Alternate ways of attaining minerals

I've been thinking recently about various macro ideas based around the economy. We all know the basic way of gethering minerals, well I was thinking what if starcraft 2 introduced a veriety of "basic" ways to gather minerals? as apposed to the macro mechanics where they are more efficient means of gathering minerals, players would choose how they gathered minerals. I have a few idea's here that I'd like to suggest...

Gathering minerals from a node with a harvester: the traditional method to gather minerals.

Salvaging buildings: a way for the terrans to get their money back from buildings that are no longer necissary. One way to possibly add to this is maybe to include neutral salvagable buildings across the map. In a terran on terran match it would create competition over getting these salvagable buildings. hell you could even destroy them; which is likely what would occur in a match between a terran and a zerg/protoss but if these same neutral buildings could be used in ways more akin to the protoss or zerg playstyles then there might be an interesting new mechanic for starcraft.

Money from kills: I suggested something with this idea behind it, essentially a zerg player could get a small amount of money from kills(whether its friendly or an enemy). Along the same lines I suggested a way that the zerg would sort of "farm" their units by making it so that killing their own units would give you more money then how much the unit cost. this I think would create a very neat zergy mentality and would have both benafits and disadvantes to using it (you get more money but you loose units)

Money from deaths: Along the same lines as above, another idea for the zerg, essentially giving the zerg the idea of I need to attack to get more money. so it might create more continual waves from a zerg player and makes them more difficult to kill as time wears on as they get more money (I guess in this mechanic the zerg player would only get a percentage of money from the death of a unit)

Power Plant: basically a building you build that gives you money over time until its destroyed. I think its an interesting idea, however it would be difficult to balance as the more you build the more money you get. However I think with a little creativity it could be implemented. Like if something like this was given to the terrans, one of these would be like a pylon providing minerals to the buildings nearby. Instead of having a total amount of minerals that you decide what to do with over your entire base; each building would sort of have their own stock of minerals that could only be used at this 1 building and it would be up to these powerplants to keep that stock as full as possible.

ofcoarse there could always be sort of combinations of these ideas as well like these idea's for the most part don't involve bringing the resources back somewhere which is what the traditional method is like. For the "minerals from kills" idea perhaps each zerg unit can carry a certian amount of minerals and after they make kills they pick up the minerals and its up to you to bring those minerals back to base so that they can be used.

well those are just some idea's on different ways minerals could be attained rather then the traditional method.

I've always been a fan of the bounty system, personally. Killing enemy units means you get money, which focuses the attention on combat. However, combat is generally where you're supposed to be losing money, ala Logistics, which is more important than combat for a real war.

Not entirely certain if any of this would work in SC2...but they might be better alternatives than what we've got now.

The problem with money from salvage, kills, and deaths is that even at maximum refund you are just getting resources that you already have. If you get back more than you made the unit for, then...that's......just.........stupid. The powerplant idea has some potential, but it doesn't make sense to have minerals coming from nowhere.

the powerplant one, seems too similar to the oil derrick, from c&c red aler 2...

Actually noobonic, there is a way...

According to our friend Einstein, energy can be converted to matter and backwards. (E=mc2)

Though we would need a colossal amount of energy and a powerful particle accelerator.

You would spend more energy trying to smash energy together than the energy you already have.

This is good design space to explore. Two suggestions


1) Tie "Advanced Mining" to gas. Make the player choose when to spend money on more minerals and when to spend money on higher tech. (Bonus: casual gamers can just pump gas into tech and play with the cool high gas units.)

2) Make the mining actions a targeting decision. The player should have to choose from multiple mining locations with advantages/disadvantages for each one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

This is good design space to explore. Two suggestions


1) Tie "Advanced Mining" to gas. Make the player choose when to spend money on more minerals and when to spend money on higher tech. (Bonus: casual gamers can just pump gas into tech and play with the cool high gas units.)

2) Make the mining actions a targeting decision. The player should have to choose from multiple mining locations with advantages/disadvantages for each one.

---

Already in ;D

number 1 didn't worked out (remember gas buy?)
number 2 are yellow mins

I think the gas thing could've worked had they gone with the idea I had suggested over an over again.

I actually thought it would've been cool to spend gas to mine more minerals as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Blade

Already in ;D

number 1 didn't worked out (remember gas buy?)
number 2 are yellow mins

---

I was saying Gas->Minerals. The old gas mechanics was Min->Gas. The problems with the old mechanic was that casual players wouldnt have gas and those are the same players who enjoy playing with high gas units.


Yellow minerals would work if it involved a targeting action to harvest. For instance if the player had to use a macro mechanic to harvest them and there was decisions the player had to make about which minerals to harvest.

