What if the game had supply?
rantology
Join Date: 2012-02-05 Member: 143750Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold
Join Date: 2012-02-05 Member: 143750Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold
<div class="IPBDescription">for commander stucture/units only</div>Just a thought, but I think the idea has some potential benefits, if NS2 were to adopt a supply system a'la Starcraft, but for commander structures/units only (nothing that cost p-res). Stuff with supply would be anything that the commander builds- buildings, arcs etc etc.
I know this would make t-res neigh impossible to spend late game but I would argue that that is already a problem.
<!--coloro:#9ACD32--><span style="color:#9ACD32"><!--/coloro-->benefits:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
-there would not be 10 whips, crags, shifts and shades in every single room and hallway on the map, therefore I think late game server performance would be something that is do-able
-as a commander you cannot just build 50 static defense structures per room, turning the match into a turtle-fest that makes players want to kill themselves with a rusty spoon. You would instead need to pick which areas you want fortified etc etc
-You wouldn't see 50 arc trains in addition to 10 turrets per room
-Games would be easier to end
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->downsides:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
-t-res would become relatively useless late game (i will argue that this is somewhat the case as it stands now, and that the economy design in the current game is mostly to blame). You could help alleviate this by having weapons and lifeforms drop-able by t-res, but at a greater cost perhaps (20-30% more than if you'd used p-res?).
The supply cap obviously doesn't have to be super low or anything, but I hate seeing so many abortion games where there is 50 static defense structures per room on servers with 5 tickrate, and I think it would help stabilize end-game server performance (the devs could count on a certain stress level for servers and optimize around it,?) on top of making it more tolerable gameplay-wise (keep it about Player VS Player and not AI Static Defense VS AI Static Defense)
I know this would make t-res neigh impossible to spend late game but I would argue that that is already a problem.
<!--coloro:#9ACD32--><span style="color:#9ACD32"><!--/coloro-->benefits:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
-there would not be 10 whips, crags, shifts and shades in every single room and hallway on the map, therefore I think late game server performance would be something that is do-able
-as a commander you cannot just build 50 static defense structures per room, turning the match into a turtle-fest that makes players want to kill themselves with a rusty spoon. You would instead need to pick which areas you want fortified etc etc
-You wouldn't see 50 arc trains in addition to 10 turrets per room
-Games would be easier to end
<!--coloro:#FF0000--><span style="color:#FF0000"><!--/coloro-->downsides:<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
-t-res would become relatively useless late game (i will argue that this is somewhat the case as it stands now, and that the economy design in the current game is mostly to blame). You could help alleviate this by having weapons and lifeforms drop-able by t-res, but at a greater cost perhaps (20-30% more than if you'd used p-res?).
The supply cap obviously doesn't have to be super low or anything, but I hate seeing so many abortion games where there is 50 static defense structures per room on servers with 5 tickrate, and I think it would help stabilize end-game server performance (the devs could count on a certain stress level for servers and optimize around it,?) on top of making it more tolerable gameplay-wise (keep it about Player VS Player and not AI Static Defense VS AI Static Defense)
Comments
However, the aliens would need some form of structure recycling to make this work.
I wish the devs would stop being such pansies with the economy and jack up the price and research time of everything by a good 30-50%, in addition to tying alien t2/t3 abilities to hive2/hive3. Those 2 changes alone would make the game experience 2x as good as it is now.
There's really no way to get around that. Even if you jack up the research time/cost, there will still be games that last long enough to run into the same problems we have now. Structure/AI supply caps makes end-game NS2 much more interesting as you have a trade-off between shoring up existing defenses or pushing into the enemy territory, rather than the current spam up everything until the server crashes or one team has enough bored/rage-quits.
Comms would probably also need an extra bar indicating the current #/# of defense and offense structures.
For example: Marines start out on Summit with 25/25 tres. They cap a second res node, it turns into 25/50 and so on. I think Summit has about 9 res nodes. This would mean that a dominating team could get no more than 200 tres if they took all res nodes excluding the one in the opposing team's main base.
This would solve the drowning in tres problem in late game, but I would like to get opinions on this from other players whether they be pos or neg.
Could this help with prolonging the early game?
Another benefit from this I think is it could help develop a min and max size for maps. (Room to Res Node ratio)
I would really like to see them try and balance the economy further first before they consider such drastic solutions.
I would really like to see them try and balance the economy further first before they consider such drastic solutions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except that <b>ALL</b> RTSs have hard caps (generally in the form of unit supply). In fact, the spammy nature of NS2 late-game play is a big example of why RTSs use a hard cap. In good RTSs, the hard cap is implemented such that it add values to the strategic nature of the game.
But as you say, there would still be turtle/spam games regardless of economy model so I think having supply/res caps would be an idea worthy of thinking about. But I think if you were put in a supply cap you'd have to put in a res cap like voodoo's idea so that you wouldn't have teams sitting on 500+ t-res in the late game.
