Metal distribution needs to be more predictable and should spawn in 2, 3, and 4 patch clusters. My suggestion is to have a predetermined amount of metal spawn after player location is chosen at equal distances from the player, but at random locations around him/her. Example: If metal spawned in 2, 3, and 4 patch clusters, there could be a 2 patch cluster at player spawn. Then at a set distance around the starting location, maybe 2 clusters of metal (one 2 patch, one 3 patch), somewhat opposite each other, then further still, 4 clusters (three 2 patch, one 3 patch). Beyond that, random clusters spawn at reasonable distances from each other, without grouping the clusters. It's outside the of the distances around the players where 4 patch cluster COULD occur. That way some battle are fought over these more valuable spots. I'm just thinking about competitive play here. Players will not want their strategies to depend on chance placements of metal around the map. They are going to want to know that at certain stages of the game they can expect a specific amount of metal they can harvest without traveling over half the planet. EDIT: nvm
We have some threads on the Metal Amount/Distribution already, beyond that you can't have everything as clusters; Also it's not like the current Amount/Distribution methods are refined at all, Neutrino was commenting even that he was thinking of reworked the whole system into something better from the ground up even. Even then we also are still not sure exactly what shape the 'Egg' will take and it could provide a way to speed up the initial portion of the game in that spawning with Metal right next to you isn't as important but we don't know much about it yet; From the Live Stream Index Thread. Mike
I disagree. Right now, finding metal around the map doesn't even lend you the resources to defend in a turtlish manner. I don't want to promote defensive play, I'm an aggressive player, I want more bang for my buck though, so to speak. If I spread out to claim more metal, it needs to be worth it, and I need to be able to hold onto it without having to turtle. Having an extra extractor in an area may just lend the extra time to defend it, not to mention the extra resources. This is also why I'm suggesting mostly 2 patch clusters near the players. Gaining metal at that rate would actually give you a foothold. Don't neglect the fact that more resources also means more to attack with. If resources are balanced, then turtle strats should depend more on the power of defense-structures vs units.
I'm not just talking about resources at spawn, I'm talking more so about the clusters out in the wild, a cluster is naturally easier to defend than the same amount of spots not in a cluster and so if everything is in a cluster raiding is harder to perform and turtling/defensive play is more applicable. Not that there shouldn't be some clusters of cours to help focus conflicts, but clusters should be the exception, but the standard IMO. Mike
Well don't just a-move and call it a raid. Players should have more than one of these clusters throughout the map. Extractors don't yield that much, you're going to need a lot, even in mid-game. Plus, these clusters shouldn't be too close together, and the bigger clusters should be a good distance from the starting location. So? Multi-pronged attacks, fake-outs, Nuke=MORE EFFECTIVE. You have to be skewing what I'm suggesting on your own, because this is meant to promote aggressiveness. Not to mention, gathering resources in an intuitive fashion, meaning somewhat linear spots, as to attack from the angles you're building at, lends to aggressiveness while being able to defend. An aggressive player will always win out against a turtling player if they are actively gathering resources. Eventually the aggressive player will snowball and roll the turtling player.
Defensive play is not bad. In fact, it's crucial to allow defensive play in a game like this because you can't micro everywhere at once. In a game of this scale, you will almost always be defending more places than you are attacking, and your bases need to hold their own while you focus on attacking one of the enemy's more poorly-defended bases (or a much larger force against a better-defended base). Because the economy is territory-based, turtling will never become a dominant strategy, so there's no need to worry about a stale, defense-heavy game. And clusters of metal will actually encourage more aggressive and dynamic play, giving clear and rewarding targets to capture and defend. Right now, my options are too overwhelming; I can't hold a metal extractor here and another one there, so more often than not I don't expand very far.
As to the scale, I agree. That's partly where this is coming from. This game is 360 degrees. In every other RTS there have always been walls around the map. This means some spots you only had to defend on one side. In this game, if they can't get in one way, they can ALWAYS go around. I don't agree that you will always be defending more places than you are attacking. That means your opponent is attacking more places he's defending (1v1) Yes! This is what I mean about intuitive placement. You can build your base in somewhat of a line toward your enemy and poke from the tip. This means that's you'll likely only have to defend from that same angle unless the opponent gets you on the backfoot, which can happen if you're opponent moves or expands around the other direction. I'm not saying I don't want the game to force me to spread out, but I shouldn't have to build extractor's down toward and on the south pole if my enemy and me are fighting on the equator; UNLESS the battle takes us there. This lends to so many different strategies. Oh sure. Single patches here and there, but unless resources are placed in an intuitive manner, the more competitive strategies won't develop. It will just be two players fighting over randomly placed resources, and sometimes this randomness cripples one of the players. Also, I hate to say it... metal needs to deplete.
