Resources

[norfenstein]

One of the assumptions we've all made for Unvanquished is that it should include certain common elements of strategy games, including resource management. It's time to define what exactly we mean by "resources".

Broadly speaking, a "resource" is something that can be spent for a purpose. Since there are four things you can do in a competitive multiplayer game, we can say that a resource in Unvanquished is something that enables a team do one or more of these things, or to do them better. Furthermore, we can talk about several qualities of a resource:

1. How the resource is acquired

2. How the resource is spent

3. How ephemeral the resource is (is what you buy with it reusable? if the enemy can take it away, do you get your resources back? immediately?)

4. How transferrable the resource is (can you get a refund to spend it on something else?)

5. How limited the resource is (is there a limited total supply? can you only have so much at one time?)

An example: Tremulous has three resources:

• Build points - Build points let you build structures, which are entirely reactive in Tremulous (you can't build a bot that goes and attacks the enemy) and hence can only be for passive defense or passive offense. (1) Build points for aliens are provided free up-front; humans get a lot this way too but can acquire more with repeaters. (2) Only builders (who are largely helpless) can spend build points. (3) Structures last until enemies destroy them, and then build points return in full over time. (4) You're free to intentionally replace one structure with another. (5) Alien build points and human reactor build points have a fixed limit; repeater build points are limited by space and reactor build points.

• Funds - Funds let players upgrade themselves, which contributes to active offense and defense.* (1) They are acquired by killing enemy players. (2) Aliens can spend funds anywhere not near the enemy; humans must visit a certain structure. (3) With the exception of the grenade, upgrades bought with funds last until you die, and you don't get them back. (4) Human funds are more transferrable than alien funds (aliens get fewer evolution options every time they evolve). (5) Players are limited in how many funds they can have at one time, but are otherwise only limited by how many enemies they can kill.

• Stage points - Staging up improves everything about a team, so stage points contribute to all four actions. (1) They are acquired by killing enemy players and (2) "spent" immediately. (3) They are not ephemeral, (4) don't need to be transferrable, and (5) being permanent, are effectively limited by how much is available to spend them on (teams can only stage up twice).

It's notable that passive defense and passive offense both require resources in Tremulous (structure building is the only act of passive defense, and the free weapons don't offer any method of passive offense).

The questions for Unvanquished are:

• How many resources should Unvanquished have?

• What actions should they enable or empower?

• How should they be acquired?

• How should they be spent?

• How ephemeral should they be?

• How transferrable should they be?

• How limited should they be?

*You could argue that it's passive to assist teammates in active offense and defense, but I think in team games it's more instructive to look at the actions of a team as a whole. An alien team in which one player kills enemy bases with a dragoon and has a basilisk buddy healing and disorienting humans is engaging in active offense, even if one "attacker" is only acting as a force multiplier.

[kharnov]

Thread stickied. When I have time tomorrow, I'll get right to posting my input.

[Viech]

I've been waiting for this discussion! I'll try to combine mine and `Ishq's ideas about resource sites into a comprehensive proposition.

First of all there obviously will be some sort of base building in Unvanquished so having a resource used for building structures seems appropriate.

Building resources

• Both teams can build resource generating structures (RGS) for free in any location, but a RGS cannot be build in the range of another RGS (regardless of the team that owns it). RGS can be destroyed and moved/deconstructed like any other structure. If a RGS was removed in either way, both teams are free to build another RGS in the former range of the old RGS.

• RGS generate a resource called build points (BP) over time. A RGS starts generating BP as soon as it is built, it stops generating BP as soon as it doesn't exist anymore (and possibly also under other circumstances such as power loss). At any given point in time, each RGS generates BP at the same rate R. R has a level wide initial value R0 and decreases over time (this effectively replaces sudden death).

• Build points are shared among a team. They can be spend on building a structure as a form of payment. BP are not returned when the building they were paid for gets destroyed. However, a building can be replaced or deconstructed which returns a part of its cost at once, where the ratio is a fixed number in [0,1] (it should not depend on the time to avoid miscalculations by players).

• Both teams can be given an initial amount of build points BP0 but there is no BP generation without a working RGS. Mappers are allowed to place initial RGS (but don't need to do so).