I don't agree with all the changes in the mod, but the core game play is much more solid and because the economy is much more paced, losing an RT actually has an impact on the economy of your team- it feels a lot better.
Simply capping the amount of static defenses allowed seems like something really easy to mod and we could try it on pub
Simply capping the amount of static defenses allowed seems like something really easy to mod and we could try it on pub<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and this has been done for sentries (roughly 3 per room) in previous builds. However, this is a poor way to go about hard capping because it adds very little to the game besides restricting spam.
I'm in love. Which server hosts this mod?
I like RTS games where there is no hard cap but the limitating actually comes from spamming being rather ineffective. Not sure how this could be applied to NS2 but C&C Generals or Earth series never felt particuarily good when you spammed units, in the end they just blocked each other and got killed by splash much easier; instead you'd want to get few, powerful units.
One approch is supply and I'm in favor of it. I'd assume you mean SC2 when you mention starcraft 2, so I think it has the same system like WC3 does which could work fine in NS2. Ie, the more units (and in NS2s case, + buildings) you get, the less ressoruces you get from extractors. In WC3 there were 3 levels (0-50: 100%; 51-80: 70% and 81-100: 40%), something like this could be applied to NS2.
Could also affect PRES so we get less weapon/onos spam at some point (measured by the amount of upgrades on the frield -> 5 oni low pres yield, 5 jetpacks, shotguns, welders -> low yield, 5 skulks -> high pres yield. Could also be a sort per person thing)
Usually duplex private or superpaxbros. It's only played in gathers, though.
<!--quoteo(post=1946029:date=Jun 23 2012, 03:04 AM:name=Omega_K2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Omega_K2 @ Jun 23 2012, 03:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1946029"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I like RTS games where there is no hard cap but the limitating actually comes from spamming being rather ineffective. Not sure how this could be applied to NS2 but C&C Generals or Earth series never felt particuarily good when you spammed units, in the end they just blocked each other and got killed by splash much easier; instead you'd want to get few, powerful units.
One approch is supply and I'm in favor of it. I'd assume you mean SC2 when you mention starcraft 2, so I think it has the same system like WC3 does which could work fine in NS2. Ie, the more units (and in NS2s case, + buildings) you get, the less ressoruces you get from extractors. In WC3 there were 3 levels (0-50: 100%; 51-80: 70% and 81-100: 40%), something like this could be applied to NS2.
Could also affect PRES so we get less weapon/onos spam at some point (measured by the amount of upgrades on the frield -> 5 oni low pres yield, 5 jetpacks, shotguns, welders -> low yield, 5 skulks -> high pres yield. Could also be a sort per person thing)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SC2 doesn't work like WC3 does. You explained WC3's supply system. I'm on the fence about it affecting tres as I've always hated being punished for winning. It may be an alternative to reduce spam and control tres explosion late game. I don't think it should work on pres, though. You'll just end up with a ton of skulks and lmg marines.
One approch is supply and I'm in favor of it. I'd assume you mean SC2 when you mention starcraft 2, so I think it has the same system like WC3 does which could work fine in NS2. Ie, the more units (and in NS2s case, + buildings) you get, the less ressoruces you get from extractors. In WC3 there were 3 levels (0-50: 100%; 51-80: 70% and 81-100: 40%), something like this could be applied to NS2.
Could also affect PRES so we get less weapon/onos spam at some point (measured by the amount of upgrades on the frield -> 5 oni low pres yield, 5 jetpacks, shotguns, welders -> low yield, 5 skulks -> high pres yield. Could also be a sort per person thing)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The C&C and Earth series (and I'd say Starcraft/Warcraft series) did make unit spam less valuable, but part of that was because they capped the total number of units (via some sort of supply limit). Trust me, if there were no cap in those games, unit spam would become much more viable because there always exists a level of spam that will overwhelm any counter-spam game mechanic.
The issue with upkeep systems aka WC3 (or having res nodes only contain a limited amount of res) is that it is more likely to increase the number of stalemates rather than decrease them, because both sides in NS2 get their basic unit (marine/skulk) for free. If NS2 required you to spend res to respawn, then those traditional RTS concepts would work better.
The issue with upkeep systems aka WC3 (or having res nodes only contain a limited amount of res) is that it is more likely to increase the number of stalemates rather than decrease them, because both sides in NS2 get their basic unit (marine/skulk) for free. If NS2 required you to spend res to respawn, then those traditional RTS concepts would work better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually like the idea of costing tres to spawn.
This would actually increase the spam rather than decrease it. Comms would just start dropping extra structures once they got close to the cap so they wouldn't be wasting res (except for new comms, in which this would just be a huge newb penalty). If you needed extra res, you'd just then start recycling those extra structures, transforming structure spam into a type of resource bank for marines or just spam for aliens (as alien comm, I'd just put the res into whips mostly).
