time.
But if you had a third resource that was independent of the players, but scaled with their number (in order to allow for increasing support requirements)*, it would work nicely. *One way in which they might scale quite naturally is RFK. However, it'd be little different from having team res scale with the number of players; so it would effectively just be splitting team res into two portions, but would cause your expenditure to be less flexible (you couldn't choose between supporting your players or saving for a tech).
...
One way that I envision a three-resource system to work might be... (with provisional names)
Resources: A team resource, gained only through resource towers.
Credits: A personal resource, gained only through resource towers (but generated for each player independently).
Bounty: A team resource, gained only through RFK.
-Most researches would cost just Resources (so as not to affect the pace of the game).
-Most weapons and equipment would cost just Credits (so as to allow each person on the team an equal chance at getting certain equipment).
-Most support abilities (like medpacks and ammunition) would cost just Bounty (so as to allow the same per-head potential for support).
-Everything else (i.e. structures, units etc.) would cost a combination of two or three of these resources (so as to facilitate 'opportunity cost' decisions, as well as manage the scarcity or abundance of resources or items).
Basically, Resources and Credits are your map-control rewards, and Bounty is your combat-proficiency reward.
-Of your map-control rewards: Resources do not scale with the number of players, but as they set the pace of the game (researches, key structures), they generally do not need to; on the other hand, Credits scale with the number of players due to independent generation of personal resources, and primarily determine the availability of better-than-vanilla weaponry.
-Your combat-proficiency reward, Bounty, scales naturally with the number of players due to greater availability of targets and greater availability of killers.
I guess the idea is that greater map-control leads to more structures and weapons; while greater combat-proficiency leads to better potential for overhead support.
So the idea is to give every item in the game a cost appropriate to: team size scaling, and to what degree it should reward or reflect either map-control or combat-proficiency.
But, I'm operating on the assumption that all resources will be appropriately scarce.
A second point is to not use the same resource for commander and player. Like I mentioned, it needlessly complicates things for the developers, and will give them endless headaches trying to get it right. Player Pres use and Comm Pres are obviously mechanically different ..almost two different games, but where changes to one will affect the other. I likened it to WoW trying for years to balance talent trees for both PvP and PvE. They finally saw the light and made separate talent trees for PvP and PvE.
I'm not particallry married to my idea on how CRes (or the 2nd commander only resource) is generated. Im still considering various different ways. Obviously I want something that scales properly and isn't annoying and gamey. These are the fine details that play testing will determine...but I do like the Resources, Credits, Bounty system Harimau suggested.
If you die with a shotgun you can't get another one for X minutes. This timer is effected by the number of Res points captured, number of enemies you kill, and the number of armories the commander has built.
If the commander wants more weapons on the field, he builds more armories and the players are responsible to fight within the overall tech strategy the commander provides. Same can be done with alien lifeforms.
This takes away all bookkeeping from the players and gives a natural stalemate ender when total map control is gained. And allows natural forward momentum the same way as RTSs (build time on units), in that you know it will take a awhile to rebuild an army so you can advance after you win a battle.
This also balances nicely regardless of player count if you tweak the timers.
Someone is always going to be in the Comm chair, I don't see this being an issue.
...
I'm also wondering how the game might be affected if we had player equipment cost not just Pres but also a bit of Tres. Tres might limit the abundance of expensive equipment; however, as it does not scale with team size, it would be a bit of a bottleneck for larger games.
Or if we used the Resources/Credits/Bounty system I suggested, player equipment would cost not just Credits (personal resources) but also Resources or Bounty (both team resources).
Another comparison of the three-resource system I'm proposing:
Credits: Personal, does scale; towers.
Bounty: Team, does scale; RFK.
Resources: Team, does not scale; towers.
So I can imagine high-tier player equipment could cost Credits and Bounty; Credits would limit the player's ability to get this equipment, and Bounty would limit the number of this equipment on the team (and is balanced against the commander's support costs).
There is a potential issue that the commander loses control over a portion of the team resources.
This resource system would work in the following way:
-Every purchase costs carbon, be it weapons, upgrades, or structures. However, only upgrades and (some?) structures cost plasma.
-The production of carbon scales with the number of resource towers and the number of players. The production of plasma only scales with the number of resource towers. Thus, plasma acts as a limiting resource which allows the pacing of the upgrades to be the same every game, while carbon scales and allows commanders to buy more weapons for larger teams. Trade-offs are also possible: the commander can decide to put all the carbon into weapons (as they are not limited by plasma), and completely ignore upgrades...
The only potential problem I see at the moment (as far as balance goes), is that if, with the current system, the entire team can have a shotgun by time X, with this 2 resource system, while all the team members still have shotguns at X, the first shotgun is bought quite a lot earlier. This can however be fixed by tweaking upgrade times or costs.
