Resources

[Theyain]

The problems with the first two are that it would encourage the teams to camp.

[Gireen]

how would these resource map work on multi level maps?
displayed ingame and defined by mappers?

[Theyain]

how would these resource map work on multi level maps?
displayed ingame and defined by mappers?

It could probably be set up with something similar to a map's navigation map.

Having a resource map like this

would allow us to have multi level resource maps that are inter connected via stairs, ramps, etc.

This could also allow AI to know exactly where they can place resource things.

[norfenstein]

The problems with the first two are that it would encourage the teams to camp.

A global build point pool doesn't do anything to force teams to move their bases, but I don't see how that encourages camping in any way. If you don't make an effort to control the rest of the map outside your base, the other team will, and be better off for it. And for that matter, local build point pools actually mean that after a time parts of the map stop being valuable -- you don't have to control the entire map, you just have to have a bigger base than the enemy and successfully move it around until all the build points are extracted. I would rather we encourage teams to expand control over the entire map rather than to move their base around constantly.

[Theyain]

Except for the fact that massive bases become impossible to defend due to most games not having anywhere near enough people to defend a reasonably sized base, let alone one that takes up a quarter or more. It's just not feasible.

We've seen this in trem, what would make Unv any different?

[norfenstein]

Bases would expand naturally to the size that a team is capable of defending -- the better the team, the more of the map they would be able to control. The difference with local build point pools is that parts of the map you control would eventually stop being worth defending altogether, so the best strategy would be to constantly tear down old defenses to move them to fresher spots. I could very well be wrong, but that doesn't sound as fun to me as letting teams make the strategic decision between their own expansion into unclaimed territory and attacking the enemy to prevent their expansion. Local build point pools means you would have no choice but constant expansion, and I think that'd be a lost opportunity for an interesting strategic choice.

[Theyain]

Bases would expand naturally to the size that a team is capable of defending -- the better the team, the more of the map they would be able to control.

Except that no matter how good a team is they can only defend so big of a base. We have all seen this in Trem. Again, what would make Unv so different that it would be immune from this issue?

The difference with local build point pools is that parts of the map you control would eventually stop being worth defending altogether, so the best strategy would be to constantly tear down old defenses to move them to fresher spots.

Why tear them down? Why not just leave them up? What is there to gain from tearing them down?

I could very well be wrong, but that doesn't sound as fun to me as letting teams make the strategic decision between their own expansion into unclaimed territory and attacking the enemy to prevent their expansion.

But why would you want to expand and force yourself to have even more ground to cover when you could just force the other team to always have to defend?

Local build point pools means you would have no choice but constant expansion, and I think that'd be a lost opportunity for an interesting strategic choice.

I don't see any sort of lost opportunity myself. Can you elaborate?

[Anomalous]

Well, Theyain's write-up, at least. I'd thought of something similar to it a while ago and I may have mentioned it a few times, so I don't know whether he's come up with it independently; no matter, the idea's out there and written up.

[norfenstein]

Why tear them down? Why not just leave them up? What is there to gain from tearing them down?

I'm assuming it will possible to reclaim build points for structures that are no longer needed, or otherwise be able to move them somehow. You would not leave them up because there would be no point in defending an area that has been drained of build points. The optimum strategy would be to constantly move all of your structures to where they would do the most good, i.e. defending fresh build point pools.

Is there anything I haven't thought of that local build point pools would get us that's not related to camping? Because I don't think that alone justifies it:

1. I think we've already addressed camping by making map control explicitly beneficial. If a team makes no effort to control more of the map, then the other team is free too, and would gain the advantage. Both local and global build point pools would accomplish that. Couple that with limiting the acquisition of funds for player upgrades while on territory you control and camping simply stops being a problem worth worrying about.

2. It's players that camp, not bases. However, local build point pools would only force teams to move their bases, and not force players to stop camping in those bases. I don't think having to shift your tent a few meters as your base creeps forward makes much of a difference.

3. I think it's possible that local build point pools could actually exacerbate camping by making players more defensive. Having to move base constantly gives builders a lot more work to do (building, deconstructing, and building more with those reclaimed points) which means they'll likely want more active defense from teammates -- and you'd be less inclined to leave your base anyway if you're not confident it can defend itself, which you never really could be if it's constantly changing.

But why would you want to expand and force yourself to have even more ground to cover when you could just force the other team to always have to defend?

Because sometimes one will be easier than the other. It's a fun strategic decision between going into unclaimed territory or reducing the enemy's resources. It depends on the map, on the skill of the teams, and on what the players enjoy.

Except that no matter how good a team is they can only defend so big of a base. We have all seen this in Trem. Again, what would make Unv so different that it would be immune from this issue?

I'm not sure what issue you're worried about. Teams would end up with a base as big as they could defend, and the better team would end up with more of the map in their control. And it'd perfectly fine for a team to accept having a smaller-than-possible base if they wanted to focus more on wrecking the enemy than preserving their own stuff.

My problem with local build point pools comes down to not seeing any benefits that it adds, and not thinking the behavior it will foster will be fun. As a builder I'd rather be able to pick a defensible spot for a base, fortify it, then work on expanding it with the build points it generates. If it stops generating build points altogether, then I'd be compelled to abandon it, because its structures could be better utilized elsewhere. The game for builders would be end up being about plotting a path through the entire map for the base to move through, and would presumably involve near-constant busywork of moving/deconstructing structures. Maybe that would be more fun than I'm imagining, but I'd rather just go with the simple approach.

[Anomalous]

Why tear [old bases] down? Why not just leave them up? What is there to gain from tearing them down?

Build points.

We could do things like deconstruct a resource generator (possibly with costs for the team, such as what's available to them) and allow a build-up of mineable resources to occur – for this to be workable, resources would have to be restored more quickly than they would be extracted, but not much more quickly.

OTOH, complication, which is also an argument against resource maps. But then finding a good, not particularly depleted, spot to put the generator could be interesting to some…