Tbh, it isn't very hard to do, but it just takes me forever to find the suitable bits in the NS2 code to modify/adjust, so I'll see how well that goes along..
For example:
<b>Aliens: </b>
When the alien structures are growing on infestation, they require a lot of nutrients. The more structures planted in one area, the greater the competition for nutrients. High competition could lead to stunted growth.
<b>Gameplay effect:</b>
The more alien structures built in one area the longer alien structures take to mature. This wouldn't be linked to number of alien structures in a room, but the physical distance between structures. If the concentration of structures is particular high in one area, alien structures in this region could stop maturing altogether (this would not affect any structures already fully matured). Uprootable structures (such as whips) or echoed structures can't be moved to an area if the nutrient level is too low. When the alien commander goes to place a new structure, a colour overlay could be placed over the creep. The colour could range from green (plenty of nutrients) in sparely populated areas to brown (little to no nutrients) in heavily populated areas to give the alien commander a visual indicator. Perhaps the infestation itself could be coloured.
<b>Marines:</b>
We all know marine structures draw power from the local power grid. Increasing the number of structures over the optimal capacity of the grid places a heavy strain on it, leading to an overload.
<b>Gameplay effect: </b>
As structures are placed in a room, they draw power from the grid. If the local power grid capacity is exceeded (the rooms current power draw and its max capacity could flash up when the commander moves his mouse cursor over the room in question), the room's power supply will start taking damage. The hazard lights on the power supply would flash and it would spark as a visual indicator that an overload is occurring. The damage would be slow at first, to give the commander time to recycle a structure, but it could increase exponentially with time to stop the marines tanking the damage with one marine sitting there welding. Eventually, the power supply will pop, and the power can not be restored until enough structures are destroyed or recycled to bring the power draw under the room maximum. Alternatively, a (stackable?) debuff could be placed on all structures in the room, reducing their effectiveness (turrets fire more slowly, armory replenishes less per tick, etc).
<b>*Edit*</b> I think the structure debuff for the marines would work better and more closely reflect the aliens soft cap. When the commander is going to place a structure, the ghost outline could be blue if adding the building will not exceed the power grid, yellow if it will (which warns the commander that he will suffer a roomwide structure debuff if he does), and red if it will majorly exceed the power grid (and apply the most severe structure debuffs with it).
A per-room-supply-cap would not solve the issue either unless the cap was set frustratingly low, you would see the room caps maxed with little effort late game.
But again, to implement a supply cap I think you would also need to implement a res cap somewhat along the lines of what voodoohex suggested so that you would not encounter teams that bank 500+ t-res late game:
<!--quoteo(post=1945710:date=Jun 21 2012, 03:22 PM:name=VoodooHex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VoodooHex @ Jun 21 2012, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1945710"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Instead of the current model where it is possible to get near a thousand tres late game, what about if we convert res extractors to contribute to a tres hard cap.
For example: Marines start out on Summit with 25/25 tres. They cap a second res node, it turns into 25/50 and so on. I think Summit has about 9 res nodes. This would mean that a dominating team could get no more than 200 tres if they took all res nodes excluding the one in the opposing team's main base.
This would solve the drowning in tres problem in late game, but I would like to get opinions on this from other players whether they be pos or neg.
Could this help with prolonging the early game?
Another benefit from this I think is it could help develop a min and max size for maps. (Room to Res Node ratio)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For example: Marines start out on Summit with 25/25 tres. They cap a second res node, it turns into 25/50 and so on. I think Summit has about 9 res nodes. This would mean that a dominating team could get no more than 200 tres if they took all res nodes excluding the one in the opposing team's main base.
This would solve the drowning in tres problem in late game, but I would like to get opinions on this from other players whether they be pos or neg.
Could this help with prolonging the early game?
Another benefit from this I think is it could help develop a min and max size for maps. (Room to Res Node ratio)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I support this idea.
True, but then I'd put res into disposal AI/structures that I would rush enemy players/bases (think suicide whips, suicide ARCs, suicide drifters, suicide MACs, etc). The key point is that hitting your res cap is wasting 100% of your additional resources, such that any action that has a value greater than zero (such as a whip suicide rush as it keeps marines busy killing it) would be a worthwhile investment.
I think a way to fix that would be to make defensive structures/offensive structures cost more than what a single extractor resource cap offers to stop turtling teams from continuously building sentry/whip after another.
So if a single extractor gives 25 tres cap, then a sentry or arc would cost 30 tres.
So if a single extractor gives 25 tres cap, then a sentry or arc would cost 30 tres.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would definitely put a damper on base turtling, however, this would really sting when laying down initial defense in the early game.