Since Archer mentioned it, my gas for minerals mechanic works like this:

You select your workers gathering minerals. There is a button that spends some gas per worker, which allows them to mine more minerals per turn for a certain number of turns (as opposed to for a set amount of time). By clicking the button more often, the workers will have the boost for more turns (as opposed to having it stack on the previous boosts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

Since Archer mentioned it, my gas for minerals mechanic works like this:

You select your workers gathering minerals. There is a button that spends some gas per worker, which allows them to mine more minerals per turn for a certain number of turns (as opposed to for a set amount of time). By clicking the button more often, the workers will have the boost for more turns (as opposed to having it stack on the previous boosts).

---

Needs targeting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Needs targeting.

---

There is targeting. You have to hack the CIA and delete all of the files pertaining to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

There is targeting. You have to hack the CIA and delete all of the files pertaining to you.

---

But there isnt any position-based decision making. Why do I have to tell the computer where to delete? I always want to delete the same place so why do I have to target it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

But there isnt any position-based decision making. Why do I have to tell the computer where to delete? I always want to delete the same place so why do I have to target it?

---

It's the result of user interface limits. You have to manually hack the system.

Auto-hack won't be available for another 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

It's the result of user interface limits. You have to manually hack the system.

Auto-hack won't be available for another 20 years.

---

But thats my point. There needs to be decision making for where I want to delete. For instance if there was a file of me in folder A and a file of me in folder B and there were advantages/disadavantages from deleting from folder A and vice versa.

If it's not broken don't fix it IMO...

I like noob's idea, and you have to target each individual scv in order to activate this ability >.>

theres your targeting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Blade

I like noob's idea, and you have to target each individual scv in order to activate this ability >.>

---

Why?

Why do I have to target SCV 1 over SCV 2? Why cant this ability be done with just hotkeys? What position input is so needed that can only be supplied by a human?

Keep in mind that even if a human decision is needed once if the decision is the same for enough repetitive times after then the mechanic warrents rallying/autocast.

Hmm... Perhaps a neutral structure could somehow factor into this... allow me to propose a bold new concept:

The Xel'Naga Matter Converter, grants its occupant the ability to target (happy joyous requirement) a primary structure (Nexus/Hatchery/Command Center) that the player owns. The Matter Converter somehow locks onto refined Vespene at a specific location, and forces the transmutation into Mineral ore. Here are the specifications:

1) The affected Nexus/Hatchery/Command Center will convert Vespene it receives under the effects of Matter Conversion into equal amounts of Minerals.
(4 gas per trip * 2 geysers per base * # of worker per Geyser => Conversion => 8 minerals * 3 Workers per Geyser)

2) Matter Conversion is a target and channel ability, perhaps with a cooldown so no player can abuse its usage. The ability does not cost any energy, minerals or vespene, only time (due to the critical weakness of other player's units canceling the occupation).

3) The Major Drawbacks/Weaknesses:
-Chance of occupation switch/cancel (automatically stops Matter Conversion ability, enforces cooldown period).
-The complete dedication of a primary structure to accumulating normal or vespene-converted Minerals.
-Cooldown period restricts the usage of Matter Conversion when a player captures a pre-captured Xel'Naga Matter Converter.
-Matter Conversion could have one or both of either restriction:
a) Duration limitation, ex. 30 seconds of vespene conversion.
b) Amount limitation, ex. 200 vespene gas total conversion per channeling.

4) The bonuses (for example and up to balance):
-Steady and increased flow of minerals by halting Vespene income at one base. Even better when used at a High Yield Mineral expansion.
-Matter Conversion is a channeling ability, thus can be stopped by disabling the ability manually via clicking the button, or moving the unit helping you control the Converter away (Ex. You scouted and need a certain type of gas heavy unit to counter incoming forces, you can immediately stop the conversion to resume vespene harvesting).
-Any unit can provide you access or denial to the Converter by standing near it.

The risks are very great at any time during the game, especially during early game. But the rewards are even greater in terms of economic advantage, assuming you have or are close to stabilizing your economy.


-Psi

DE GOGGLES!!!! DE DO NOTHING!!!!

1)
2)
3)
seperates points already :P


I like where your thinking but there is still no position decision making. >90% of the time there will be no difference between converting at one CC or another. More over there is not a rapid switching of "perfered" positions so it could easily be rallyed.


Not going to lie. These are hard problems.

You serious? I find that even a temporary halt to vespene accumulation to be devastating upon a player's economical balance, especially when it comes in so slowly in Starcraft 2.

There is a huge difference in carefully choosing which expansion you dare halt vespene accumulation, however temporary it is. No positional decision my foot!


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

You serious? I find that even a temporary halt to vespene accumulation to be devastating upon a player's economical balance, especially when it comes in so slowly in Starcraft 2.

