ramping costs-make it optional

[theponyguy1]

I think ramping should be taken out of the main game but left in the form of an option in the options menu, so that people who like building all infantry armies or all tank armies aren't discouragedd from playing the game. RON already contains an extensive array of options (Love the level of customization BHG!), but this one option would add another level of uniqueness.
The options should be 1. no ramping 2. Single units ramping 3. Types of units ramping
Give it a thought BHG

[HuangShang]

i never heard of ramping costs in any RTS

[One_Dead_Villy]

they had it in Cossacks

[HuangShang]

i mean i dont know what it means

[theponyguy1]

it's where

It's where when you build the same unit more than once, it cost more the second time you build it. currently, I read in the RON Heaven Fanstock Report, If you build one unit from a building, the second time you build a unit from the same type of building (Plane Hanger, Automobile Plant), the unit costs more. Does this apply to peasants?

[HuangShang]

if its an option, i wont be using it

[tniem]

Why does that make sense? Usually the more you produce, the cheaper it becomes as you become better at producing the necessary supplies and have learned the techniques.

The way that things become more expensive when you build more is when resources are beginning to be lacking. Eventually building a ton of things will make it more expensive because there isn't enough cheap resources to build it. But at the start, the more you make - the cheaper each becomes.

[bhg_paul]

"The more you produce the cheaper it gets" might be true in the narrow context of making widgets in a factory. It becomes less true and can even be reversed when you're talking about the support and logistics costs required to maintain a large organization.

The same can be said of buildings. Try building an 800 square foot building in south Alabama. Now try it in downtown New York. If you applied the "more is cheaper" logic, that building in New York should be *much* cheaper. In fact it's the other way around. Infrastructure carries many direct and indirect costs.

So given that ramping costs are at least a reasonable nod to realism for a game that is necessarily abstract, let's talk about gameplay. If units got cheaper every time I built one then the player with the most units, everything else being equal, will *always* be the player with the most units. This means that once a player begins to win, even by the smallest amount, the advantage they enjoy continues to magnify. In fact what is far more desirable in a game is a system that keeps a leader from becoming a runaway from a slight advantage and that gives an opportunity for players to overcome minor setbacks. Brian has written at length about this philosophy. I suggest you read his "The Poor Get Richer" article on Gamespy. It does a better job of covering the concept than I can do in this limited post.

Just think of the ramping costs as representing the roads, clothes, food, middle managers, ammo, postal systems, schools, water treatment centers, belt buckles, and government offices you don't actually have to *manually* make but that are obviously part of any actual nation.

[HalfLotus]

Single player should have option, but for multiplayer this will be a boon for RTS. the absolute worst thing about every other RTS is that its always more cost effective to mass 1 or 2 types of units. Most people will then build 1 or 2 units and dominate. This kills the fun real quick. The way the gameplay is shaping up is very promising, especially the weaving together of different elements. I'm in awe of BR's design skills.

[HuangShang]

Originally posted by bhg_paul
"The more you produce the cheaper it gets" might be true in the narrow context of making widgets in a factory. It becomes less true and can even be reversed when you're talking about the support and logistics costs required to maintain a large organization.

The same can be said of buildings. Try building an 800 square foot building in south Alabama. Now try it in downtown New York. If you applied the "more is cheaper" logic, that building in New York should be *much* cheaper. In fact it's the other way around. Infrastructure carries many direct and indirect costs.

So given that ramping costs are at least a reasonable nod to realism for a game that is necessarily abstract, let's talk about gameplay. If units got cheaper every time I built one then the player with the most units, everything else being equal, will *always* be the player with the most units. This means that once a player begins to win, even by the smallest amount, the advantage they enjoy continues to magnify. In fact what is far more desirable in a game is a system that keeps a leader from becoming a runaway from a slight advantage and that gives an opportunity for players to overcome minor setbacks. Brian has written at length about this philosophy. I suggest you read his "The Poor Get Richer" article on Gamespy. It does a better job of covering the concept than I can do in this limited post.

Just think of the ramping costs as representing the roads, clothes, food, middle managers, ammo, postal systems, schools, water treatment centers, belt buckles, and government offices you don't actually have to *manually* make but that are obviously part of any actual nation.

oh, i see , i get it now but i probably will still be using this option very little

[theponyguy1]

That is, only if they make it an option.

[Rohag]

Originally posted by bhg_paul
"The more you produce the cheaper it gets" might be true in the narrow context of making widgets in a factory. It becomes less true and can even be reversed when you're talking about the support and logistics costs required to maintain a large organization. ...

Just think of the ramping costs as representing the roads, clothes, food, middle managers, ammo, postal systems, schools, water treatment centers, belt buckles, and government offices you don't actually have to *manually* make but that are obviously part of any actual nation.

Too true. "Corruption" in Civilization was a realistic dynamic, but, as corruption rates fell with the advance of a civ, I felt increasing "Bureaucracy" should take its place. Were it not for copyright issues, you could call it the "Dilbert Factor."

[HuangShang]

but this will kill any normal RTS fan's game IMO
the civ converts may use it, but who will play a game w/ this option for anything other to check it out for the first time

[bhg_paul]

Actually, several of the skilled RTS players that we've had test the game have become some of the biggest fans of this game principal. I think that once you've played the game you'll see that it contributes a great deal to gameplay and is logical in context. I don't know what else can be said except I think you may feel differently once you've had a chance to play. Hopefully that' won't be too much longer...

Paul Stephanouk
Producer - Big Huge Games

[HuangShang]

Originally posted by bhg_paul
Actually, several of the skilled RTS players that we've had test the game have become some of the biggest fans of this game principal. I think that once you've played the game you'll see that it contributes a great deal to gameplay and is logical in context.

really, maybe it will be good once people get used to it

Originally posted by bhg_paul
I don't know what else can be said except I think you may feel differently once you've had a chance to play. Hopefully that' won't be too much longer...

Paul Stephanouk
Producer - Big Huge Games

not much longer?