Make your own resource node

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Lazybum, Jan 11, 2018.

?

Would this help make things interesting?

  1. I like simple resource buildings

    16.7%
  2. I prefer placing my own resource node

    16.7%
  3. Useless idea

    16.7%
  4. I just don't like how it's implemented here

    83.3%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's very apparent that the only place people build any bases is around res nodes. While it does create obvious points to contest it can feel restricting in a way. After all you're more likely to keep a res node alive if people spawn around it, so trying to build in more outta the way places can make you lose the map or at least your income. So lets give commanders the ability to make their own points of conflict.

    Give commanders the ability to make a building that generates resource, or even the ability to plop down a res node that a ref can build on. In either case buildings should be limited to something small, just 1 or 2. Unlimited would just be a big boon to winning team, the one more likely to have the map and res to get more income, or cause way too much res to be in the game. I want this mostly to add more flavor and options for commanders after all.

    While buildings that generate res is kinda obvious in function, res nodes require a bit more explaining. These res nodes would be somewhat permanent I think, so it's a bit more of a gamble. This way the opposing team can claim it for themselves, which helps incentives taking over that location. I do think it might be good for it to be destroyed too though, but I think the commander needs to be the one to do it. The commander selects it and hits the recycle button or something, but only if a friendly is in the area. Functions the same for the enemy, so in a way it's like a flag cap, but you don't actually need to cap it. Control goes to the team that has last living person in the area, no one there no one can do anything about it. And of course building a ref is needed to actually get res.

    All that said I think there needs to be a minimum distance between res nodes or buildings, so people can't just place it in their main base. I want to say radar distance but then I realized that kinda makes most maps unable to place them, so maybe as far as a lvl 3 turret? Something significant that might require a bit of playtesting.
     
  2. w00kie

    w00kie Mustachioed Mexican

    Messages:
    3,863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dislike the whole concept of nodes and refineries that you plop on them. I'd love to have a zone on the maps instead where "crops" are growing (Tiberium / spice / mana / saffron) and both teams need to build a VF and a combine harvester first in order to gain any res from it. Make it cost as much as an arty tank so it is a big loss if lost. the crop itself is poisonous for infantry and vehicles outside of those combine harvesters, so that they avoid zones where it has grown.

    I just haven't figured out how to make it interesting in terms of gaining more res than the enemy without it easily becoming a slippery slope.
     
  3. Ranger

    Ranger Member

    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not against this but I prefer the Total Annihilation format. Various buildings to produce energy (emp refs=geothermal power plant). Then add Metal as the second resource needed to make stuff and use Metal Extractors to get it. This allows for the addition of new buildings like energy and metal storage, metal fabricators (turns energy into metal), advanced metal extractors and power plants. The Metal resource could be scrapped, but in 8x8km maps it would make sense to have larger bases and more intriguing economies. This is gud copy pasta. Empires could take tips from TA for balancing its units too.

    Just look at the vehicle factories, honestly, they make tanks out of energy instantly. They got some serious Stargate Asgard technology there.
     
  4. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    VF (and commander building) production times are a separate argument that would take well too much space to break down here.

    Instead, I'll say that adding a second resource to the game could be potentially interesting. I envision a system similar to what Ranger described, with a new building type (types) to generate/store it, needed to build advanced structures and vehicles. It'd be a huge complication of the current system, though, and I dread to even think about balancing it.
     
  5. w00kie

    w00kie Mustachioed Mexican

    Messages:
    3,863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    how do the resources a refinery produces even go from the ref to the VFs and the commander? Underground pipes?

    a) have the team pickup and deliver res by picking them up from the refs and bringing them to the CV. Either they carry it in their pockets or with some sort of fuel truck.
    b) have engineers build pipelines all across the map
     
  6. Xyaminou

    Xyaminou Member

    Messages:
    1,360
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Improving the economic said of Empires is something I've suggested many times, however it is a large undertaking. The main idea is to allow the commander to chose between improving his team's technological level, military forces or economical balance. Empires only offers a choice between the first two.
    This can be achieved through many ways, but I believe the addition of a secondary resources such as Energy/Power would be one of the most interesting.

    As for your idea of creating your own resource node that would then be a permanent static point, I believe I may have a better solution.
    I like the idea of being able to place "Resource Extractors" anywhere on the map. In that regard you could imagine being able to place Refineries anywhere on the map but their income would depend on their location, certain location would provide more resources. Think of it as a "Resource Heightmap", this would lead to an entire new side of gameplay that would consist of scouting the map for the best spots to place Refineries.

    Of course this is all theoretical and will never happen in Empires. Long Live Empires!
     
  7. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I rather like the idea of power plants like in red alert for empires, but the only problem with power plants or things where you have to build a whole bunch probably is some maps don't have the build space. Huge maps like chain or dust have a lot of room for this, but maps like palmbay or even streets can be a bit tricky without it ending up right in front of the enemy.