Finally, I am against the inclusion of RFK that pays into the commanders resources, because this will change the timings in the game, making things a lot less predictable. You might decide to keep a personal res (or income) with which players can buy (low tech?) weapons, to make sure that no player is left out of the team.
<!--QuoteBegin-Flayra+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flayra)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[...]
It will take too much time to go into depth explaining my logic but another reason why resources are split into two pools is to reduce the dependence on the Commander. Ie, players on the ground should be able to make some choices about how they play. I don't want the Commander determining if a player gets a shotgun - I want the player using it to decide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that, no matter the resource system, this problem will still exist: even with the current system, while a player might want a flamethrower, the commander might not research them until much later, or not at all if the game ends relatively quickly. To avoid commanders refusing to give any weapons to a specific player, make it so the commander buys the weapon, and then the players must come to pick it up at the armory (so it becomes a first come, first served kind of thing). At the end of the day though, bad commanders will be kicked out of the command chair if the players aren't having fun (maybe even add in a 'vote to kick' feature?).
the whole intention was, to remove the dependency to the comm and give everyone a chance to get their stuff. its still a shooter
and people want some amount of freedom.
p.res for kills is rewarding good players. so its solely the players fault if he has
no goody, and not the comms who might only give out weapons to his personal friends. and the comm
doesnt have to check carefully to whom he gives stuff, this decision is already made by the res model.
because of that, I would like p.res to stay in the game. the concept is nice
and as i stated several times already, but maybe a few people dont like it, <b>i prefer a system
where the comm uses only t.res and has no p.res income during commanding.</b>
1) maintains a similar overall pace from game to game
2) player equipment scales with the number of players (the same resources for equipment available per head from game to game)
3) commander support scales with the number of players (the same resources for support available per head from game to game)
4) allows players in the field to make their own decisions about their equipment/lifeform
5) balanced and does not lead to slippery slopes
IMO, what the <u>current</u> system fails to do right now are criteria 3, and criteria 5 (due to PRFK).
You could, of course, very simply have a numerical multiplier on certain resources (that cover criteria 2 and 3), but I think it's a bit of a clumsy system to work with.
thissss...
such an outdated hl1 engine method. needs creative re imagining like all the other features got for NS2. would also solve these issues:
1a) player(s) not noticing that small item
b) that may have just fallen through the crack in the map
c) that may not have produced sound or flashed light
2a) lack of scalability
3a) lack of regrouping when items dropped
3b) lack of staying in that "safe zone" the commander just spammed on the ground to save you.
i agree these odds and ends should be treated like the crag / armory : they produce scalability and teamwork tactics.
I seem to recall a script/mod that did something like this back in the NS1 days, but my memory isn't great. For things like healthpacks, it might be beneficial to have the healing happen over time, so that someone with a huge slough of resources can't make himself effectively invulnerable by machinegunning his medpack key.
What this will accomplish is making pack purchasing scale 1:1 with the number of players on the team, while leaving things that don't need to necessarily scale to team size (armories, observatories, etc) still come out of a different pool than someone's ammo dump.
<!--coloro:#7070FF--><span style="color:#7070FF"><!--/coloro--><b>Personal Resources:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(coming into personal pool ... per player)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "PRes" will be used only in FPS part of game to buy stuff like weapons.
<!--coloro:#70F0F0--><span style="color:#70F0F0"><!--/coloro--><b>Team Resources:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(coming into shared pool ... per side: marine or alien)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "TRes" will be used by commander/commanders to build stuff; upgrades; <u>ARCs</u>.
<!--coloro:#FF7000--><span style="color:#FF7000"><!--/coloro--><b>Energy:</b><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(always regenerating in CC / hive ... per tech point)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "Energy" will be used by commander to drop:
- med packs; ammo; MACs, <strike>ARCs</strike>, ... on marine side
- drifters; pustules (infestation), ... on alien side
<!--coloro:#9932CC--><span style="color:#9932CC"><!--/coloro-->The commander can use only energy from it's own com chair / hive.
<i>This will like Charlie: >> more commanders == more energy to spend <<<</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The last, but not least thinking:
- Hydras need to expire after time, the Hive commander can re-seed them before they die (and spend some TRes)
- The turrets will also go out of bullets .. and can be re-loaded by commander (also spend TRes)
... this re-seed / re-load mechanic is great think to draw off some TRes from pool in later games.
i.e. the aliens cower 4/5 of map and have hydras everywhere ... then commander need to re-seed each of them after some time.
the more hydras / turrets the team have .. the more TRes will be spend (and they will not stock as now)
How to re-seed / re-load ? commander must click on that "unit/building" and in menu will have button to do this action.
