Resources

[Theyain]

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.

If it's a tiny base that's soul purpose was to deplete an area of its resources, why defend it? Just let it die.

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:

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.

Except for the fact that large bases or multiple small bases are impossible to defend with out having massive amounts of players. And due to the constant influx of BP, there is no worry of needing to move base save for a massive, extremely well coordinated attack. Thus the player's are more likely to camp.

Also, what's the point of all this BP if players can only build so big before it becomes impossible to defend?

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.

Correct, but it's bases that lead to camping. Why would a player camp anywhere but a base? It's safe, easy access to ammo, and unlimited health regen.

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.

I think any sort of BP pool with exacerbate camping, because people will want to protect thier resource miners. Why? Because no base is good enough against a coordinated enemy attack. If they where, camping would be even worse.

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.

Which is offense. It's always better to attack then to defend. You will ALWAYS loss if you only defend.

And you still have the option to do strategic maneuvers! You have MORE options with the resource map then you would have with global! With global there is no way to strategically deplete resources from the other team's area(s). With the Resource map there is.

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.

And those bases where SMALL. The biggest bases I ever saw built in trem where by the humans on Niveus and it was still a small base. It was a internal clan fight that I spectated and they could only build so big before it became undefendable/unmanageable. The bases wasn't even that big compared to the rest of the map.

What I'm worried about is camping. Your suggestion gives players a means of having near unlimited BP with out having to worry about it running out till what is basically our version of sudden death. They don't have to worry about strategic moves like depleting resources around the enemy's base, or slowly moving their base as one side depletes (it would be like watching an amoeba move if you think about it), or any other sort of strategy related to BP. A global pool removes that possible element of strategy as the only thing you CAN do is make our version of sudden death come quicker.

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.

You make that sound like hard work. That's, what, 3 or 4 button pushes? Have two people on a team do it and it's done in less than a minute.

Why would it be constant? I would think every 5-10 minutes is a good time for a resource miner to deplete an area.

[norfenstein]

Correct, but it's bases that lead to camping. Why would a player camp anywhere but a base? It's safe, easy access to ammo, and unlimited health regen.

If camping is really such a problem, shouldn't we get rid of bases altogether then? Because I don't think just forcing them to move around would do much of anything to mitigate it. And I'll say again that I really don't think we need any more mitigation anyway.

With global there is no way to strategically deplete resources from the other team's area(s). With the Resource map there is.

Okay, that's something I hadn't thought of. But what would that strategic decision look like in practice? If it amounts to "should we or should we not build aggressively around the enemy to keep them from expanding?" then we don't need local build point pools for that at all.

They don't have to worry about strategic moves like ... slowly moving their base as one side depletes (it would be like watching an amoeba move if you think about it)

You make that sound like hard work. That's, what, 3 or 4 button pushes? Have two people on a team do it and it's done in less than a minute.

This does not sound like fun to me. I think it would be more fun for builders to be able to choose their preferred location in a map to focus on and expand, rather than force them to build everywhere in the map (while simultaneously unbuilding everything they made 5-10 minutes ago).

[Theyain]

I have more than this to say, but I am pressed for time.

NS2 does resources as well, but does it by having the extractor area be mapper placed and have a a limited, local pool. It's a pretty good, noninvasive deterrent against camping, but is rather limited in both strategies and where you can build.

[Gireen]

I see a Problem with Free placement. The team with dominate the bigger part of the map gets more BP to defend the line to the other Teams area and it's end in endless Camping on both sides.
The Resource map has the same problem + it's more complicated and heard to visualize.
A local BP pool results in many small and weak bases without any benefit versus camping. ( The main base has the same amount of bp players go out fight, and build outposts or just stay in the base.

For the best practice for Resources we only need to look at classic RTS games Age of Empires, C&C, WoW, StarCraft.
At the start place are limited Resources and early players must expand. Fight about new Resource spots, to building defence on them and in there Main Base. The most attacks happens to enemy’s outposts. If a Players Main base gets rushed he has the small chance to build a new one in one of his outposts or at a untouched Resource spot.)

The only difference we have is that a team cannot increase there units with the Resources. For this reason special buildings with hight costs could making a team stronger. e.g. More Health/Amor or to weaken the enemy Team.

[norfenstein]

I see a Problem with Free placement.

A number of us have voiced concerns about free placement versus fixed sites (assuming a global pool), but given that

• Free placement is probably simpler to implement

• It won't hurt anything if we have to fall back to using fixed sites instead (meaning probably nothing else would have to change if we switched from free to fixed)

• And free placement has potential to be much more interesting (fewer games do it, it would give players a lot more freedom to experiment with building placement)

there's already a consensus to try free placement first (which may or may not still apply if we decide to use local build point pools instead). I really only enumerated it for the sake of completeness.

[Gireen]

Ah. and now its all about to limit the Resources? With local BP or a resource map?
How is it with the areas in a map? (these small location text in the hud).
The resolution is lower than with the resource map but you have free placement per area.