There is a huge difference in carefully choosing which expansion you dare halt vespene accumulation, however temporary it is. No positional decision my foot!


-Psi

---

Perhaps you can explain. What are the differences between two bases that would make you switch positions often?

The one with the higher or lower deposit of vespene, depending on your needs.

If you want to tech and produce expensive units at the same time, you'll choose the one with the lower count of vespene (main base). The expansion will sustain your vespene income for a longer duration than the geysers you started with (numerically speaking of course).

If you want to mass low tier units, you'll go with the one with higher count of vespene (expansion). So in the long run, you'll still accumulate more vespene from your expansion as opposed to the quickly draining low vespene count geysers at main base.

Of course, if you want the extra protection and reassurance, you'll always go main base where it is (usually) less vulnerable than an expansion, but risk losing a less vulnerable source of Vespene that isn't out there in the always endangered, expansion.


-Psi (P.S. Colors help in learning, don't cha know :D?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

The one with the higher or lower deposit of vespene, depending on your needs.

If you want to tech and produce expensive units at the same time, you'll choose the one with the lower count of vespene (main base). The expansion will sustain your vespene income for a longer duration than the geysers you started with (numerically speaking of course).

If you want to mass low tier units, you'll go with the one with higher count of vespene (expansion). So in the long run, you'll still accumulate more vespene from your expansion as opposed to the quickly draining low vespene count geysers at main base.

Of course, if you want the extra protection and reassurance, you'll always go main base where it is (usually) less vulnerable than an expansion, but risk losing a less vulnerable source of Vespene that isn't out there in the always endangered, expansion.


-Psi (P.S. Colors help in learning, don't cha know :D?)

---

Can you give an example?

http://www.cooltutorials.net/images/rainbow-text/1.jpg

Skittles, Taste the Rainbow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psiwarp

http://www.cooltutorials.net/images/rainbow-text/1.jpg

skittles, taste the rainbow!

---

omfg skittles!

Ok no seriously. This is actually a very good thread topic and id hate to see it go to waste. Psi I really dont get how channeling from one base would be different from another. Could you explain it with an example?

Great thing is once the game comes around we can try these things out.
Bounty is cool but how it would work for SC2, IDK

They didn't fully implement it in WC3, besides creeps (for money and xp) and units (just xp)

Okay... perhaps "IF" statements are not sufficient enough to be examples.

Just to be clear, it's actually not channeling from one base, it's channeling to one base (imagine converters to be out on the field like most Xel'Naga Watch Towers). You do not possess the luxury of hotkeying and casting from a Matter Converter, the best you could do is to hotkey the unit you have beside it, thus enforcing the attention switching from the battlefield.

I don't know what kind of example you are looking for, but I'll try my best:

Quote:

---

Example:

3 minutes into the game, both players have established their basic economy of Minerals and Vespene. Worker scouts were sent and returning (if lucky), when one of the players (Zerg) decide to occupy a Converter. Instead of gas milking, the player is massing infantry for a strong push (Matter Conversion at main base).

With the extra income, the Zerg player is able to support more Hatcheries, Overlords, Drones and Zerglings (with occasional Hydralisks when the cooldown on Matter Conversion initiates). He has a natural and 2 additional Hatcheries in main base, but he has yet to access tier 2 tech.

Skipping a bit ahead, the Terran player has successfully (but suffered casualties) fended off waves after waves of tier 1 Zergling and Hydralisk swarms, by MULEing, walling and teching to Hellions. He has access to Banshees and Cloak, and to Reapers (harass has trapped him for quite long enough). A secret expansion has been set up.

By this time, the Zerg player has shortly accessed Lair tech and is in need of vespene for higher tech units (an expansion with 2 operational geysers counts for 1 geyser in SC1 terms, since the amount of vespene has been reduced, more workers needed, etc etc). He switches Matter Conversion to his expansion to maintain his expansion's integrity from reaper and banshee harassment, whilst safely draining his main base geyser of its Vespene.

---

If this does not suffice, please be more specific in the example you require?


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

By this time, the Zerg player has shortly accessed Lair tech and is in need of vespene for higher tech units (an expansion with 2 operational geysers counts for 1 geyser in SC1 terms, since the amount of vespene has been reduced, more workers needed, etc etc). He switches Matter Conversion to his expansion to maintain his expansion's integrity from reaper and banshee harassment, whilst safely draining his main base geyser of its Vespene.

---

This is that part I am not getting. What is different about the expansion?

Regardless this sounds like something that could easily use a rally system. Your not choosing between different positions often.

But why should it use a Rally system? Why would Blizzard put such convenience on something that should be done manually, but not always have to be done unlike workers and building structures?

I know the game developers want people to use these new inventions, but to go to such lengths would infringe on the philosophy of "easy to learn, hard to master".

The expansion physically possesses more amounts of vespene, thus more conversion that can happen than the geysers you've been milking at base. In that situation, the player needed a secure vespene flow, thus he switched Matter Conversion over to the expansion, and uses his Extractors at main base where they are less likely to die and for vespene harvest to halt.

It's common sense O_o?


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

But why should it use a Rally system? Why would Blizzard put such convenience on something that should be done manually, but not always have to be done unlike workers and building structures?

I know the game developers want people to use these new inventions, but to go to such lengths would infringe on the philosophy of "easy to learn, hard to master".

The expansion physically possesses more amounts of vespene, thus more conversion that can happen than the geysers you've been milking at base. In that situation, the player needed a secure vespene flow, thus he switched Matter Conversion over to the expansion, and uses his Extractors at main base where they are less likely to die and for vespene harvest to halt.

It's common sense O_o?


-Psi

---

So I would switch it once every time I take an expansion. Rallying workers changes more often and that uses rally points. This ability would definatly have to be rallied because it involves a action repeated many times with the same defined position. It does not require the player to recalculate position decisions whenever he casts it.

See this is why I was going on and on about targeting decisions. Cause its really important and has to be built into the mechanic otherwise automation compromises it.

So what makes Proton Charge, MULE and Spawn Larvae any different? They all point to the same area every time, some more specific than the other.

If energy conservation is the borderline, than by all means add it to every newly invented macro mechanic...


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

So what makes Proton Charge, MULE and Spawn Larvae any different? They all point to the same area every time, some more specific than the other.

---

Currently Proton Charge, MULE, and Spawn Larva have next to no good targeting decisions. This is a problem. No scratch that, this is the biggest problem. We have a pretty good understanding of how to create tension in a mechanic. But how to create a position decision with the limited stationary elements in the economy? It requires some major reworking of the infrastructure.

Hmm... quite inspiring, those words :P

Let's say we take Spawn Larvae, and change its primary target to Overlords. Overlords possess an activated ability named "Larval Sacs", which acts like Spider Mines in terms of "limited ammunition/uses".

The Queen can "impregnate" an Overlord with Spawn Larvae, to activate "Larval Sacs" for the first time (an Overlord has 0 charge at start, and only 1 charge at one time per Overlord).

Let's say it gives the Overlord 3 Larvae, but has to wait 25 seconds for the Larvae to gestate (similar to the current Spawn Larva mechanic). That Overlord can then use "Larval Sacs" and drop 3 Larvae (only when hovering over Creep).

Does this change create position decision?


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

Hmm... quite inspiring, those words :P

Let's say we take Spawn Larvae, and change its primary target to Overlords. Overlords possess an activated ability named "Larval Sacs", which acts like Spider Mines in terms of "limited ammunition/uses".

The Queen can "impregnate" an Overlord with Spawn Larvae, to activate "Larval Sacs" for the first time (an Overlord has 0 charge at start, and only 1 charge at one time per Overlord).

Let's say it gives the Overlord 3 Larvae, but has to wait 25 seconds for the Larvae to gestate (similar to the current Spawn Larva mechanic). That Overlord can then use "Larval Sacs" and drop 3 Larvae (only when hovering over Creep).

Does this change create position decision?


-Psi

---

Hmmm. Well I think so. It really depends on how different it is casting it on Target A vs. Target B. Right now I would still imagine you would cast it on one overlord over and over again which would be rallyable. However if you made the gestation time longer then the spawn larva time then you couldnt cast repeatedly on the same overlord which would mean you wouldnt want a rally point.


Your mechanic is anything but simple. However I think your on the right track as far as what targeting decisions are all about.

I see, that was obviously an example :P

Another one as food for thought: Overseer would possess Spawn Larva, but it would pay energy and cause itself to become immobilized for the gestation of the Larvae.

I suppose the only real position decisions made here are a) Safest place for gestation and b) Above Creep where Larvae may survive.


-Psi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PsiWarp

I see, that was obviously an example :P

Another one as food for thought: Overseer would possess Spawn Larva, but it would pay energy and cause itself to become immobilized for the gestation of the Larvae.

I suppose the only real position decisions made here are a) Safest place for gestation and b) Above Creep where Larvae may survive.


-Psi

---

yah but its still more targeting decision then the current queen. And you could probably tie it to a resource/energy pool too create tension.

Interesting, then that brings to attention the potency of a mobile Hatchery.

Let's say the above ability is given to the Queen. It would increase her vulnerability when she is nesting, however it could also promote Position Decision and the increased usage of Creep Tumor to expand her nesting space.

Would that sort of attraction help make a better Queen and macro mechanic?


-Psi