This can be also re-searchable (maybe in crag?)
EDIT: Commander will not spend it's own "PRes" while he/she is in comm chair/hive.
EIDT2: I fully Agree ARCs are attack unit (and need to be classified as building), then they will cost "TRes"
<!--coloro:#FFFACD--><span style="color:#FFFACD"><!--/coloro--><i>(always regenerating in CC / hive ... per tech point)</i><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The "Energy" will be used by commander to drop:
- med packs; ammo; MACs, ARCs, ... on marine side
- drifters; pustules (infestation), ... on alien side<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this idea, if the ARCs still cost Tres. I don't think its fair to get base attacking units for "free" (time).
but to have it for ammo and medpacks is good. they should be free, but still not spammable.
thou a decay time would have to be implemented to avoid bunkering up lots of them in a area. maybe 1-2 min
It will take too much time to go into depth explaining my logic but another reason why resources are split into two pools is to reduce the dependence on the Commander. Ie, players on the ground should be able to make some choices about how they play. I don't want the Commander determining if a player gets a shotgun - I want the player using it to decide.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
thats perfectly fine and i like the idea behind it! but you are mixing commander with personal res, because you want to create a gameplay where its necessary to
have multiple comms. this decision was already made a year ago. people said that its difficult to find competent commanders in public games, now in ns2 you need ~4 each round? :(
it would be better if 1 comm could achieve theoretically the same as 3 comms together. the only limitation should be reflexes / skill
I seem to recall a script/mod that did something like this back in the NS1 days, but my memory isn't great. For things like healthpacks, it might be beneficial to have the healing happen over time, so that someone with a huge slough of resources can't make himself effectively invulnerable by machinegunning his medpack key.
What this will accomplish is making pack purchasing scale 1:1 with the number of players on the team, while leaving things that don't need to necessarily scale to team size (armories, observatories, etc) still come out of a different pool than someone's ammo dump.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't move it to just Marine side. Some comms like that aspect of being a commander. Its just that it doesn't scale and with larger games it runs dry quick. Individuals drops can used along side drops that can help multiple players quickly at once (which are needed).
But I do thinking moving a bit of the support to the marine side would help with support scaling. The welder for one is a good example. Im not sure about the idea of letting everyone being able to heal themselves whenever they want. Instead of just pressing a button to magnanoically drop packs, I would love seeing a medkit item a player can purchase at the armory. For example, spend 15 pres and receive the medkit which essentially gives you 10 medpacks that players can drop on the floor for someone to pick up (similar to the medic in the BF games). There would be a small delay between each drop, so they are not spammed quickly. Perhaps the player with a medkit can only use a rifle in order to present a tradeoff, see rifle more play, and so that whole team are not medic rambos.
yea theres a good half dozen or so of you on the forums that have this idea, albeit some small differences.
the commonalities are :
<ul><li>comm doesnt use pres when in chair</li><li>seperate res for comm chair, not for player. (still keeping incentive for multiple comms)</li><li>new ammo / medpack delivery system that scales like the crag</li><li>attacking structures need to use tres</li></ul>
i think these are great improvements from the current model, a good compromise.
I think the reason this is a more effective tactic at the moment is because of the lack of commander notifications. It's very difficult to get the commanders attention especially for ammo (since there is no way for the commander to see if a player is low). Most of the time players get fed up and just run back to the base so it makes sense to build forward armouries to encourage the marines to stay and fight in specific areas.
Perhaps once the commander stuff has been improved we will see more people using ammo and medpacks as the marines request them and the armouries won't be necessary for forward pushes.
Yea, ditto.
I use them in forward positions where phase gates aren't present, and only if the area is secured enough. Drop the price slightly (10?) And then med packs might become obsolete. you don't need power for med packs but if armories are frequent enough it will do, and create that same crag like tactic on the front lines.
main problem to drop supplies. sometimes the interface is just not reacting, doesnt matter how much i focus on my marines, the bug hinders me from
helping them
I disagree - Again thanks to RFK, NS1 had relatively similar gameplays (in pubs at least >.>) whether it's 7v7 or 16v16.
Of course the major differences is that in 7v7, aliens *"as a whole" will "tech up" a lot faster due to resources being split to only few players as opposed to 16v16 (for example).
*Note "aliens as a whole". Even in 16v16, due to RFK, aliens could possibly get a hive as fast as a 7v7.
Now I'm only talking about the alien side. As for marines the commander decided everything (due to the res pooling to the com only) and I agree that aspect may not be as appealing being able to decide what you can do yourself.
<b>Hmm how about this for a new resource model - Resources are still split but buying weapons/etc also causes "team resource" (from the commander) though to a lesser extent.</b>
For example a shotgun could cost 10 personal res and 5 team resource.