[Ishq]

Now that we have decided to at least attempt free placement. One debate that I have not heard much about and has not yet been explicitly decided is whether or not we want to use Build Points or Resources. A quick summary and definition:

Resources vs Build Points: Another interesting debate which needs to be decided. Resources emphasize holding onto a location for a long period of time and rewards a team accordingly for holding onto a location for a long period of time because when a team holds onto a location for a long time, they will continuously get resources from it. On the flip side, resources means that teams are not penalized as hard when long standing RGS's are destroyed because they do not immediately lose the resources mined from them. Build points, on the other hand, emphasize keeping the RGS's alive. The length of time alive is not important as build points are received immediately after building and lost immediately after the RGS is destroyed.

Personally, I favor the resources approach. It allows a team that is consistently winning maintain its lead as opposed rapid changes in positional advantage based on random lucky strikes against weakly or undefended resource sites. It allows the the team to attack harder without needing to constantly fear the safety of the outer based.

Now, should we move forward with the resources approach, we need to decide how exactly some of the details will work out.

-How close can RGSs be built to each other?
One way to do this, ableit artificially, is to set a minimum distance that all RGS must be built from one another. Another more realistic and less artificial, although, arguably more difficult to implement and less concrete to understand is what Theyain suggested: The closer two RGSs are built, the lower their mining rate will be. I prefer the latter as it is less artificial and we can always fall back to the eaiser method should this fail for whatever reason.

-Should there be a global resource cap or a local resource cap?
A global resource cap seems more fun to me. That means there is a fixed number of resources both teams must fight for and due to the fact that both teams share the same resource, any RGS built by one team is a blow to the other team. It is in the opponents best interests to destroy all RGSs, whereas with local resource pools, RGSs in locations far from theaters of combat are more likely to be ignored all together (granted, there will be a benefit to destroying it, but not as great as with a global resource pool.).

-How should the resource cap be set?
Per player? Per map? I am undecided on this as of yet. Perhaps a combination of both would be best: per player up to a map defined ceiling. This would allow for potentially small games on larger maps without it being all building and no attacking.(although, technically, small games should not happen on large maps, but it is always good to be flexible when possible)

-What happens when resources run out?
The easy answer is that both teams should attempt to rush and destroy the other with their remaining resources. However, potentially, both teams could potentially have bases that are too strong for the opposing team's players leading to a stalemate. Should we allow a stalemate or come up with a potentially artificial method for deciding a match?

[Viech]

The closer two RGSs are built, the lower their mining rate will be. I prefer the latter as it is less artificial and we can always fall back to the eaiser method should this fail for whatever reason.

I'd like to add that we don't need any form of resource map (and thus local depletion and its visualization) for this. Cadynum came up with an approach where there's a minimum distance at which two RGS mine at full speed while RGS that are built closer to each other both mine at a reduced speed. RGS that are built right next to each other would only mine insignificantly more than a single RGS. (Cadynum preconcluded that RGS had a building cost.) His idea broke the articifial minimum distance while still being rather easy to implement and very intuitive: When you are about to place a RGS the color of its preview could indicate how beneficial the position would be.

[Gireen]

How close can RGSs be built to each other?

another option is increase the minimum distance of RGSs with there number.

[norfenstein]

Now that we have decided to at least attempt free placement. One debate that I have not heard much about and has not yet been explicitly decided is whether or not we want to use Build Points or Resources. A quick summary and definition:

The definitions we've been using in the rest of this thread are simply that build points are a type of resource used for making structures ("resources" being anything that can be spent for a purpose). Other types of "resources" (to use examples from Tremulous) would be funds (credits/evos), and stage points. "Build points" doesn't imply any particular method of acquisition or how permanent or transferrable they are.

what Theyain suggested: The closer two RGSs are built, the lower their mining rate will be.

whereas with local resource pools, RGSs in locations far from theaters of combat are more likely to be ignored all together

I think you might be misunderstanding Theyain's suggestion. The difference between a global build point pool and a resource map is where build points come from, not where they can be used. The question at hand is how should build points be acquired: from a global pool, or locally with a resource map. With either method, once a team acquires a build point it could be used anywhere (at least, I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise). You're right that with a global pool there would have to be some kind of restriction on how close RGSs could be built to each other.

-How should the resource cap be set?
Per player? Per map? I am undecided on this as of yet. Perhaps a combination of both would be best: per player up to a map defined ceiling. This would allow for potentially small games on larger maps without it being all building and no attacking.(although, technically, small games should not happen on large maps, but it is always good to be flexible when possible)

The problem with basing it on playercount is do you change it as players come and leave? I think it'll be harmless to experiment with different methods for this, but I'd suggest starting with the simplest approach of making it always map-defined.

-What happens when resources run out?
The easy answer is that both teams should attempt to rush and destroy the other with their remaining resources. However, potentially, both teams could potentially have bases that are too strong for the opposing team's players leading to a stalemate. Should we allow a stalemate or come up with a potentially artificial method for deciding a match?

Maps shouldn't allow for bases that are completely invulnerable, and as long as teams can chip away at the enemy base one structure at a time I don't think there will be a problem.