Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Economy Proposal

gamma economy proposal economy

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Poll: New Economy Proposal (Gamma)

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

Infantry reward Credits overall

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Vehicle reward Credits overall

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Repairing Reward Credits

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 23 July 2012 - 02:28 PM

I think it's about time to have an economy which rewards merit. Repairs = extra cash. Tank/Inf kills = good money. I think its about time to have a secondary source of income besides ore mining.
Thus, I propose the following pay scale: Please read, think, and vote (hopefully in that order).

Allied Infantry
Name.............Money if you kill
Technician......35
Rifle..............35
Sergeant........50
Captain..........85
Engineer........165
Medic............264
Spy...............165
Thief.............165
Mechanic.......315
Tanya............350-capped (would be 400)

Allied Tanks
Supply Truck...115
Ranger..........200
Light Tank......230
Medium tank...265
Ore Truck......465
APC..............265
Artillery.........200
Mine Layer.....265
Long Bow.......400
MGG.............200
MRJ..............200
Phase Tank.....660
Demo............800

Soviet Infantry
Technician.........35
Rifle.................35
Starshina..........50
Kaptain.............85
PRG.................100
Grenadier..........55
Flame...............100
Engineer...........165
Shock...............300
Volkov...............350 - capped (would be 450)

Soviet Tanks
Supply Truck...115
Heavy Tank.....315
Ore Truck.......465
Chinook.........400
V2................230
Mine Layer......265
Hind..............400
Tesla Tank.......500
Mammoth........575
M.A.D. Tank.....800
Demo Truck.....800

Repair Reward (both sides)
2.5 Hp = 1 credit
Repairing War Factory gives 1 credit every .25 seconds
(War Factory has a total of 500 Hp)
(Thus if War Factory is at red with 40 Hp (thin red line). It takes 46 seconds of game time to repair giving 184 credits )
.............................................................................................
Thank you for voting
Feel free to discuss details or any forgotten figures below
  • 0

#2 NSpgexp2012

NSpgexp2012

    NSpgexp2012

    Grenadier

  • Members
  • 414 posts
  • Ingame Username:pg
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brodnax, VA USA

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:19 PM

Mammoth should be same as Phase tank. Repairing the Construction Yard should give more than the War Factory because the CY helps repair the other building. I think that all rewards should be lower 35 for the rifle man is ok but should increase only 5 or 10 credits for up to Tanya would be 150.

But arn't you getting on a sllippery slope becaause doesn't Renegade do something like this. And if you are going to add credits to the killing team why not take credits from the team that loses the item. aand that would be too much for the programers to handle.
  • 0

#3 Nod00

Nod00

    Nod00

    Engineer

  • Moderators
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:35 PM

I disagree with the need for caps.
  • 0

#4 Leonis

Leonis

    Leonis

    Survival Specialist

  • Members
  • 1,128 posts
  • Ingame Username:Leonis
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere in the American West

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:18 AM

I believe the values need to be lower...Allies already don't spend most of their cash. The high values on Soviet units are unnecessary. Although, this could help the Soviets quite a bit in a tightrope.

Edited by Leonis, 24 July 2012 - 01:18 AM.

  • 0

#5 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:55 AM

But arn't you getting on a sllippery slope becaause doesn't Renegade do something like this. And if you are going to add credits to the killing team why not take credits from the team that loses the item. aand that would be too much for the programers to handle.


Understood. I'm just trying to do two things: one is to give more incentive for allies not to waste/do stupid things with their tanks for it gives soviets money to mammoth & kov around (or vice versa). And two its to give hope that the loss of a refinery is not a game over/half the team quits scenario.

..........On A side Note...........

(recently joined a game where the soviet Ore Refinery went down but some of the allies were not smart with their phase tanks and starting with 600 and killing enough phases...took 4.5 min... I was eventually able to buy an HT... it was sweet... lasted 3 minutes though... but was sweet... scored another 450 off of tank kills before blowing up... yea I was trying for a second HT... you got to kill a lot of phases to buy an HT.)

Edited by Raptor29aa, 24 July 2012 - 01:56 AM.

  • 0

#6 Ididyamom69

Ididyamom69

    Ididyamom69

    L90 theorymancer lfg pst

  • Members
  • 2,600 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, TX

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:14 AM

I don't like the idea of units giving excessive amounts of income because that further increases the power of base camping, and by base camping I mean every member of the team turtling inside the base. It is hard enough to overcome the enemy defenses as is and doing this would only empower base camping even more.

