I've been threading other people's good ideas in the suggestion forums since my first thread in these "new" forums back in 2006, so I have no reason or intention to stop doing so now. Besides, it's a really good idea! OffTopic: The me of 5 years ago is hilarious. I encourage anyone who's been on these forums for a few years to search out the first topics they made.
i agree with the suggestion. the biggest obstacle to implementation that i can foresee is how you get the scaling right. obviously since each map has a variable amount of refs, this means that the res wage ratio would have to be individually scaled.
There are ups and downs to this suggestion. The ups are obvious, but the downside is that whilst we can control the resource rate, we can't control the amount of wages people actually earn. This means that a team hemmed in their own base with 1 refinery might end up gaining more resources than the other team due to the amount of squad points/revive points and shit that they'll earn.
Resources that can only be spent on tanks. It takes lots of wages to build a top-tier tank without refinery support. And don't forget all the things that can't be done with wages: research, all buildings, wallspam, turretspam, eternal tanks vs. tanks clusterfuck stalemate. Frankly, if one team is against a hard rock and the enemy team and resists against a heavy assault long enough and with enough skill to get the wages to churn out some tank-supported retaliation, I don't see anything that's not fun about it. You bring up a good point, but I don't see it as a downside.
If each person manages to generate enough resources for a heavy in a short period of time, then suddenly 20 heavies. Nothing will stop that, nothing. And thus, losing team gets a pretty unfair win.
No, that's the problem. We can't fix specific values when we don't control how many points people are generating.
Several things: If wages scaled to a maximum of 40 for each point, then it would take 25 points to gain 1000 wages. Last time I checked, it takes longer than "a short period of time" to gain 25 points. For 20 heavies, 20 people would have to each earn 25 points individually. There has to be a working Vehicle Factory. Finally, there has to be adequate research for heavy tanks and good weapons/armor/engines. Now, we could easily adjust this so that a team with only one refinery gained 200 wages for every point, and that would be unbalanced. You can't balance how many points one person gets, but you can balance how wages scale based on how teams generally perform. This can even be balanced on how many refineries one team has compared to the other. This way maps with few refineries won't have lots of expensive tanks, and the beginning of maps will also have reasonable wages. *Verbal parry* En garde, Trickster!
In my decent squad in a tight space, we can earn 25 points in the space of 3 minutes flat. In a shit squad, 5-6 tops.
Note for the suggestion: This should be based on the relative refinery count of the teams, rather than the total map count. Thus, if the refineries are 1-1 or 5-5, both teams get 20:20 wages, and only if the refineries are as extreme as 8-0 will the teams get 5:40 wages. This prevents teams from starting out the match getting 40 res/point, and mitigates the difference in wages as they seize and fight over refineries. However, each person would need to earn 25 points, not just 25 points in total. (You aren't going to build a tank with 200 res on each of 5 people.) Even then, you've only got 5 tanks, not 20. What's the breakdown for a 20-man team earning 500 points (20 1000-res tanks) in 3 minutes? I suppose there's exploiting for points, but so long as you can exploit for points, wages in general are a bad idea, regardless of if they scale.* Also, any team with enough resources can 'suddenly' spawn 20 heavies, not just the losing team. The winning team is still receiving (sizable) resources from their refineries. *Speaking of which, how fast do you make points building the walls of other engineers?
you can make it so that certain points generate different types of wages. i.e, destroying tanks could net 40 wages, killing infantry 30, revives 20, building 10, and squad participation 5. for the team with all refs, it would look like 8,6,4,2, and 1 respectively. you don't get points building other engie walls. only com walls. the point is, trickster, say that someone generates 25 points in a short period of time (which is unlikely, most slaughtered games i see end with like 150 points top score if it's been a real stalemate). even then, consider how difficult it is to score these points. obviously you can rev whore and etc, but when the enemy is swarming tanks around you with like 7 tanks in your base at once, it's gonna be very difficult for 5 tanks bought with wages to turn the tide. and that's assuming your research is even, the vf stays up, etc. the winning team, even if this gets implemented, still have a huge advantage. and let us assume that you do get 5 heavies out. it's still not gg, because as you cap more and more refineries, wage count decreases to represent that. and if another team can't destroy you in about five minutes if you have no refs, then you practically deserve a win.
