Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Zion 19 Apr 2017, 14:56

What if, we create a game style that limits eco and units??

In sc unit production is limited to "200 overlords/pylons/depots" well i think that's kinda cool, cuz then we can actually balance all factions effectively.

in my opinion, we are pretty ok with balance with 1.87, but some factions are the turtle factions, that pretty much become unstoppable late game.. reason being there is no limit/eco cap, you kinda know you can win by sitting back and massing eco and units..
Lets just say we were to limit unit production to the amount of tier 2 eco?

here is a rough idea of what I am thinking.. :: and I mean rough.. im not really calculating anything, just proposing

each player right off the bat gets lets say 70 combat unit slots
teir1 will add 30 combat unit slots
teir2 adds another 30
and to reach 200 unit slots, you now have to build tier 2 eco, and lets say roughly one supply dock/telecom tower/arm suppler/2 hackers.. gives 2 combat unit slots.. and gla merchant upgrades will increase by 15(first upgrade) 20(2nd) 35(last), and when the 200 mark is reached, you can't build more eco

as far as units.. I think all tier0 and tier1 combat units/defenses take up one slot, tier2 units/defenses take up 2, super units and stuff may be a little more..
tier0 infantry should probably take up half a slot
buildings don't take up slots, unless they are for example gla camo windmills lol, those should probably take up a slot

drops? well id say if the limit gets exceeded when russia drops more conscripts for example.. thats fine, but units will have to die off, for more production. This also makes you think twice before you drop units.

Think about it...

Less mismatches cuz everyones crap pc can handle 200 units..
we can limit eca mines/gla demo traps/air spam/inf spam
you need to think before you build a certain type of unit... eca gets limited defense spam/howey spam...

alot of stuff that when spammed can get a deciding factor..
one thing we can agree upon is 2v2s are a bit unbalanced in rotr.. and for the most part all games become this mismatching eco spamming 2fps game style that can be balanced by making limits on units and tier 2 eco.

Something similar has been proposed before, im sure.. and looking at the work no one wants to do anything..

but really I don't think there is that much work to it... biggest deal is balancing 2nd eco.. making sure x amount of hackers will not overpower china vs x amount of towers eca... so on
and from there, limiting army size is easier, will take some time, but once completed.. there will be true balance in all factions..

generals powers might need adjustment, as well.
all for a price to make the game better.

Anyways this is more of a fun topic, what yall think?

Posted by: {Lads}RikerZZZ 19 Apr 2017, 16:32

Mizo, Bruce and I are literally in a call discussing the same thing.

Posted by: GeneralAziz 19 Apr 2017, 17:04

Nope bad idea.
PS:I think this should be in General Chat not rotr subforum.

Posted by: Maelstrom 19 Apr 2017, 17:10

Unit cap don't go well with C&C (Tiberium Twilight, rot in pieces >:@)
Plus, it will work very bad with some factions. Especially China, which relies on unit spam.

Posted by: XAOC-RU- 19 Apr 2017, 17:13

It may be a good idea but it will change game desigh and will remove that moment which make ROTR and other CnC games looking different against such games like SC WC and other unit-eco limit RTS. I think current game meta is not good and not bad. It's just what it should be like. (I remember some legal term : AS IS). I think this term shows all answers.

Posted by: RedDeadSmeg 19 Apr 2017, 17:42

While I understand a cap for online games, I think that it would take away a key element that made C&C a great series. No cap allows you to experiment with near limitless unit combinations and strategies while a cap would severely limit that. I don't no how many times I got frustrated with Twilight because of the low cap on that awful game.

Posted by: Mizo 19 Apr 2017, 17:50

Am discussing about a faster game flow not this idea exactly.
But yeah unit caps did come up , and the reason why I hate it is because it's the laziest attempt for balancing, ( COH2 / WC3) Starcraft 2 is the exception but I personally dislike it since 1 unit is more worth than the other to occupy just 1 unit slot , as well as it's kind of limitng.

Rik,Bruce and I are talking more about game flow change and the issues of ROTR as a whole, some engine issues and other design issues ect... ( A.K.A Me telling them "Nope" to every idea they have )

Posted by: Zion 19 Apr 2017, 18:40

Not sure why you would express it as "Lazy attempt on balancing"
it would be quite an overhaul.. and im looking more towards what is happening to 2v2s, its so slow, everyone is afraid to attack early on a "large" map, since there is no point, to win you need to spam eco.. and then eventually it will mismatch or die..

if the engine was better, and people didn't have shit pcs.. then cap wouldn't matter
since its the other way around.. a cap would 100 percent improve performance. and increase unit preservation/micro strategies, and avoiding eco spam games for those hate it... (since there are different types of people )


Actually I talking about this in my first post.. some units will occupy more than one slot, and that's how it should be


totally agree, that's why this idea should be activated by a check mark, near sw limit

Posted by: Neo 19 Apr 2017, 20:01

Hmm... I think tier 2 units and tier 1 units should have build limit. Not a bad idea but i think tier 0 units should be spammable and not make the build limit for tier 1 and tier 2 units like you can build only 10 inferno cannons etc. Make it higher. Secondary eco should have build limit but based on how much money it brings. And also this idea can't be implemented i think due to engine. I think we can just limit how many you can build.

Posted by: Mizo 19 Apr 2017, 20:54

It's not about unit build limits Neo, it's about a 'population cap". Now the question is whether this thing is possible and how to implement it in a way that keeps user informed how much Free cap is left for them rather than memorizing.

I'd say a better idea that also helps with optmization is removal if secondary economy and adding a slow regenerating primary economy.

It's all fun ideas though.