I honestly believe the best way to prevent stalemates and give teams who lose the refinery early some way of turning it around is to put some neutral, non-destroyable, and capturable structures on maps that generate income on every AOW map. I can tell you I honestly lose the will to play now if my Refinery is destroyed in the first couple minutes of the game because without it, you might as well afk till next round. You can at least fight back without a War Factory (if you keep OT) or Barracks, but a lost refinery pretty much ends the game.

The neutral structures can be captured by both techies and engies, though obviously techies will take much longer. They can even fit the themes of some of the maps. For example we could have oil derricks on pipeline, ore refineries at the central gem field on Woods/KOTG, a grain or supply depot in the village on Stormy Valley, group of mine carts + elevator on Hourglass, etc.

I believe this would work better not only for giving both teams a means of generating additional income in general, but also this would give the team who might lose their refinery early some hope greater than 0 of turning it around while making sure base camping isn't empowered any more than it already is as the team that needs the resources would have to divert forces to keep that neutral structure in their possession, thus leaving their base less protected.

Edited by Ididyamom69, 24 July 2012 - 04:20 AM.

  • 0

#7 VERTi60

VERTi60

    VERTi60

    Lords of Mafia

  • Moderators
  • 1,744 posts
  • Ingame Username:VERTi60
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SVK/BA

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:27 AM

This is why most of the maps have multiple silos, idi.

The list looks good though it seems to many to me, perhaps vehicles would do even with half the reward. For commandos I'm fine with big reward even without caps.
  • 0

#8 Ididyamom69

Ididyamom69

    Ididyamom69

    L90 theorymancer lfg pst

  • Members
  • 2,600 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, TX

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:57 AM

By my count 12 of the AOW maps have only one source of income (11 refinery only and 1 silo only) while only about half that number (6) have 2 sources (both refinery and silo). So I don't think that "most" maps indeed have multiple silos. Not to mention I don't think every map should have silos as I like the idea of silo or refinery only based maps. The neutral source of income would be available (if also different based on the map like I suggested) purely to either give one team an economical advantage or as a means for a struggling team to gain some guaranteed income should they have lost their bases source of income early.
  • 0

#9 VERTi60

VERTi60

    VERTi60

    Lords of Mafia

  • Moderators
  • 1,744 posts
  • Ingame Username:VERTi60
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SVK/BA

Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:29 AM

Neutral source of income is already on the to do list afaik, but for now the new economy with higher rewards will most likely hit first before other means of income is developed/implemented.

Additional silos can still be added easily though I think we already have plenty of cash to play with. Perhaps if the problem is with Ore Refinery only then its HP could be increased?
  • 0

#10 Nod00

Nod00

    Nod00

    Engineer

  • Moderators
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 24 July 2012 - 07:39 AM

Whats there todo? All the script logic is 100% in place. They just gotta plop a object and a zone in dont they?
  • 0

#11 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 24 July 2012 - 01:53 PM

@Ididyamom69
I do like neutral buildings... but... how is a team low on cash supposed to keep a neutral building? Let alone get to one?
Its not capturing that's the hard part (unless there is no War Factory and ot), its keeping, can't the opposite team just take it back? And won't the opposite team have a greater advantage of guarding it?

(I suggested this parallel economy because the most common assault is like 3/4 shotty to the Ore Refinery within the first 3 min)

Edited by Raptor29aa, 24 July 2012 - 01:54 PM.

  • 0

#12 Ididyamom69

Ididyamom69

    Ididyamom69

    L90 theorymancer lfg pst

  • Members
  • 2,600 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, TX

Posted 24 July 2012 - 05:43 PM

Well I envision that to capture a structure you would have to enter inside some portion of it, and most of the effective anti-infantry units are pretty low cost like the sergeant. But it is true that the team with the advantage will have an easier time securing it, but at the same time that also means they have less people assaulting the crippled base if you do. Not to mention I'm sure people would end up getting bored defending an objective if there were no active signs of enemies, so more often then not they'd leave the objective to join on assaulting the base, allowing you to easily sneak in and take it over.

I also would say that no global notification should be issued if you lose the neutral point, and you can only tell who owns it by being within targeting range. So a team who thinks they have secured the structure might not ever notice if it is lost or not as they are more intent on taking out the main base. I just dread having 50 shock trooper/kovs camping the base as easily as they do while also getting 600+ from each phase tank they slaughter. It encourages camping and discourages assault, especially with such high tech yet easily destroyed units like the phase. Base defenders, especially soviet defenders, are already so hard to overcome as is with refills the way they are, that their only real weakness is running out of money from finally being killed off. The idea of a neutral structure would force the campers away from the safety of their base if they want to generate money for their team.

