Just like what it says.
Instead of imposing limits or an arbitrary fixed price in the hope that you'll stumble upon balance, why not let the price of vehicles and turrets rise with the number in use and allow the market to find the balance for you.
For instance: For each Hawk or Ox in play the cost goes up by x amount or for every two turrets the price goes up. Every time one is destroyed the price re-adjusts.
CrummySaint wrote:
Just like what it says.
Instead of imposing limits or an arbitrary fixed price in the hope that you'll stumble upon balance, why not let the price of vehicles and turrets rise with the number in use and allow the market to find the balance for you.
For instance: For each Hawk or Ox in play the cost goes up by x amount or for every two turrets the price goes up. Every time one is destroyed the price re-adjusts.
I'm glad you made a thread about your idea from that other thread.
I do like the general idea but am nervous about totally supporting it without seeing how it would actually play out yet.
CrummySaint wrote:
Just like what it says.
Instead of imposing limits or an arbitrary fixed price in the hope that you'll stumble upon balance, why not let the price of vehicles and turrets rise with the number in use and allow the market to find the balance for you.
For instance: For each Hawk or Ox in play the cost goes up by x amount or for every two turrets the price goes up. Every time one is destroyed the price re-adjusts.
YES. Absolutely. Maybe as its own game mode, perhaps, because I'm not sure how long it would remain balanced. But yes, that would be amazing. Hawk pads could cost 3 from the start, increasing as the round progresses and more hawk pads are built. I think having a consistent ratio of price-to-structures-built just might work. The only places I could see this getting out of hand is with walls. 1 is an appropriate price that should never change.
The only thing is, this would require a lot of balancing and testing. It could work, but I can see how it would be tricky to figure out what price sturctures should start at and what rate they should increase at.
Grintoth wrote:
CrummySaint wrote:
Just like what it says.
Instead of imposing limits or an arbitrary fixed price in the hope that you'll stumble upon balance, why not let the price of vehicles and turrets rise with the number in use and allow the market to find the balance for you.
For instance: For each Hawk or Ox in play the cost goes up by x amount or for every two turrets the price goes up. Every time one is destroyed the price re-adjusts.
YES. Absolutely. Maybe as its own game mode, perhaps, because I'm not sure how long it would remain balanced. But yes, that would be amazing. Hawk pads could cost 3 from the start, increasing as the round progresses and more hawk pads are built. I think having a consistent ratio of price-to-structures-built just might work. The only places I could see this getting out of hand is with walls. 1 is an appropriate price that should never change.
The only thing is, this would require a lot of balancing and testing. It could work, but I can see how it would be tricky to figure out what price sturctures should start at and what rate they should increase at.
Keep in mind that they could easily say that the increase takes effect after 5 walls are built or after 2 supply depots are built etc. It does not have to increase after 1. Again maybe every 3 turrets built there is an increase...
.
wSTRYKERw wrote:
Grintoth wrote:
CrummySaint wrote:
Just like what it says.
Instead of imposing limits or an arbitrary fixed price in the hope that you'll stumble upon balance, why not let the price of vehicles and turrets rise with the number in use and allow the market to find the balance for you.
For instance: For each Hawk or Ox in play the cost goes up by x amount or for every two turrets the price goes up. Every time one is destroyed the price re-adjusts.
YES. Absolutely. Maybe as its own game mode, perhaps, because I'm not sure how long it would remain balanced. But yes, that would be amazing. Hawk pads could cost 3 from the start, increasing as the round progresses and more hawk pads are built. I think having a consistent ratio of price-to-structures-built just might work. The only places I could see this getting out of hand is with walls. 1 is an appropriate price that should never change.
The only thing is, this would require a lot of balancing and testing. It could work, but I can see how it would be tricky to figure out what price sturctures should start at and what rate they should increase at.
Keep in mind that they could easily say that the increase takes effect after 5 walls are built or after 2 supply depots are built etc. It does not have to increase after 1. Again maybe every 3 turrets built there is an increase...
.
Right, I get that. They would definitely have to make it so you'd need to build a dumpload of walls for them to ever cost 4 or 5 rift. I mean, each team is still restricted to 32 structures, so it couldn't take too many for the price of each sturcture to increase. Maybe depots go up from 6 to 8 after two have been built, then each one after that increases by one rift. It would be a lot of balancing for LBI.
I think this could work quite welll, since you wouldn't not be able to build as many hawks as you wanted, they would eventually just cost 12 rift...
Was that a grammaically correct double negative? huh...
Anyway, maybe adding beacons would drop the cost some, too. That way it would encourage expansion.