Posted by: Zion 19 Apr 2017, 21:33

Id pop a "123/200" ticker right near the cash

I think this would be nice for testing what each faction should be making to sustain itself vs other factions..
Then translate that to tier2 eco.. since different factions need a different money flow...
I think China needs a little more money income for example, since it needs to recover faster than other factions, that are more cost efficient. And also needs a higher population count to have that spam advantage.. Or better.. tier0 tanks take half a slot, like inf
And for example USA, needs a lower pop count, and normal supply income, because their units are very cost effective, and speed increases preservation.

With both players maxed out, it becomes a micro battle depending on the build choice you made.

Posted by: Mizo 19 Apr 2017, 23:04

Oh Primary economy rates will probably be altered to acoomidate faction limitations. Naturally China gets the highest income rate, followed by Russia , USA and GLA . ECA should have the lowest income rate due to the cost efficiency of their defenses and howitzers lel.

Is that even possible though?

Posted by: {Lads}RikerZZZ 20 Apr 2017, 0:08

its possible. Just use power to act as the population limit instead and have a cap on the number of powerplants you can have.
(this would fuck up everything yes, but it is technically possible as a mechanic)

Posted by: Lobo Solitario 21 Apr 2017, 12:21

I've never been a fan of unit caps either, it feels terribly artificial. But maybe some kind of limiter could be put on secondary income? Some ideas, not sure whether they'd be codeable, as I haven't really experimented with the economic side of things:

-For the non-GLA factions, each secondary income unit/building produced could perhaps debuff all the existing ones by a small amount, or put a small percentage debuff on overall income, so that the more you have, the less each produces, until the income levels off;
-Or there could be a cap specifically on the number of secondary income producers;
-Or (probably not doable) there could be a scripted cap on income per tick, with anything going over being lost
-Or the other factions could just do like the GLA and have an entirely new mechanic which doesn't revolve around spamming the same unit/building to get mo' money

Things like oil wells make for more interesting gameplay, as they allow the map designer to adjust the economy based on the map, and force players to contest points all over the map rather than just fight base to base.

Posted by: rey 22 Apr 2017, 12:07

for some reason whole thread in short sound to me like "lets f**k up all that Generals are based on and copy/transform them into StartCraft".

Posted by: Zion 22 Apr 2017, 15:06

then you need some prescription glasses, and a change in your impetuous attitude.

Posted by: Scud 23 Apr 2017, 8:16

I would prefer to see some of the ideas of Lobo Solitario in game, specially the first one. The main reason is because another game made exactly with the SAGE engine did use it (Battle for Middle Earth) and because that way seems to be easier to balance applying a global percentage to every building/unit created like, for example:

USA second eco:
1 Supply Drop Zone: 100% income rate
2 Supply Drop Zone: 100% income rate
3 Supply Drop Zone: 100% income rate
4 Supply Drop Zone: 100% income rate
5 Supply Drop Zone: 80% income rate
6 Supply Drop Zone: 60% income rate
7 Supply Drop Zone: 40% income rate - Reduction limit -
8 Supply Drop Zone: 40% income rate

* with other factions the decrease should be lower 'cause the income is constant.

Posted by: {Lads}RikerZZZ 24 Apr 2017, 6:00

Scud, that is something i have been dreaming of for years now, but sadly I have been told that it can not be coded.

Posted by: Lobo Solitario 24 Apr 2017, 13:17

Pity. The Supply Lines and Workers' Shoes upgrades both alter income in some way, but I guess if they could be used in this fashion someone would have done it by now. Maybe I'll have a play around with the code if I get some time, just out of curiosity.

Posted by: Hanfield 24 Apr 2017, 14:07

Those are flat bonii that do not scale in any way, the bonus income is manually input and is activated with the appropriate upgrade.

Posted by: Zion 24 Apr 2017, 14:31

I think this is a cool idea, kinda reminds me of the anno game series, where a small part of your economy depends on efficiency.
But I also think its going to make things harder to implement, especially looking at what has been done with rotr, and what the devs had to do to make it this far.

Posted by: ZunZero97 30 Apr 2017, 5:15

Emmm no, the game will be a super-hyper-mega late with 5-8 hours in one game.
You can buld SW to make the match have less time.

Posted by: Marakar 30 Apr 2017, 5:58

If you're refering to stalemates, no, it wouldn't, simply due to the nature of how powerful GPs are in ROTR. True stalemates occur so rarely its not a case of there being a lack of eco but rather a case of either:

A ) The players outplaying each other and are extremely even level
B ) The players messing up to the point where they get themselves into a true stalemate.

If you're thinking this change would promote more eco, it wouldn't as its lowering the income rate (amount of money gained) from sec eco structures/units as you build more. If anything, this would disincentives building sec eco since its harder to start up before the income rate is sustainable for constant production on its own.



Could work, but some SWs don't have the same impact as all other SWs. Some are all-rounders that are powerful (Solaris has short cooldown and good aoe), some are pure damage (nuclear missile), some are focused on stunlocking (Particle Cannon), and even some play a role as another form of secondary economy (SCUD Storm in conjunction with Cash Bounty).

Posted by: Megazord 30 Apr 2017, 19:44

Wouldn't it be easier to just limit secondary eco (limit on buildings/units)?

Posted by: {Lads}RikerZZZ 1 May 2017, 2:39

Probably, yes, but the idea is that they give less money in bulk.
you would still want more sec eco as it does get you more money, but just at a reduced rate.

On a conceptual level I think making units cost more rather than a decreased rate would be the way to go, so say after your 4th sdz, the price of units goes up by 10%, and so on would work better in terms of leveling out the amount of money rather than decreasing the income rate. That way you still want more eco, but it comes at a cost.