• Teams can build structures both in the range of their main building (if such thing exists) and in the range of their RGS. BP are not tied to the location where they were mined. A team can decide wether they want to have a strong main base and weak resource sites, an evenly distributed base or a weak main base and strong forwards (so BP can be used for both passive defense and passive offense, based on a teams strategy). [EDIT#1]

Building resources: Variations

• For team diversity, R and BP0 can be made dependent on the team (e.g. aliens have more initial BP but humans generate BP faster). I think this is rather dangerous in terms of balancing and should only be considered in a later state of development.

Building resources: Naming

• Both teams should mine the same resource to explain that RGS of different teams cannot be build next to each other.

• Build points can have different names as long as there is a valid explaination why distinct kind of BP are mined from the same resource.

• Idea: Human RGS: Miner. Alien RGS: Harvester. Human BP: Power. Alien BP: Fertility

Building resources: Discussion

• Regarding the fact that resources generate over time: [EDIT#2]
  The alternative approach that resource providing structures (RPS) add a fixed number of BP to the pool as long as they exist (as seen on the N7 server) is a bad solution for a number reasons: 1) If we decide to add BP to a single, level-wide pool it would be unclear (and possibly unintuitive) which buildings get unpowered when a RPS is destroyed. 2) The fact that buildings can become unpowered when a RPS is destroyed not only makes them the primary target when resource sites are attacked but also rewards kamikaze-style attacks and disfavors forwarding alltogether. Players would rather build close to their main base where the fragile "forwards" are easier to defend. 3) This approach doesn't replace an artificial sudden death. The fact that resources never run out makes matches stalemate-prone.

• Regarding the variable resource rate:
  One of my main design goals is to make game mechanics intuitive. Having a resource run out over time (decreasing rate R(R0,t)) makes sense and was an excellent idea by `Ishq to avoid the need for an artificial sudden death. Letting the resource run out locally would be even more realistic but would also be very hard to overlook by the player. Players hwo join late couldn't figure out a strategy because they don't know the valuable sites. Taking away a resource from the enemy wouldn't be as tempting because it could already be depleted, etc.

• Regarding the ratio of returned BP on structure deconstruction:
  High values make the game easier to learn while low values make it harder to master by increasing the importance of strategic building placement. Since both goals are desireable it is worth making the value freely choosable by the server admin. My proposition for a default value is something between 0.8 and 1.0 so cleaning up the mess of a newbe builder isn't too expensive. If server admins decide to choose a nondefault value that fact should be visible to players. Making the ratio depend on the time could help making the game come to an end faster but can hardly be explained inside the fiction of the game. Also not knowing how much BP are returned when deconstructing (not replacing) a building is frustrating if the returned number turns out to be too low to afford a new structure.

• I'm not going to discuss per player resources (blood & bounty aka evos & credits) in this post but we (IRC crowd) came up with the idea that you will only get such reward for a kill if the enemy is outside of the range of a friendly RGS. You don't get any bounty if you let the aliens enter your own base while the aliens drink no blood that drops on creepy ground (it belongs to the Overmind).

If you have minor improvement ideas or understanding issues please contact me via PM or IRC so I can edit the description and this thread remains short and dense.

[Asvarox]

we (IRC crowd) came up with the idea that you will only get such reward for a kill if the enemy is outside of the range of a friendly RGS. You don't get any bounty if you let the aliens enter your own base while the aliens drink no blood that drops on creepy ground (it belongs to the Overmind).

That might kill that dynamic introduced in GPP - Aliens get fed and storm humans; at one point they run out of funds while humans (if they survive) are now full of credits and start attacking aliens. I wouldn't want to have that kind of "no status quo" removed.

Though I think its not a bad idea for "stage points".

[Viech]

That might kill that dynamic introduced in GPP - Aliens get fed and storm humans; at one point they run out of funds while humans (if they survive) are now full of credits and start attacking aliens. I wouldn't want to have that kind of "no status quo" removed.

I don't think it's desirable to retain the "camp, camp, camp, rush, feed, feed, feed, restart" late game limbo of GPP. A team that is under heavy attack should try to push back the enemy (or be defeated) and not await the end of incoming waves in tower defense manner. A fight fought on your own ground should punish you, not make you stronger! If we keep this in mind we can easily favor offensive playing styles and stress the importance of strategic (forward) building.

I hope that I can soon[SUP]TM[/SUP] come up with a comprehensive concept of per-player resources as the statement you are criticising is currently just an unformed thought that I wanted to throw in because it relates directly to my concept of resource sites and their range. For the moment, just regard it as a possibility we have if a RGS/RPS approach is followed.

[norfenstein]

Viech's post is almost exactly how I personally think Unvanquished should handle building. Some differences:

• Build point refunds - I know this is fairly common in strategy games, but I dislike partial refunds for moving or replacing structures. I would much rather there be no extra punishment for misplacing a structure (if it's misplaced you're already suffering from it not being optimally effective, and will have to waste time building another structure), or simply a time penalty for deconstruction.

• Structures can only be built near a RGS - I don't see much value in restricting where structures can be built (other than the RGS themselves). It makes some sense if you want structures to depend on a power source so that they become disabled when it's destroyed (thus giving bases/outposts a "weak point" to attack), but I think it's more fun if builders can simply place things anywhere (Gloom did this).

• Different starting build points or generation rate for different teams - I strongly feel this is something that should not differ between teams.

That might kill that dynamic introduced in GPP - Aliens get fed and storm humans; at one point they run out of funds while humans (if they survive) are now full of credits and start attacking aliens. I wouldn't want to have that kind of "no status quo" removed.

It would be very helpful if you (and everyone else) described what you felt the dynamic should be like throughout a game of Unvanquished in this thread. I realize it's hard to separate the questions of pacing and resources, but these two combined will give us a strong foundation for the design for Unvanquished.

[janev]

1. How the resource is acquired

2. How the resource is spent

3. How ephemeral the resource is (is what you buy with it reusable? if the enemy can take it away, do you get your resources back? immediately?)

4. How transferrable the resource is (can you get a refund to spend it on something else?)

5. How limited the resource is (is there a limited total supply? can you only have so much at one time?)

1) There is one resource that both teams need to acquire. Both teams want it; it is limited per map and therefore contested.

a) You acquire it by building map control structures, OR
b) You acquire it by mining resource sites (my preference)
The resource is an organic matter; the aliens feed off it, and the humans use it as a power source (it’s 2-sides of a coin).

2) That one resource pool is used for all aspects of a team’s progression (stage advancement, building, and individual compensation) in a multi-tiered approach. When a team breaches a stage-up watermark their team advances and the team loses a set amount of resource points. Builders can always draw from the team’s resource pool to build structures. Individuals on the team are allowed to draw from the teams resource pool based on some individual performance metric.

The more you build, and the more you spend on weapons the slower you progress. This allows coordinated teams to implement Tech, turtle, rush type strategies by being thrifty and managing their resource expenditure.

3) Resource points on the map are fluid and contested. Whoever controls the site gets the resource.

If it is decided that raiding the opponent’s resource is a fun gameplay feature, then resource storage structures can be added.

4) Stage ups are permanent. Builders can recoup some resources by removing structures, but not 100% so people are less likely to waste time needlessly tweaking bases. Weapons purchases are refundable in full. Alien upgrades are nonrefundable.

5) There is a limited supply of the resource per map. Admins should be able to adjust just how much is available.

Harvesting resources does not stop during the map. The map ends when one team is wiped out or they run out of resources. When there is nothing left to harvest on the map you either play until one team runs out, you award the team with more resources the win, or play until time limit. Just how things end is open for discussion.

If it is decided that late game turnarounds are desirable the total amount of resources one team can have at any given time is limited.

It's not yet clear if players draw from the whole resource pool or if a portion is made available to them. Both would work. The benefit of drawing personal funds from the whole pool is its flexibility. The performance metric would have to be defined in a way so asshats continuously dying with expensive gear dont drain the pool too fast. The asshat would have to get less and less resources to play with. For example setting the performance metric to killing enemy building and capturing territory would mean that the best gear goes to the person who rushes the hardest

The resource sites would captured by clearing out the enemy presence, and holding the position for a set amount of time. If it is decided that a builder is need to capture a resource site then make it so a structure must be built on site to cement your control. This could be tricky in public play so perhaps you could also capture a resource site by prolonged proximity to the site. This proximity would set off a trigger that gives your team a resource gathering structure and perhaps some basic defenses.

[norfenstein]

I've been thinking about this more and am starting to think that a decaying rate of build point disbursement adds little and complicates things too much. I think we'd be better off simply having one map-wide total (defined by the map, probably overrideable by the server) that depletes linearly in direct proportion to the number of RGSs present. Besides being much more intuitive and easier to understand (which makes the game more accessible), it would mean having one less variable to worry about during balancing.

[norfenstein]

1) There is one resource that both teams need to acquire.
2) That one resource pool is used for all aspects of a team’s progression (stage advancement, building, and individual compensation)

This is a very novel approach, but I think having only one resource would be too problematic for all but the most organized games, and I'd really like Unvanquished to be just as valid for public games as clan matches. Specifically, I think it would create far too much intra-team competition. Tremulous has shown that builders can sort out their differences well enough, and "killstealing" is something to whine but not worry about, but when a team member knows that a builder creating a structure means he's less likely to get an upgrade he wants? Or an entire team needs to colletively decide NOT to upgrade or build too much so that they can stage up faster? I foresee non-stop in-fighting in all but the smallest teams outside of pre-arranged games.

[norfenstein]

I'll take a stab at non-building resources.

Assumptions:

• Unvanquished will have building, and it will use a resource collected from the map itself, via some kind of resource generating structure (RGS).

• Players should be able to upgrade themselves somehow.

• Teams should be able to expand what player upgrades and/or buildings are available.

Easy questions:

1. Should team upgrades be expand player upgrade options, building options, or both?

2. Should team upgrades be permanent?

3. Should any player upgrades be permanent?

4. Should resource acquisition for player or team upgrades differ between the teams?

Question 1 is probably the easiest to answer, just by anticipating popular opinion: team upgrades should include both player and structure options. I can see value in limiting them to only player options (structures tend to be defensive in nature and you want offense to increase more than defense as a match progresses), but I don't expect much support for that.

I'd also venture to answer questions 2 and 3 in the negative because it seems like the consensus is that Unvanquished should be heavily focused on resource control, which implies that when you lose control you should get correspondingly weaker. For player upgrades in particular, I don't think we want to make joining a game in-progress even harder than it will likely be anyway.

For number 4, I haven't seen anyone suggest that this is something that should differ between teams. I think things this fundamental should be identical because balancing them can get insane otherwise.

Open questions:

1. Resource for player upgrades?

2. Are team upgrades for individual things, or stages with sets of upgrades?

3. Resource for team upgrades?

For player upgrades, I (and I'm guessing most others) think this should work very similarly to funds Tremulous, frags in Gloom, et al: kill things (or do a small number of other actions we deem worthy of earning funds for) and get funds that you can spend on upgrades. You can only hold so many funds at one time. You never lose upgrades by using them, only by dying (or intentionally getting rid of them for some reason), though you might have to wait a while for refills. I won't get into how funds can be spent, transferred, or (the biggest topic of all, and one we're not ready to get into yet) what you can actually buy.

How team upgrades are acquired will depend on whether those upgrades come in sets (stages) or individually (research/tech tree or somesuch). I can see the appeal of being able to choose specialized upgrade paths, but I feel that there's no good way for teams as a whole to decide how to do this, which will invariably lead to intra-team acrimony ("go away noob, you're ruining everything"). Stages are simpler (both to understand and balance) and give all team members a common goal.

I don't have an opinion yet on how team upgrades should be acquired, but I think most of us want them to be based somehow (perhaps loosely) on map control. So I see a number of decent options for what they could be based on:

• Total build points acquired - This directly ties team upgrades with build point acquisition: teams simply stage up when they've acquired certain threshold of build points over the course of a match. This option is probably the most similar to Tremulous's stage points. It's also probably the least desirable if I'm right in assuming we want staging down to be a possibility.

• Total RGSs present - This is probably the most obvious adjunct to the build point system we've described. It's simple and easy to understand.

• Total build points presently in use - This is similar to basing team upgrades on RGSs. Both basically say, the more map you control the more stuff you get. I kind of like the simplicity of it, but can see it being a little tricky when you have a single turret making the difference between stages...

• Have a structure that grants team upgrades - Could be one large structure per stage, or multiples, or one that you could keep upgrading with more build points. This is still basing team upgrades on build points, but it opens up a decision point for teams in choosing between better upgrades or more defenses.

• Map-defined resource points - Even if build points are generated from map-defined locations, the resource for team upgrades could be. I like this option the least since it's the most complicated and probably wouldn't be more interesting than the preceeding option.

• RGSs can generate either build points or team upgrade points - The proximity limit on building RGSs would still apply, builders would just have to prioritize getting build points or team upgrades. I think this would be largely similar to building a structure to get upgrades, but is more complicated.