    I like the resource map thing, but I feel that requires new maps. It's why I suggested what I did, it can just be added to any empires map and just werk.
     
  8. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Don't make it multiple buildings. Make it it's own investment, either by having the building level up like turrets, or having the building opens a new type of window like research where you can improve the one building. Let the multiple buildings function as multiple radars would, simply a backup so the loss of the first is not so detrimental.

    Problem is that it refocuses the design of maps to have tactical important points because of position rather than value due to resources being there. Some maps did both at the same time, tactical positions being points of resource availability, but mvalley, for example, would be somewhat pointless in design. no point to go for dam. Canyon you would lose the usefulness of the original spawns in trade for moving bases to high ground in most cases, which tends to happen anyhow, but makes the NF spawn area sort of pointless to hold. BE gets a major advantage, having a useful high ground position with tactical advantage over a choke point.
     
    w00kie likes this.
  9. w00kie

    w00kie Mustachioed Mexican

    Messages:
    3,863
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Make that building cost resources, to gain anything from the building you have to invest further resources into it, after a while it will give you more resources back than you invested.
    If the building gets taken down your investment is lost.
    If it gets sapped the outcome is delayed.

    So then you still need to control refineries and the building is optional.

    Oh, also the building should have a small footprint but be very tall (skycraper [WTC???]), so it is easy to spot.

    reading this again: that is a boring thing.
     
  10. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, that's why I don't want people to really gain a whole bunch from these economic structures. It's just meant to let commanders shift a bit where they want to place outposts/bases, it's not meant to replace refineries. Also help losing side just a tad because some maps, like streets are really fucking hard to gain back territory for one side and sometimes all you need is one extra ref to not instant lose.

    Also dam is always worth, that 4x ref too good not to get.
     
    w00kie likes this.
  11. Ranger

    Ranger Member

    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will use an example from Total Annihilation again, to maybe solve dis. In total annihilation you've got solar panels and wind turbines to get energy early in the game. Then you get Geothermal power plant which you can place on smokey smoks. They are usually far away from the base and therefore they often become small outposts with defenses since they produce significant amounts of energy for early game. Then you get fusion reactors and you don't give a dam(hue get it? damn mvalley hue) about geothermal, solar and wind energy.

    In Empires it might as well be the same. (Implying you have an Empires where you can actually place many buildings like a proper rts). refs are already points of interest. If extra res buildings are added then their importance should be adjusted for each much accordingly. and extra res dont hurt anyone anyway.

    BUTT. This basically turns everygame in a fight for territory. The one with most land will almost always because he has most of the res, and more land to place resource buildings. So idk, I don't really like this idea. I don't like fighting for territory. What happens in all long games is that you corner your enemy and surround him with repair stations armories and barrackses. There's no chance of escape. So I find this mechanic problematic.

    I think what I mean is, that empires focuses a lot on resources scattered around the map. I'd like to build a strong base with good economy able to fight back even when cornered. This would require res buildings, perhaps high tier structures like fusion reactors from TA idk. The winning team could build many of them sure, but it wouldn't make a difference. With total control of the map's refs their economy was already stronk. The difference in this scenario from what we have today is that they losing cornered team would have an economy capable of producing vehicles to push back the enemy if they have the skill.

    The chance to push back the winning team is something that current empires totally doesn't allow. I think the game should allow all types of matches to be achievable. Don't bring the arguement that, "if the team was skilled it wouldn't have been cornered". Getting surrounded could be a result of a failed attack, a misstep, a sadden rush attack, a change of strategy etc. The losing team should be able to take advantage of enemy failed attacks and missteps as well and be able to field rush attacks and apply new strategies. Currently in end game you only have 2 tanks defending and slowly dying, every time (I mean the two tanks never win).

    Just imagine if everytime you are cornered in canyon, you knew there's still hope as long as you have say, a powerful res structure that allows you sustain a sizable force, even without vast territory control..

    Imagine if Planetside 2 was like. Oh shit, nubs ate all res and I cant get in a airplane or a tank or a jeep

    TL:DR going on and on about certain flawed gameplay mechanics that could be changed with the addition of new res structures and other changes in the game overall
     
    w00kie likes this.
  12. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am still a proponent of a hard refinery limit that can be increased by way of research. Start with 2, get three-four tiers of research to increase the limit, tweak incomes on maps accordingly.
     
  13. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For what purpose?
     
  14. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think in empires, in it's current incarnation, must have resource points being the main means creating conflict on maps. Taking points is the main focus, until you have enough tech to destroy the enemy.

    This is the limit of the size of maps. There is only enough room for one or two major interesting points of combat in most maps. When they are placed on the outsides, a la mvalley with the north, southwest and southeast, it becomes possible to have up to 3, but never being able to have a map that allows for expanding action. Taking the choke point wins the map instead of being the step to leading up to a resource point or a base. The chokepoint is both, or protects both. Every map is an individual skirmish at an individual choke point, instead of a grand battle that was originally envisioned on maps of much larger scale.