Edited by Ididyamom69, 24 July 2012 - 05:46 PM.

  • 0

#13 Killing You

Killing You

    Killing You

    Ascended ExtRA

  • Bluehell Staff
  • 1,876 posts
  • Ingame Username:Killing_You
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Blue Creek Apartments, Room 302

Posted 24 July 2012 - 07:52 PM

This is a "risk-and-reward" system. I like those systems.
  • 0

#14 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 25 July 2012 - 02:50 AM

@Ididyamom69
I see your point, no notification + divided assault team = better chances of capture (all that matters then is placement).
Also I do see your point about the kov/phase annoyance factor

But one thing I will not back down from is that the current reward rate for repairing a building is too low.
(Repaired a war factory from yellow to green (taking 40 seconds) and gained an amazing total of 3 credits... which I made in about 9 seconds of rifle shooting a phase tank... besides building death why repair when someone else can waste the time?)
  • 0

#15 C0de_man

C0de_man

    C0de_man

    Rocket Soldier

  • Members
  • 784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Behind you

Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:32 PM

I believe the values need to be lower...Allies already don't spend most of their cash. The high values on Soviet units are unnecessary. Although, this could help the Soviets quite a bit in a tightrope.

Pretty much this, as allies most of the time i end up with cash even if i spam phases all the time.
Its an interesting idea, but i would say for testing or so, /2 the values and if it works out well i would say we can still raise these values.

As for neutral control points its already hard enough to defend base most of the time, no thanks to that.
Except on special maps where this is supposed to be the objective.
  • 0

#16 Pyryle

Pyryle

    Pyryle

    Pill Pusher RN4000

  • Testers
  • 1,267 posts
  • Ingame Username:Pyryle
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Somewhere in the USA, USA

Posted 25 July 2012 - 02:17 PM

I liked it better when I got more money for repairing the base. The current amounts for killing units is fine by me right now.
  • 0

#17 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:41 AM

From what I gather the most important would be repair money
then comes the idea of more money for infantry
Lastly people don't seem to care much for the credits made off of tanks.

...interesting... I'll wait a little longer and redo a few percentages in maybe a new proposal.
  • 0

#18 Chaos_Knight

Chaos_Knight

    Chaos_Knight

    Grenadier

  • Testers
  • 461 posts
  • Ingame Username:Chaos_Knight
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:11 AM

I quite frankly find camping annoying but not much of an issue, especially when enemy only camps with infantry. All you need is to bombard them into oblivion with artillery/V2 with a small tank/phase/etc defender party. If enemy continues to resist - send in demos to clear inf out (works best for allies with MGG but allies also have most troubles finishing Soviets off due to shocks and kovs).
And if you kill enemy Ore Refinery to cut of their funding, then kill War Factory but then instead of bombardment you dive headfirst into enemy base now crawling with troops of all sorts who have nothing to do but to camp you are simply asking for getting killed.
The problem it requirers teamwork to crack defenses but come to think of it, entire enemy team puts their effort into defending so if you want to win, you'd need teamwork as well.

As for reward - I generally like the idea of fight for money system. If enemy is terrible at attacking while your funding income is crippled, you get free cash, if you fend off attackers, earn credits and then proceed to kill enemy in the field and advance - you get even more free cash. With a skillful playing this can turn the tides completely.
  • 0

#19 Nod00

Nod00

    Nod00

    Engineer

  • Moderators
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:28 AM

Nerf the economy even more! Make players fight for $!
  • 0

#20 Chaos_Knight

Chaos_Knight

    Chaos_Knight

    Grenadier

  • Testers
  • 461 posts
  • Ingame Username:Chaos_Knight
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:07 AM

Well I never said to remove/nerf normal income means :P
Call it a backup economic plan.
  • 0

#21 Nod00

Nod00

    Nod00

    Engineer

  • Moderators
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:26 AM

Im just saying it could lead to too much money. And by nerf i mean lower OT hp
  • 0

#22 Killing You

Killing You

    Killing You

    Ascended ExtRA

  • Bluehell Staff
  • 1,876 posts
  • Ingame Username:Killing_You
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Blue Creek Apartments, Room 302