Ah yes... forgot about 1v1 XD. I usually prefer the crazier 3+ player games. 1v1 is too stressful for me. But I think my point still stands. If you have 5 bases, then your opponent can, of course, only attack a couple of them at a time, but you don't know which ones he will attack. So you still have to defend all of them as if they were all actively under attack, or your opponent will find the weak one and take it. As for depleting metal, I'm intrigued. What makes you say that? My first instinct is to say no, that's a feature of Starcraft-style strategy games (that is, pretty much every other RTS) rather than the Total Annihilation family. The function it serves in Starcraft is to force the player to expand rather than just camp out in their initial base for the entire game - the reason for that is that the UI (and the "supply"/population mechanic) of a Starcraft-like really limits your production, and for a beginning player, it's virtually impossible to produce units at such a rate that you would ever need to expand. In the Total Annihilation family, this isn't the case. The interface and gameplay encourage you to build lots of factories and produce as many units as possible, and it's immediately intuitive that you need to expand and get more metal points in order to build MOAR TANKS. In Planetary Annihilation, then, metal depletion would serve a different purpose: it would force you to keep moving around and never settle into one place for too long. This could create very interesting locust-type tactics, which the devs have definitely stated that they like during the last livestream. However, it comes at the cost of discouraging players from moving up the tech tree (because your advanced buildings would have to be left behind at your old base. It works for Starcraft because your old base is behind your new bases and can't be easily accessed, but PA maps don't have borders). In addition, the mechanic of, well, annihilating planets already creates the locust-type tactics far more epicly than metal depletion could. Dang it... why do I wind up typing a huge rant every time I go on these forums? XD
Don't worry about it, I like the discussion I think it's the direction it needs to go in order to be competitive. I could see turtling becoming too big a problem, even in it's current state. I understand where you're coming from on this part, but I don't think it will have as big an effect as you. The rate of depletion will have to be balanced, and obviously the player who does climb up the tech tree will be the one not able to defend his higher tech buildings he left behind. I see it playing out like this. Slow metal depletion will have no impact on early, or even mid-game until you get t2 extractors. Once t2 extractor come into play, then depletion becomes a problem, but if you don't move up in extraction rate, the other player who does just wipes you because he'll have more units. More resources= more units. But, on the flip side, if both players are at equal skill, a lost battle shouldn't mean a lost game. You've given up your extractors to move in a different direction and your opponent, who won the battle (though, at a cost) will not gain very much because the metal deposit's are near depletion. This will also mean you can't just throw units away willy-nilly. You need to make good decisions and OUTLAST your opponent, unless you conquer them first. Also, comebacks will be more likely. EDIT: The problem about max storage can be addressed as well. Once limit is reached, extraction is halted until some is spent. This way there are no lost resources.
please no... we don't need depleting metal... all you need to do is to not constantly defend but to attack back if they attack one of your bases chances are there will always be a gap in someones defences ether you can out nuke or orbit them or just going in with bombers or an army (i prefer an army xD) or nukes depends on my mood. this game builds on its self and the worst thing you can do is turtle and only turtle if you war going to turtle you will need to get T2 get better metal extractors and to get orbital not only to try to snipe the other person's commander but to also get off planet so you can expand somewhere.. you need to expand in this game or you will die... you will be out teched... i face turtles 70% of the time and i have not lost to one yet... depleting metal will only make things worse for them... the other funny bit is i send my builders to get extractors everywhere and i mean everywhere half the time sure i lose a few here and there but that is when my army comes in and pushes back.... the best bit is that the people never find all my metal points.. atleast not till after i kill them xD
Competitive games shouldn't rely on that sort of chance. I'm sure they would make it so you could change that in customs, but I'm simply thinking of a competitive 1v1 ladder.
what sort of chance? if everyone fought over the metal points then it would be an = playing field... but turtles give it up without a fight xD its to easy currently.. but making metal deplete won't solve anything... if you want metal gone then just throw a planet at them
There's no point to even start a discussion about depleting metal as the endless streaming economy is probably the fundamental design that makes PA unique in its niché (together with TA and SupCom).
Metal distribution is a big issue - though I've found that the issue stems more from balance of starting positions than from clustering per se. The biggest challenge I've had with 1v1's is the number of them that are won or lost from the get go due to one player having literally 2x or more the mass at their starting location. You could argue that means that you should have picked a better starting location, but until there are strategic icons for mass spots (a la SupCom) I don't think you can effectively vet your starting positions.
One more thing we should keep in mind, it's not all about where resources are placed, where the spawns are placed plays a part too, of course that system is still pretty rough as well, so I'm sure as things get refined we'll end up with much less "variance" in terms of the results. Mike
Enjoy your stalemated games. If you want a competitive 1v1 game, the possibility of a draw after an hour's play is unacceptable. The situation where one player holds one planet, the other holds another, and neither has any mass is all too possible, and with the high cost of mounting an interplanetary assault neither side is under any incentive to attack There's already a mechanic to prevent throwing away units: Reclaim makes feeding units into a meatgrinder with no strategic gains an almost automatic loss.
Metal should deplete... After the mass of your units is roughly equal to the mass of the planet. I'm picturing a shriveled up prune of a planet with a mile-thick crust of destroyed tanks across the entire surface.