    Without the resources being points on the map, and only points on the map, 90% of maps become pointless. You can have one team turtle and another team expand and capture territory, and both be exactly even. The only way for a map to have longevity is to allow for locations to be constantly contested at once, which means smaller, more focused maps will always do better relative to the gameplay available in this game.

    If you can get a map that is 2km x 2km in size though, you can start to have more interesting designs that work. The greatest problem in empires is that we always designed maps to be too large and have too much going on. If the maps were designed around a single concept or a single principle, like the circle of canyon, the high ground low ground fight of isle, and then incorporate the resources so that they are in the midst of the action, rather than a side thought, it would help create a better feel for maps.

    isles is one of the most diverse maps in that regard. Canyon has some issues with 3 refinery points in particular, the corners opposing the bases and the NF refinery behind the hill in NF base area. If those refineries were brought closer to the action points, and allow for the open space behind them to be something that isn't really used early on, but becomes valuable building space for buildings later, that would be good. The resources draw people away from the action too far, and you end up with games where one or two players are dedicated to staying 5 miles away from the action just to keep things in check. Resources should stay somewhat as is, and reinforce what areas are supposed to be contentious. If you want to speed up games, allow for a research that increases the res multiplier. Make each res node entity have a separate multiplier for each team, and allow for each team to click on the resource node and 'research' a better res point when they have a collector on it. every successful completion increases the multiplier by .2, for example. Move the resources closer to areas of traffic to make them more of something to fight for rather than that side trip while you put the antivehicle walls up.

    Just my opinion.
     
  15. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,809
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can tell you now that more res doesn't mean games are going to speed up. Empires in it's default state has too much res to begin with, even if you make it only affect one side that's no different then a winning team having 70% map/res control, which I don't remember really helping the winning team actually close out the game at all. A lot of this is due to incompetence and lack of team work on both sides, but throwing more money, which usually means more tanks, at the problem rarely actually ends things. Though I should mention on quite a few maps, corridor type maps like streets or slaughtered, you simply can't fit all those tanks in so they just get destroyed one by one. Really more res would be a decent thing if we had something else to spend it on, even something like tank maintenance, but with vehicles the only real reason to have loads of money for you hit a limit of nothing to really spend it on.
     
  16. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Best way is to just have a mech upkeep cost that reduces the amount of resources you are obtaining.

    I mean, there is no easy solution to this, because the base assumptions are going to be incorrect 50% of the time. If you are really looking for the 'right answer', pick how the game is most functional, how the game is more entertaining, and create mechanics surrounding that single situation. In my experience, games lasting between 25-40 minutes is best, and games that are fighting over resource locations are best.

    From the RTS standpoint, games like sins of a solar empire had upkeep cost depending on the size of your army, and games like starcraft had finite resource nodes. Finite resource nodes might be the ultimate solution for the play style of empires that works best. I think that if you want to make any change to how resources function, just remember that you are going to change how the game is fundamentally played and at least half the people won't like it at first.

    If I'm not mistaken, can't the resource points already be designed to give finite numbers of resource? Maybe make a test version of canyon and isles to see how this functions in practicality and run a test weekend.

    It's been a long time since I have played a proper game, but it would be something I wouldn't be opposed to making the time to be around for.
     
  17. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For better income scaling (growing your economy) and concentrating the teams on high value resource points, either to secure them fully or deny them from the enemy. Much like now, except the commander can decide: whether they want to go for a contested high yield refinery or a secure lower yield one - in contrast to the current situation, where you should have every refinery that isn't part of a frontline. They can also decide to focus on improving tech or economy via research, instead of being fully focused on technology.

    Decision making is the bread and butter of strategy games, it could be nice to expand upon that aspect.
     
  18. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,472
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From a technical standpoint, this is an extremely easy change to each resource node entity, you don't even need to recompile the maps since this can be done via entspy. The question is, what amount of resources is the right amount?
     
  19. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I havent played in so long, I don't remember how things run,

    but, take a look at the common research paths, and add up those numbers. Look at the tank cost, and figure the cost of 20 tanks at the end, and add 5000-10000 for shit tanking and APC's. Check and see how people react to it, see how it affects matches, and look into adjustments like a slow flow initial set of points, with finite points as the extensions if this causes too many problems. The issue is that resources will start to dwindle in the same way tickets dwindle in infantry maps, and it'll become something not everyone will enjoy at all.

    This type of play will change the focus of the game back to heavy infantry and smart use of tanks, making it much better for hardcore players.

    I'm sitting in discord if you want to toss ideas back and forth there instead of every couple of minutes here.
     
  20. Metal Smith

    Metal Smith Member

    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't realize you removed price from research.

    Do you have any statistical tracking for games for resources spent?
     

Share This Page