Optional feature idea - Map Resource Scaling

One of the thing I have always loved about the TA family is the epic sense of scale. Definately one of my favourite things has always been playing on massive maps. Normally I only play these games over a LAN and usually against a single opponent. THe level of depth this offers in all these games is fantastic but it does present a problem.

Very large maps are normally designed with 6 to 8 players in mind and as a result are replete with resources. The problem is that when only two people play on such a large map, the level of resources can become overwhelming and can make the game more about micromanagement rather than grand strategy.

What I propose is an option to scale the available resources on a map to the number of players on that map. Generally, I think this could take one of two forms. By far the simplest and honestly the one I Would love to see implemented is to make it so the larger maps have an option to play with fewer total resource points on them than the default layout. Essentially, an option to set them so that the total number of resource points would be in line with the number for a 2 player game etc but still on a massive map.

Another alternative idea which comes to mind is just an option to do global resource scaling. This will be a lot simpler and a lot less intensive in terms of design I think; just put a slider or option to reduce the total income of mass and/or energy per resource node.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the current gameplay model or that anything I'm saying here should be mandatory. I just think it would be a nice simple thing to implement that would improve the play experience of people wishing to play epic scale games with a smaller number of players.

i'm sure in the planet creator there will be a mass availability option. typically because more players means more space so everyone is getting the same amount anyway, but you can still play a larger map with fewer players. After that there will no doubt be double mass income mods, possibly shipped with the game as they take all of 15 seconds to make.

It seems almost self evident that the option for this will be covered from at least that many angles.

yes and no Sc had the option to increase resources but not slow them down I just wanted to put the idea up there in the hopes that it will be in the game

Some SupCom custom maps had built in code that would only spawn the initial 4 Mass Spots in a spawn location if a player spawned there, so one could play a 6 player map as a 1V1 without each player having 2 additional spawns worth of resources.

Given that we don't know anything solid regarding resource placement it's hard to say if any system will be needed to help 'control' that yet.

Mike

One of the big problems with supcom was that the starting resources for other players were generally the most important points to capture. IF starting resources are used, they could be removed for those players who do not spawn. Maybe replaced with a single resource point if anything.

I don't think scaling would be a good idea because I believe it would be better to keep the resource generated from a mass extractor consistent across all games, but the idea of removing some mass points sounds like a good solution . Though for larger maps I'd still like to see much more mass available because it allows more strategies like multiple base play that need some extra mass to be viable, but certainly at least the mass points for the other starting positions could be removed.

Garat has indicated that different planets have different levels of metal in his economy thread.

I'd be interesting in hearing why more resources necessarily means more micro.
I don't think that it is true by necessity.

Normally the number of units would grow as the game progresses. The amount of economy determines how fast this number would grow but even on low resource maps you might still reach larger numbers of units in the end.

I don't think it should take that much more micro to place buildings and setup repeat queues on your factories if there are a lot of resources.

Edit:But I do agree that there should be an option to tweak the amount of resources present on the planet.

Well it means you have to spend more time capturing and holding resource points. Meaning less time you can spend on other things.

+1

Expansion is as important, if not more important, in low income games.
What's the difference between a high density metal patch layout and low density metal patch layout?
You have to make more clicks to place mexes?
If you have area mex commands you would only need 1 or 2 clicks to place more than 1 mex and making a line of power generators longer isn't exactly any more micro demanding.

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to why I raised the issue. It's not really about managing the number of metal makers; rather it's about keeping territory control and number of units reasonable on large maps.

Let's say the average metal numbers for a 2player map is 24. That gives a baseline for the amount of metal and power you're expected to deal with in an average game. When you design larger maps for more players, you have to up the number of metal by say about half that number each time,otherwise each player has too little resources.

What I'm getting at is that the maps for the TA family were scaled in this way, so if you wanted to play on a massive map your only options were the 6 or 8 player ones. This meant that you had a massive number of metal makers, far more than is ever intended for one player to control, eg, 40 or more using the example I gave above.

This means that the amount of income is massive. spending it all meaningfully can become seriously problematic. In SupCom, this often resulted in spamming experimentals which honestly isn't something I think the game was intended to deal with, as it renders almost every other unit sort of irrelevant. (Before anybody jumps in on this one, I know there are some hard counters involving air units and various experimentals but that still doesn't solve the issue overall.)

All I would like to see is big maps designed for a small number of players. Now as far as I understand, making custom planets should be a breeze in the game, so it follows hopefully that custom maps/engagement zones shouldn't be a problem either, which means I could do the work myself. I just thought that this is overall something that could be implemented by the devs just to allow as many styles of play as possible. After all, modding aside, what we all want is a game as many people can fall in love with in their own way as possible.

Just to clarify some things.
Metal extractor in TA, mass extractor in SupCom or short "mex" is what you put on metal patches to extract metal.
Metal maker in TA, mass fabricator in SupCom is something that converts energy to metal and can be placed anywhere.

Hopefully PA will play well with any number of mexes per planet. I think that the number of mexes per planet will vary from game to game.

TA also had metal maps where you could place as many metal extractors as you wanted while some maps had very few mexes.

Well it depends on if the game becomes shallow when you have massive income. Hopefully PA will play great with both massive economies and small economies.

My guess is that the amount of resources present on a planet will be highly configurable. I hope it will be like that anyway.

I don't like the adjustable income idea because it changes unit balance and building values.

I do like the ability to scale more resource nodes, because it makes the game stay balanced in that regard.

For player handicaps, I'd recommend plain HP scaling like in Sorian's Handicap Mod.

But that is exactly the opposite of what OP wants. He says he is balanced when it comes to units but needs a handicap in the economy.

Thanks for the comment above. I just thought I should mention that the devs confirmed in one of my other posts that economy based handicaps will be in the game. Also, as for the person who felt it necessary to go through every point in excrutiating detail, I have to say it came off a little condescending. Remember that this was a request for an optional feature; by its very nature it wouldn't be forced upon anybody and would affect the balance only for those who choose to use it.

Also, someone actually voted "no mutators allowed"? I mean seriously. That's like "NO YOU WILL HAVE NO FUN. YOU WILL PLAY THE GAME THE GOVERNMENT MANDATED WAY. CONFORMITY IS MANDATORY, CITIZEN. FRIEND COMMANDER IS WATCHING YOU.". :lol:

Not that I mind anybody's opinion and all but seriously one of the stated points of the game is modding. It seems a little strange to have bought the game and to not want mods in it.

As long as there is a de-facto standard I am fine with this.

But there must be a way to play the game how it was invision, so balanced changes can be made, and a competitive community can be formed.

The difference is that a high density patch is more important. If you lose a single point its not a big deal, if you lose several high value points its a pretty big deal. Unoccupied starting points become the focus of the level when they really shouldn't be.

There was really no reason to cluster up all the extraction points in Supcom. Just give the comm some more metal production, and spread things out more.

I think it is a great idea to balance the amount of resource with the amount of players that start the game.
This can only be an addition to the game.

How exactly, that would be a subject of debate and trial and error.