To make things easier, a commander can "reserve" a percentage of res for the team to use (like the commander can set 20% resources reserved for the team.).
Finally - Make it so players have to "earn" the ability to buy things using team resources.
<b>Option #1:</b>
Now this could be done by either making so "player resources" cannot be gained through RTs anymore but by actions. Welding will grant Personal Resource (PR for short from now on). Killing an enemy or "assisting"(doing damage to an enemy) will grant PR.
Building structures will grant PR.
Again remember that this time, equipment will cost team resources too "but" PR isn't automatically gained anymore.
<b>Option #2 (can be combined with the above too but may be redundant)</b>
Another way is to make it so players require "privilege" to use team resources (lets say early game when team resources are lacking and advancing tech is more important). "Privilege" would be gained via above actions and I guess it could be considered a third resource type (except it's earned through actions like the above). Accidentally to avoid confusion, this is basically the same as "Option #1" so disregard if this seems redundant >.>.
Mix or match.
<b>Basically(Important points bolded):</b>
<b>1. All weapons and equipment cost team resources. Team resources are granted through resource towers. </b>
<b>2. Personal resources are no longer granted through resource towers but through actions (kills, building, welding, etc). This can be reworded as Personal Resources gives players the "privilege" to use the team's resources to purchase equipment.</b>
<b>3.</b> The commander can "reserve" a percentage of team resources for players to use to buy equipment. <b>A minimum of 10% or so resources has to be reserved (to prevent commanders from using up all the resources).</b>
<b>
This makes it similar to NS1 in that the commander decides when and how much players get equipment. However this time players will decide it for themselves by purchasing it with their own Personal Resource (or "Privilege").</b>
<b>4. </b>Another addition is the cost of equipment could scale or increase the longer the game goes on. For example maybe 5 minutes into the game, a Shotgun costs 10 "Team Resource" and 5 "Personal Resource".
However later game it could cost maybe "10 Team Resource" and 10 "Personal Resource" (or it could cost 15 TR and 10 PR).
<b>Depends which resources is "overflowing" or not being "consumed" enough. Make it so resources is still always needed throughout the entire game length.</b>
<b>5.</b> Actually it could scale based on player size (for example a shotgun would cost more "Personal Resource" on a 15v15 game as opposed to 7v7 game). <b>Now this kind of sounds like aliens in NS1 "except" tech (which is the commander's job in NS2 for both aliens and marines) won't scale based on player size. Just weapons and lifeforms.</b>
So while does seem like aliens in NS1, it's only "half" like aliens. Tech isn't scaled but weapons and lifeforms are.
Now this should only be needed if there is a problem of too much personal resources vs team resource. It can be made so PR doesn't scale but this means whoever upgrades or buys a weapon first gets it.
<b>6. </b>Finally this can be the same for Aliens too (everything costs Team Resource but aliens need "Privilege" to use it by earning Personal Resources through actions like kills or healing teammates, etc).
<b>Conclusion</b> - Essentially this is similar to NS1 style resource model for Marines (where the commander had all the resources and dropped the equipment using said resource) "except" this time players can earn the privilege to use team resources directly without the need of commander dropping the weapon manually.
- Where is pressure to have more than one Com chair ? The NS1 res model was based for 1 CC, where economic was centric to commander.
- What prevents to jump into second com chair, and make changes to percentage "reservation" on resource flow, to get all res into guns ?
.. this can result into fight of two commanders to setup resources into guns / buildings
.. my thoughts are still, that NS2 need to split TRes for buildings / PRes for guns (and energy for stuff like meds, ammo drops, drifters ..)
There you have reward for more res. towers to TRes pool and PRes (RFK will give marines in field better weaps .. as reward), and so ...
you system is way too difficult to understand. always keep in mind that not only freak and theory-crafters are playing, but also
"casuals" or new players. no-one of the will have the time or enthusiasm to try understanding such a complicated system.
people want to see one (maximum two) numbers and a number on the equipment (structure) which they want to buy.
not some slide-bar or % number to represent a system which side-effects they dont understand completely.
i prefer to stick with current res model, just adjust some numbers to make comms use t.res only, and field players p.res only.
i see nothing wrong about that (easy to balance, easy to understand)
edit: if the comms keep p.res incoming during sitting in hive / cc, they should be able to drop / buy stuff which they could also buy as
a field player. marine comm: can drop weapons, equipment (exo, JP).
alien comm: can drop eggs (press use to evolve to lerk/fade etc), drop hydra/mini pustule (only indirectly by
selecting a gorge and having a button that makes the next hydra drop (s) free for the gorge, paid by the comm)