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:33 PM

I think we can all agree that more money needs to be given for repairing buildings. Currently, if I save a War Factory from the brink of destruction, I get a nickel for it. If I rush in and golden-wrench the MCT from almost dead to full health at the risk of being killed myself, I at least want a portion of my money back. Sitting back and doing nothing should be the only thing that gives little to no money.
  • 1

#23 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:37 PM

Im just saying it could lead to too much money. And by nerf i mean lower OT hp


Too much money... you mean mammoth or phase tank spam? Yea, it could be a problem, but It depends on the map.
Each map has differing ore truck drop off route time.
Each map has differing number of silos (some have two).
Each map has differing risk factors in ore location (some are hidden others are out in the open).
......
If the OT hp were to be lowered, then it would be too easy for a rocket rush within the first minute to kill it. (although on most maps the ST/shotgun rush heads right for the refinery to score a game-ender)
......
Lastly... I agree totally with the statement below

I think we can all agree that more money needs to be given for repairing buildings. Currently, if I save a War Factory from the brink of destruction, I get a nickel for it. If I rush in and golden-wrench the MCT from almost dead to full health at the risk of being killed myself, I at least want a portion of my money back. Sitting back and doing nothing should be the only thing that gives little to no money.


Edited by Raptor29aa, 26 July 2012 - 03:39 PM.

  • 0

#24 Nod00

Nod00

    Nod00

    Engineer

  • Moderators
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:35 PM

Dont get me wrong, I support your proposal. I just see it + silos + ore trucks becoming too much money. Your proposed cash or even a reduction of your proposal would make silos not needed on under and river raid in my opinion.
  • 1

#25 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:45 PM

Dont get me wrong, I support your proposal. I just see it + silos + ore trucks becoming too much money. Your proposed cash or even a reduction of your proposal would make silos not needed on under and river raid in my opinion.


Good point, I guess I am shying away from silos in the economy (not saying I am against them, just that they don't have to be mandatory for every map.) Sidenote: In Renegade every Ore Refinery had a silo money/time function built in.

I would like to see a river raid with one less silo and more elbow room. (it currently has two because of ore field danger).
....
Lastly,
I do plan on redo a few values like the tank/infantry reward by maybe 5%
I am very surprised that 4 credits a second was seen as too low of a repair benefit... (might bump it up to 5 a seconds) Meaning 46 seconds would give 230 credits rather than 184 figures based on repair time from red
  • 0

#26 Chronojam

Chronojam

    Chronojam

    General of Posting

  • Admin
  • 12,868 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:34 AM

This topic is partially the result of internal discussion, one concept being that units generally give 1/3 their value back. While it takes some time to apply all the changes and takes time to do full test games to suss out the economic impacts, I'd be happy with doing a series of test rounds with various values set although it'd be work for me to set up all the sets.
  • 0

#27 Chitzkoi

Chitzkoi

    Chitzkoi

    Rifle Soldier

  • Members
  • 253 posts
  • Ingame Username:chitzkoi
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2012 - 05:48 AM

Repairing is too damn low

And didn't I suggest this like 1 year ago ?
  • 0

#28 Nod00

Nod00

    Nod00

    Engineer

  • Moderators
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 27 July 2012 - 09:00 AM

proof or it didnt happen.
lol
  • 0

#29 Raptor29aa

Raptor29aa

    Raptor29aa

    Suffers from Logic

  • Testers
  • 1,695 posts
  • Ingame Username:Raptor29a
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lake Arrowhead CA

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

This topic is partially the result of internal discussion, one concept being that units generally give 1/3 their value back. While it takes some time to apply all the changes and takes time to do full test games to suss out the economic impacts, I'd be happy with doing a series of test rounds with various values set although it'd be work for me to set up all the sets.


I'd hate to make more work for you, so anything you want to try I'll be there to test.
I could give you three data charts 1/3, 1/4, and 1/3 -10% (if you want).
The repair rate could be at either 2.5 Hp = 1 credit or 2.0 Hp =1 credit. I personally think 2.5 Hp = 1 credit is fine, but the majority wanted higher...
(War Factory total health 500, thusly 200 or 250 repair credits possible from 1hp)
  • 0

#30 Leonis

Leonis

    Leonis

    Survival Specialist

  • Members
  • 1,128 posts
  • Ingame Username:Leonis
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere in the American West

Posted 27 July 2012 - 11:58 AM

Um...basing credits awarded by cost doesn't seem like the best way to approach it, especially when most of Soviets' stuff cost more than Allies; unless, Allies are just suicide PT rushing.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users