PDA

View Full Version : [1.3 balance] resources



Mutters
24th Nov 06, 8:34 AM
Ok I have mentioned this throughout various other threads, and suggested it in the 1.5 suggestions thread, but I feel it deserves a thread to debate on its own.

The resource system is great in many ways. In 1v1 matches it leads to some very tense gameplay where losing one of your tanks can be a match loser. Compare this to team games, where the loss of a tank means nothing because you simply go crash up another one.

There are two issues at hand here:

1) Tanks dont cost enough. They should cost more fuel and less manpower. This would reduce the number of tanks on the field, making you look after them more, and increase the number of infantry on the field, as you didnt blow all your manpower on that last tank you made.

2) The resource system is skewed a little. In 1v1 there arent enough resources, and some units dont get to see any action (Panther generally). In 2v2 resources seem about right (on some maps, pointe du hoc being one exception) and 3v3 and 4v4 are just swamped with tank columns rushing around. The resources really need to be evened out per game type and per map. Not exactly the same, but wildly different.

The knock on for the difference in resources is that some maps become either great for allies or axis. The more resources, the better the axis do. They have the better units, but need vast amounts of resources to get them. Allies have the advantage on lower resource maps as their veterancy comes for free with combat.

In addition there are the special abilities. Things like BAR suppression are limited in 1v1 games as the munitions cost can stack up very quickly. This is no hinderance in team games, you can throw munitions around without fear of running low. By the time your artillery abilites arrive (high up the doctrine trees) you very often have close to 1000 munitions. Half the game's units then become obsolete (AT guns going to calliope barrage or rocket barrage) and they become essentially worthless (and we wonder why most games end in a tank rush). In a 1v1 you have to pick and choose when to use these powerful abilites, not so much in team games.

Anyway, hopefully you all have the gist of my point. Cant something be done about the lack of constraints to play style in team matches due to the rate at which resources are gained?

Dread Moose
24th Nov 06, 8:57 AM
team resources have always bothered me, i hoped they would be devided between the 2 or more on your team instead of giving it to everyone, then we would simply add back in resource sharing.


the resource model is awesome, but stupid in areas. Extreme fuel costs for axis veterancy. Fuel costs on Allied buildings, medic station,aid station, bunker.

The entire game is wrapped around the "fuel" resource, meaning control that, and it will mostly win it for you.

I would love high fuel costs for tanks, light vehicles, and low manpower, i would even love to have a munitions costs for tanks.

Mistenth
24th Nov 06, 9:03 AM
You'll have to change the resource model for this to work in team games. At the moment, fuel usually isn't the limiting factor - manpower is.

Mutters
24th Nov 06, 9:18 AM
manpower is the limiting factor in team games due to the surplus of all other resources. Tes, a simple thing like sharing the resources between three instead of everyone getting the full amount, would make for far fewer tank convoys and spamming firestorms etc.

Neilius
24th Nov 06, 9:26 AM
Yeah the resource model does'nt make much sense to me. It's more or less ok in 1v1, could definately do with some tweaks though. However in team games it is bizarre how you have all the resources that your team has capped times however many players in the team. I mean obviously in team games with a system like that you are goning to have huge amounts of resources swimming around. So there more units per player AND more players, a double whammy. Why did they make team games like this? It's strange.
I agree with your ideas mutters. I do not like how Infantry become so thin on the ground when tanks arrive because all the manpower is spent on tanks.
As for the price of axis veterancy, well that needs a major overhaul, but its not so much the fuel cost that bothers me. It certainly should not cost the manpower that it does to upgrade your troops.
Also the idea of a fuel upkeep for vehicles and tanks sounds logical to me, why don't tanks and vehicles have an upkeep cost?
If there is a reasoning behind these decisions by relic then I would like to know. Some of their decisions on balance and pricing seem inspired and others merely baffling.:confused: