Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2 [Archive]

Malorn

2012-06-21, 03:17 AM

I have a great interest in the resource system and territory capture/control. I've been thinking about the resource denial mechanics for PS2, as it is something that Higby has mentioned a number of times as a key part of the system.

Resource denial was a big part of PS1's continental strategy due to it being the means by which you could tip the scales and gain advantage. It also gave alternate objectives for players to pursue if they didn't want to be in one of the front line conflicts.

The PS1 Resource and Denial System

At its core, the PS1 resource system was...
* Resources - facility benefits & modules
* Supply Line - lattice links that exported resources to other facilities

The PS1 resource system revolved around facilties and the lattice links which connected them. Each facility type produced a resource, and using the lattice exported that resource to other facilities. One of the most important resources was the tech benefit, which enabled an empire to create MBTs, Reavers, Liberators, and Skyguards. The reason this was so vital to continental strategy is because these benefits are what tipped the scales when the battle was otherwise a stalemate.

Assuming all things were relatively equal, it was the resources which enabled an empire to push forward or be pushed back. Sure, tactics and outfit organization played a role, but these strategic resources were the tools by which outfits could affect the larger struggle.

This is a simple system, but it made for some straightforward and effective denial strategies. Resources could be locally denied by severing the lattice that connected the resource producing facilities to the front line facilities. They could also hack or disable the resource producing facilities themselves. A gen drop at a tech plant was a common strategy in PlanetSide. Drop the tech for a little while and all the heavy vehicles start disappearing and the empire has a hard time fighting back.

There were two important aspects to this system that made it work so well:

1) Impactful - these resources were important enough to alter strategies on the continent and change outfit plans. Going for a tech plant mattered, as having access to those vehicles was vital. Repair and interlink were two other valuable resources that made a big difference.

2) Immediate - acquiring or losing these resources took effect immediately. There was no delay in when the strategic action was taken and the effect was observed. It was immediate.

PS2's Resource Model

When PlanetSide 2 was first announced one of the first things Higby mentioned was the resource system. No longer were we tied to facilities for benefits, and no longer was combat focused around facilities - every territory would have value and resources would be a vital part of success in Planetside 2. This was music to me. This system was designed to make all parts of the continent important and give us battles everywhere instead of the typical PlanetSide base back-and-forth.

Over the fan faire there were several more comments about resources which included a few examples of resource denial. Take away the Vanu's tank resources and they won't have as many tanks running around. The concept was great, but it was also very different than the rather simple yet effective PS1 system.

Here is a good map of resources and territory distribution (Map is made by Xyntech). Each color is a different resource. As you can see if each empire owns roughly 1/3 of Indar they will have many producers of each resource.
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7782/resources.png

What we know of the PS2 system is that the resource model is based around income and outflow. Territories produce resources which are then spent on vehicles and consumables. We also learned that simply fighting can generate resources. From this we can build a simple model.

Income - Income is generated as dividends from territories, also from capturing & defending territories, and also simply fighting.

Supply - Each player has a pool of personal resources that acts as their supply of each resource, which is filled by the income.

Outflow - Purchasing vehicles and consumables.

On the surface this seems like a fine system, however it is also a system highly resistant to resource denial. To see this, lets compare it using the same characteristics of the PS1 system - impact and immediacy. If a territory is captured, how is it felt?

How PS2's Resource Denial Measures Up

1) Impactful - Losing a territory is not impactful due to there being multiple sources of income. It is typical for an empire to have at least 5 territories that provide resources, in addition to the resources they gain from capturing and defending and simply fighting. Losing a single territory is a small hit to a player's income. Moreover, it does not impact the player's current supply at all, which takes us to Immediacy...

2) Immediate - Losing a territory only impacts income, and only a small part of that. With a decent supply of resources losing one will not immediately be felt. In fact it might not be felt for a long time, if ever if you consider the rate of resource consumption vs the rate of income. Alternate sources of income from fighting and capturing further exacerbates this.

Income > Outflow means their resource supply is growing, which can still happen after a territory is taken. Income must be less than outflow before you will see an impact, and even then it will be a small impact as it is the net difference. That difference will be subtracted from the supply pool, which may take a long time to completely exhaust.

But it actually gets worse. With this system the empires most affected by resource denial are the empires that have low income. These are the empires with few territories. Empires that have a lot of resource producers won't feel a loss of a few territories at all, as they already have more than they need.

Additionally, the territory influence system encourages us to attack territories that are border territories. Thsoe are the territories that we have the most influence on and so the easiest time capturing. Territories beyond the border have no influence and so take a long time to capture and are difficult to hold. This means that assaults to the back lines to disrupt resource production are not practical, nor effective, as even if we did succeed in capturing a territory or two it's still not affecting the supply of that resource and not significantly affecting its income.

My conclusion from this is that resource denial is not a practical strategy for PS2 because it is neither impactful nor immediate. The tactics of resource denial are also highly restricted - they are only practical on border territories.

The great resource denial capabilities in PS1 to immediately and significantly affect an enemy empire by capturing or disrupting resources is not possible in PS2. This is unfortunate as the PS2 strategic gameplay on the continental level will be quite bland. And without resource denail there isn't much point to resources. It is like playing PS1 where everyone always has all the benefits. There's no value, it's just noise.

The Problems with the PS2 System

1) Personal Supplies
Personal supplies of resources are at the root of the problem. As long as players have their own supplies they are shielded from the effects of resource denial. Any solution to make denial a viable strategy would have to affect personal resource supplies. Without this it can never be immediate and any impact would be delayed until supplies ran low, which will vary on a player-to-player basis. It will be inconsistent at best, completely ineffective at worst.

2) Many producers
There are many resource producers in PS2 and attacking any one producer is not practical as long as there are several other resource sources. This isn't particularly bad in its own right but as territory is gained an empire gains more producers and has less to fear from denial. These are precisely the sort of situations where denial needs to be viable. When an underdog is getting hammered they need to play smart to turn the tables, and that means being strategic. BUt attacking resources is pointless because the other side(s) have so many producers.

3) Limited Attack Options
The Influence system is sort of causing problems in this instance. On one hand it creates the same idea that the lattice did in PS1, which was to funnel troops to certain areas to fight at a time and not go anywhere and everywhere at once. But the Lattice had a dual function - not only did it govern hacks but it was also the supply line for benefits. The Influence system doesn't provide a way to make a resource impact behind lines. Captures behind lines are described as taking roughly 30 minutes to capture and possibly 30 seconds to lose. That is, at best, a very risky attack decision. The only practical resource attack options for denial are along the borders, of which there may be only 1-2 of any given resource. This exacerbates the too-many-producers problem. There needs to be a means of impacting resource flow without plowing through all of an empire's territory.

The PS1 system had none of these problems. Many continents only had 2-3 sources of tech and even the biggest didn't have more than 4. Few producers. And the supply-chain system of PS1 meant that you could always attack the supply chain. The resources of PS1 were granted to facilities - locations, not players. So when they were denied it was immediate.

This isn't to say the PS2 system can't work, but it looks as though it will need a bit more complexity before it has the rich strategic options that the PS1 system had.

Some Possible Solutions

Supply Drain on Territory Capture

Add impact & immediacy - make a territory loss also drain some resources from the players' current supply. This would likely be percentage based. Lose a territory, lose some % of your supply of resources which that territory produced. That would add impact and losing of a territory would be immediately felt. It wouldn't necessarily remove the ability to pull a vehicle or buy consumables but it would make a dent.

The amount drained should be scaled on number of territories that produce the resource that was lost. This would reduce the impact to empires with few territories and amplify its impact against empires with many territories. Lots of territories means high income, so the drain would have to be more significant for such an empire to notice, or even care. Conversely low-income empires should have little or no drain because they're already struggling and the loss of the income source is likely painful enough. The numbers could be tweaked, but I was thinking something simple like a linear formula where % drained = 10 * (number of territories producing resource), with some maximum amount like 50. So if an empire has only 1 resource producer for a given resource and they lost it, then they would lose nothing, but if they had 6 or more, they would lose 50%.

This drain does a lot of good things, but probably won't be received all that well by the players. People generally don't like things taken away from them, which is why resource denial and personal resource pools don't mix well together. I think the PS1 system had it right by providing the resource to a location and denying it to a location. Then players don't feel wronged by it because they can always go elsewhere to get their stuff. When its personal resources that isn't true.

Add Resource Objectives to Territories

Add Attack Options - PS1 allowed supply line attacks by downing generators at resource producers or along the lattice chain linking that resource to the front line. Since territories are now the resource producers the equivalent would be a sort of structure or control console that allows disabling of generation for the territory. That would provide more practical means of affecting resource generation for an opposing empire.

I like this idea regardless of whether it is used to solve this problem. More strategic targets is a good thing, especially targets behind the front line of territories.

Increase Resource Value on Border Territories

Add Impact - Not all territories need be equal. Resource generation could be proportional to influence, that is any resource that is below an influence threshold is worth a lot more for income. Resources that have high influence should then be worth significantly less resource generation. This would be good for empires with few territories especially and lessen the impact of lots of territories. It doesn't really fix the problem in a good way but it does make the territories that are attacked along the borders matter a lot more.

I'm not sure how well this will work out in practice because after a territory is taken another one becomes a border territory so the net effect could be negligible.

That's about all I can think of at this time. Perhaps this thread can generate some other ideas. I think the supply drain approach will work best but I don't think players will like it because it takes directly from them.

I'd like some sort of solution that brings back the concept of the supply line, where resources are given to a specific location instead of players, and that decides what things players at that location can obtain. That might blend well with the territory resource objectives, as they could be the thing which creates the supply line.

This is one area where I think PS1's simplicity did a damn fine job and PS2's model will have difficulty replicating that effectiveness.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 03:21 AM

Yep.

noxious

2012-06-21, 03:32 AM

Do we know if bases will have generators (or some other mechanism to disable the benefits of a base to its owner without having to capture the base)? This would help somewhat in that going behind enemy lines to disrupt resource production would be a viable strategy.

Aside from the above, I share your concerns. PlanetSide's resource system was elegant in that, despite its simplicity, it increased the complexity of strategic decisions.

A good fix might be requiring, in addition to a personal resource cost, empire ownership of a functioning facility that grants a particular bonus or the ability to spawn a particular vehicle/item. This would bring back the ability to immediately and decisively impact the enemy via resource denial, especially if it is possible to disable resource production without capturing a production facility.

AlManiak

2012-06-21, 03:38 AM

World War II Online had an interesting system although I'm not sure if it would fully fit Planetside2.

Some cities had big factory complexes that you could bomb to deny the opposition research points.
If they were to implement some kind of factory or mining structure that could be destroyed to deny resources or at least give a penalty to it, tactical bombing might become pretty viable.
Ofcourse the structure could be repaired by engi's or slowly repair itself in time.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 03:38 AM

I feel like this post is better saved for the beta forums.

Unfortunately there isnt much you can do at this stage. Generally I agree with all your concerns, I'll even throw in 2 more ideas below.

1) Resource Sapping - Tap into the resources of a particular base owned by the enemy and reduce its output by 80%, 30% of which goes to your empire. Maybe takes a special infiltrator cert to notice your base has been sapped.

2) Local resources - Maybe shipping resources around the continent is a PITA and so the farther away from it the less you get. Even if you own that tech plant on the other side of the cont, its so far away you're only seeing 5% of its output way out here.

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 03:44 AM

Yea one of the good things about planetside was its supply lines, that been AMS and ants. cutting off the ANT supply means you can effectively lay siege to a base, i think this adds a much greater level of complexity to the game and one that certainly should not be overlooked even if the devs see it as been "boring"

I verymuch like GW2 systems where you take a supply camp and then the dolyaks run supplies to your keeps and towers, off course if these are then cut off or intercepted you loose that supply,these bases can keep an unlimted amount of supply in them used to deploy siege weapons at the base, and repair its walls and doors which makes it ALOT easier to defend if you have siege weapons.

I cant see the individual resource system been removed but i think the element of supply should be brought back. How exactly, im not sure. but ANT works.

That does not solve the resource issue, but it make a problem like taking bases as the undepoped or empire getting hammered easier because if you were to loose your tech its gonna be then hard to get it back, because you know what helps with offence? tech.

there are certainly some issues with their systemand i do hope they do some extended playtests to sort out potential longterm issues like the ones you have brought up.

super pretendo

2012-06-21, 03:47 AM

I 100% would love to see a supply line system and resource denial viable designs in place. That's basically all the game seems to be missing for now. Having a tax on moving resources makes a lot of sense. Being able to carry a pool of personal resources around with you just doesn't seem right and really simplifies the game

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 03:47 AM

2) Local resources - Maybe shipping resources around the continent is a PITA and so the farther away from it the less you get. Even if you own that tech plant on the other side of the cont, its so far away you're only seeing 5% of its output way out here.

i was thinking bases should have to be linked to your capital dome to gain the full benefit, if they're not they wouldn't gain the benefit until an ant or say a mod is ran from the cut-off outpost to a major facility, this would have to be done every hour to get the full benefit.

Malorn

2012-06-21, 03:51 AM

ANT is unrelated to the sort of resources I was referring to.

When I said supply lines I was referring to how the benefits (like tech) were distributed to all facilities that had a direct lattice connection. You could sever tech to the front line and stop the production of tanks by attacking a generator at a facility directly in between the tech plant supplying the benefit and the facility at the front where the vehicles were being pulled.

The PS1 system can't work in PS2 because of the territory control. It isn't the facilities that benefit...it's individual soldiers. So while before there was a simple line easily visible on the map showing the supply lines in PS2 it's all magic. Resources just appear in personal inventories and the only thing we have to work with is the suppliers, of which there are many, most of which are not vulnerable to enemy influence at any given moment. Options are limited, attacks don't do much, and they don't directly affect the players who have been accumulating them.

Toppopia

2012-06-21, 03:54 AM

After reading this, i hope there is a very good resource denial tactic, like if i get enough people to a back hex, i want that capture to have an adverse effect on the enemy, or else there will be no point to it.

noxious

2012-06-21, 03:57 AM

The PS1 system can't work in PS2 because of the territory control. It isn't the facilities that benefit...it's individual soldiers. So while before there was a simple line easily visible on the map showing the supply lines in PS2 it's all magic. Resources just appear in personal inventories and the only thing we have to work with is the suppliers, of which there are many, most of which are not vulnerable to enemy influence at any given moment. Options are limited, attacks don't do much, and they don't directly affect the players who have been accumulating them.
The systems could work in tandem. If we think of resources more as credits to be spent, and particular facilities as the means to production (eg, maybe you need a tech facility to access the blueprint that makes a Prowler), then individual resource pools and contient-wide territory/facility benefits needn't be mutually exclusive.

Actually, I think that has potential to get really interesting. If certain facilities granted the continent-wide bonuses/build options, while others granted high resource generation, then your empire could opt for an immediate effect by hitting a critical facility, or bleed the enemy slowly by denying resource generation if they really dig in and stop you from taking that critical facility.

Malorn

2012-06-21, 04:00 AM

super pretendo

2012-06-21, 04:02 AM

Inb4 someone says that increasing the strategic depth and nuance of the metagame will alienate the exalted casuals and thus shouldn't be done

Synapse

2012-06-21, 04:02 AM

AThreatToYou

2012-06-21, 04:06 AM

Simple Solution:
Resources are physically "held" in a territory. If you lose that territory, you also lose access to the resources stored there. To hold on to more of it, you have to cart it off to a base (in something like an ANT). However, a base can only hold so many resources. In addition to this, bases with a hex-link to a territory automatically have access to the resources held in that territory, so you don't need to constantly be carting resources. However, if the link is cut, then those resources are no longer available even if your empire owns those territories.

If your doing a backdoor strike, you're going to want to bring an ANT or to so you have enough resources to fight for an extended period.

As far as an individual player is concerned, they shouldn't be able to hold very many resources by themselves. They should have to rely mostly on their total Empire's resources.

super pretendo

2012-06-21, 04:06 AM

AlManiak

2012-06-21, 04:07 AM

automated haulers

Guess we have a reason to have the ANT back if it would be something like that :).
It'd be a pretty cool sight tho, seeing convoys moving back and forth from warp gate to territory.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 04:08 AM

Simple Solution:
Resources are physically "held" in a territory. If you lose that territory, you also lose access to the resources stored there. To hold on to more of it, you have to cart it off to a base (in something like an ANT). However, a base can only hold so many resources. In addition to this, bases with a hex-link to a territory automatically have access to the resources held in that territory, so you don't need to constantly be carting resources. However, if the link is cut, then those resources are no longer available even if your empire owns those territories.

As far as an individual player is concerned, they shouldn't be able to hold very many resources by themselves. They should have to rely mostly on their total Empire's resources.

This is better than my idea. Allows roughly the same dynamics without adding lots of automated trucks.

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 04:09 AM

What if resources were represented by actual automated haulers driving back to your warpgate? Then supply lines could be literally blocked and raided, instead of having a lattice to simulate it.

That also opens up the ability for players to bring extra resources to bases that are cut off or just front line to boost fighting there.

I was thinking more oil pipes or power lines that could be blown up at particular points, but that would be rather annoying to repair and maintain and confusing to intercept. something like a train could work, provided it couldnt be damaged by mines and would need multiple AV aircraft, tank or infantry to takedown, i think it could work....though maps would need some fair redesign...so prob not gonna happen.

noxious

2012-06-21, 04:09 AM

The whole idea of territories and resources was to move away from facility-based combat. If we go back to facility benefits then they will once again become the focal points of the game. They will likely be focal points anyway due to their size and visibility, but tactically they wanted to spread things out and make all territory valuable. That's an important part of what they're trying to do with PS2 so I don't think moving back to a facility-based model will help.
Splitting resource generating territories from facility bonuses would address that concern.

This is sort of how it works in Guild Wars 2, which SKYeXile brought up, and it works brilliantly. You still get the zerg focusing only on the castle in the eternal battlegrounds, but in the borderlands the game gets much more interesting (because there is no absurdly difficult to capture castle). In the borderlands, the supply division between resource producing territories and production-capable territories forces each faction to fight across the entire map. This concept could be applied to PlanetSide 2 and work very well.

Malorn

2012-06-21, 04:13 AM

I'm not familiar with the GW2 territory control system and can't seem to find any good info with search. Anyone have good links describing how it works?

AThreatToYou

2012-06-21, 04:14 AM

Tbh, I'm pretty sure my "idea" is how the game already works/is planned to work.

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 04:18 AM

I'm not familiar with the GW2 territory control system and can't seem to find any good info with search. Anyone have good links describing how it works?

ill explain it the best i can, but i dont think its exact implementation would work in PS2, because of its pve elements, but there could be potential work around.

theres multiple sorts of defensive structures in GW2, keeps towers, forts, whatever. then there is supply camps these are worth very little in actual points generation to determine the winner of the realm, but supply is needed to defend and attack forts.

the supply is stored infinity at supply camps, players who's faction own that supply camp can grab and hold onto 10 supply.

So supply is used to make: rams, ballista, and all other sorts of siege weapons, these can be deployed anywhere and are used as offence or defence, each player can carry 10 supply, but it takes upwards of 20 to make a seige weapon. they're also used to repair keep/tower doors and walls. so supply is very important for offence and defence.

Also, every so soften a supply camp will sendout 2 dolyaks(cow type thing, each carrying about 80 supply) these goto the nearest keep or tower and top-up its supply, ofcourse these dolyaks can be intercepted by the enemy and killed, so while you may have the supply camp its pointless unless you protect the dolyaks and keep these lines clear.

each keep or tower has its own supply pool thats topped up by the dolyaks, players can top their personal supply at the keeps, but it takes away from the keeps supply, the keeps supply can also be used to add defensive fortifications to the keep and upgrade walls etc.

i think thats about it, problem is though this system is open to exploits from empire griefing and draining. its a potential problem in GW2 too, but since PS2 is F2P, its more prone to this.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 04:20 AM

ill explain it the best i can, but i dont think its exact implementation would work in PS2, because of its pve elements, but there could be potential work arounds.

*long post incoming* just so so 2 people dont post up long ass replies*

*long ass reply here*

noxious

2012-06-21, 04:21 AM

I'm not familiar with the GW2 territory control system and can't seem to find any good info with search. Anyone have good links describing how it works?

Here is a dev blog that explains it quite well.

http://www.arena.net/blog/mike-ferguson-on-guild-wars-2-world-vs-world

Malorn

2012-06-21, 04:23 AM

Tbh, I'm pretty sure my "idea" is how the game already works/is planned to work.

I like how your idea moves the resources back to being location-based, but as there is no ANT, and players currently have 5000 max resources, I do not believe your idea is how it works or intended to work.

There's a large pool of personal resources, and we haven't heard of any structures or vehicles designed around resource storage or transport.

I dont' much like the idea of using an ant to move around resources. It seems tedious and unnecessary. The key part of your idea is that the resources are actually "held" in territories, which means if the territories are lost the resource supply is lost with it.

That kind of relates to my idea about having captures affect players' personal resource supply.

There must be some deities laughing somewhere....last week Higby tweeted about the beauty of simplicity, and here we have an instance where PS1 had a simple yet effective design. Yet here we are trying to come up with all these extra complexities in an effort to make the PS2 system essentially do what the PS1 system did with much less effort.

Toppopia

2012-06-21, 04:24 AM

I was thinking more oil pipes or power lines that could be blown up at particular points, but that would be rather annoying to repair and maintain and confusing to intercept. something like a train could work, provided it couldnt be damaged by mines and would need multiple AV aircraft, tank or infantry to takedown, i think it could work....though maps would need some fair redesign...so prob not gonna happen.

Trains could move fast enough so only fastish tanks could catch and it has defences so that people can stand on it and use turrets.

This could be awesome to see.

AThreatToYou

2012-06-21, 04:25 AM

Something similar, at least. I just don't think of any other logical way for it to work...
of course I've had one idea and that's all of it.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 04:51 AM

I like how your idea moves the resources back to being location-based, but as there is no ANT, and players currently have 5000 max resources, I do not believe your idea is how it works or intended to work.

There's a large pool of personal resources, and we haven't heard of any structures or vehicles designed around resource storage or transport.

I dont' much like the idea of using an ant to move around resources. It seems tedious and unnecessary. The key part of your idea is that the resources are actually "held" in territories, which means if the territories are lost the resource supply is lost with it.

That kind of relates to my idea about having captures affect players' personal resource supply.

There must be some deities laughing somewhere....last week Higby tweeted about the beauty of simplicity, and here we have an instance where PS1 had a simple yet effective design. Yet here we are trying to come up with all these extra complexities in an effort to make the PS2 system essentially do what the PS1 system did with much less effort.

Do we actually have any official knowledge that the 5k resources wasn't just to avoid running out during testing with the bases not properly generating resources or something? Could it be just a testing thing?

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 04:55 AM

Do we actually have any official knowledge that the 5k resources wasn't just to avoid running out during testing with the bases not properly generating resources or something? Could it be just a testing thing?

its been like that in every video we have seen, 5k though, may aswell be a piece of string until resource prices and generation are finalised.

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 04:56 AM

Something similar, at least. I just don't think of any other logical way for it to work...
of course I've had one idea and that's all of it.

are you liking my posts because of the pony picture? :P

Malorn

2012-06-21, 04:58 AM

Thanks Sky and Nox, the descriptions helped and the blog gave a good rundown. They also have the old DAoC Relic concept, which is one thing I had recommended in other threads as another objective that could be taken to facilities since we don't have continent locks.

The basic concepts are:

1) 3 types of structures, designed for different guild/group sizes, large, medium, and small so everyone can contribute. Good concept. Sort of like how Facilities in PS2 have multiple control points and might take a lot of forces to consistently capture while towers and other outpost territories might take less.

2) The small structures generate resources over time, which are transported periodically to the larger structures which generally consume them.

3) The medium and large structures have supply depots

The direct planetside analogy really would be NTU silos and ANTs. I like this design because it does give a role to groups large and small and could potentially open up more of the continent to smaller scale action while the major action occurs along border territories.

Though I still don't like the ANT part. I think the transport of the resources isn't as interesting as the generation and distribution mechanics. You can take the transportation part out and it still works if it just "magically" transports periodically. Although you could add in physical transport I don't like the idea of introducing NPCs into PlanetSide, and manually doing ANT runs was always boring as shit. The idea of intercepting resources is neat though I think that might be too much complexity. Perhaps there is a way using personal resources to steal resources from depots in enemy territories.

I'll have to think on this a bit. Not seeing a good way to blend individual resource supply with territory-based resources & depots, unless the depots distribute the resources from them to players in the area. I'm assuming that the individual resources is an important part of their design and it can't really be axed.

Needs to be a flow from resource generation in a territory -> players, and a way to make players more dependent on those resources in the territories. FLow of resources from territory to territory could be a way for localized denial to occur, even though the empire might have tons of resources elsewhere. I'm seeing some potential here, though the complexity is worrisome. There might be a way to simplify it all down into a few core concepts that are simple. I'm going to sleep on it and see what comes to mind tomorrow.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 04:59 AM

its been like that in every video we have seen, 5k though, may aswell be a piece of string until resource prices and generation are finalised.

A piece of string? I know just who can help us.
http://images.wikia.com/entertainment1/images/d/da/MacGyver.jpg

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 05:04 AM

Im not sure we want to deny people of tech(empire specific vehicles) totally though, do you really think its a good idea?

Malorn

2012-06-21, 05:13 AM

I don't think a vehicle should be outright denied like PS1 unless the player is completely reckless with resource management.

Denial is how you can gain an edge and help move the battle lines. As long as you gain resources by fighting I don't think anything can be outright denied to you for very long.

The idea should be to shift focus of the battle around, and resources should be a strong reason for attacking or defending a territory. They aren't going to be a strong reason unless there are advantages and consequences to capturing and losing them.

That sounded like what Higby was getting at when the resource and territory control system was first discussed. And he also indicated that how players manage resources is important, or at least intended to be.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 05:29 AM

Well you guys are the ones saying what you had in PS1 was good.

To me it sounds like a recipe for making sure an empire that's losing, keeps losing.

Dougnifico

2012-06-21, 05:44 AM

I just had an interesting thought about what SOE could do when it comes to resources. They could create resource spikes when they want to encourage combat in an area. This could be coupled with a resource shortage in an area that has been getting a lot of action and is getting stale. These spikes could help move the fight but also create more opportunities for resource denial.

Atmosfear

2012-06-21, 06:41 AM

Lots of intelligent discussion going on in this thread. I'll try not to up-end it.

I think a simple solution would be this: any time an enemy captures a territory of any kind, any adjacent territory your empire owns fails to provide any resources for 60 seconds (consider it a "stun" if you will). This would make capturing a contested base a little more decisive, as the enemy will suffer a temporary set back in resources before being able to regain them from other territories. Perhaps vehicle/rebirth spawn points could similarly be disrupted as well, allowing for a few minutes reprieve for the recent victors. Time to regroup/rearm and plan... and not an instant retaliation. At least... from one empire.

This would also make "back-dooring" something to take more seriously. It's known that capturing territories that are deep in enemy-held territory takes additional time, but if you could "stun/disrupt" the supply from all of the adjacent resource-producing territories with a successful capture, it becomes worth it. One territory to deny resources for 60 seconds from 3-6 adjacent territories with connected hexes would make a nice temporary dent to all fighting on a continent. Especially if that territory is adjacent to an enemy base... gives your Empire a foothold... distracts an enemy Empire.

This mechanic would be very easy to code (a lot of the code exists already in regards to the adjacency), adds some strategy, allows smaller outfits not involved in base warfare to significantly contribute, and takes some heat off of the main bases. It does lack immediacy, but that can be balanced via vehicle cost etc. Perhaps.

What does everyone else think?

CuddlyChud

2012-06-21, 07:00 AM

Dart

2012-06-21, 07:02 AM

Atmosfear

2012-06-21, 07:04 AM

I don't think there's anyway to gain immediacy when everyone has their own personal stores. As long as you can store resources, there will always be a buffer. But one idea I had was what if resource gained from territory grew exponentially? So if an empire has 5 territories that produce alloys and you take one, they lose more than 1/5 of their alloy income. I dunno, haven't really thought too much on the subject but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I'm not sure exponential resources is such a good idea. One Empire gets a leg up and starts spamming out tanks and planes like there's no tomorrow... that sort of thing leads to imbalance. Whatever the solution is, it needs to be self-limiting and not something that can cause total dominance.

Atmosfear

2012-06-21, 07:07 AM

60 seconds wouldn't scratch the surface and, as Malorn noted in his second post, thus kind of solution does not account for personal resource production.

60 seconds is an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air; the concept is what's important. A one-time % loss of personal resources (as was already suggested) could also easily be incorporated.

Dart

2012-06-21, 07:08 AM

Captain1nsaneo

2012-06-21, 08:06 AM

Two problems with the resource train idea. 1, watches. 2, land mines.

Firstly, what the heck am I listening to right now? Second, I've got some ways to encourage backline work and to deal with person resource accounts.

A territory produces less resources when there is an enemy territory touching it. Amount reduced is fixed and does not stack if more than one enemy territory is touching it. This way the front line isn't producing much in the way of dividends. This is counter acted by the fact that you get resources for fighting the majority of which will be along the front lines.
Now, this makes taking back territories much more important as you're cutting the resource production off all the surrounding territories. If you couldn't take a territory due to what was in it but wanted to cut the resources from it you could take a near-by hex instead. Thought would also go into which territory touched the most hexs and thus would deny the most resources when taken.

Bases should produce NO RESOURCES. They should instead GREATLY REDUCE the cost of vehicles purchased at the base. Any resources they might have given is made up from the resources saved from buying there. This makes bases more than just differentiated hex capture mechanics and actually valuable points of interest.

Thanks for creating this thread, this issue has been itching in the back of my mind for a while. And as a quick reminder, PS1's facility benefits weren't in at start. It took quite a while before any base attached to the lattice link of a tech plant could pull MBTs too. So the finer aspects that promote play diversity probably won't be in at start in the way we will come to think of them as later.

disky

2012-06-21, 08:08 AM

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!

That might work if recapturing the base (or another base which provided the necessary resource) immediately lowered the timer back to acceptable levels. Otherwise, people would be locked out of using their chosen vehicles for extended periods of time when they should under normal circumstances be able to, and that just isn't fun.

Here's how I think it should work, and please tell me if it's a terrible idea (and explain why): Bases are assigned a set resource value. When your faction controls the base, all members of your faction fighting on the continent are provided with this resource value at a regular time interval. If you have been provided with the resource and have not used it by the next time interval, you are not provided with extra resources, so either you use it or lose it.

This still provides incentive to capture as the more bases your faction has access to, the more opportunites for resources you have, and it doesn't require any complex transport or storage systems. At the beginning of a struggle for a continent, resources are scarce, but as your faction captures more territory, more bases are providing more resources and so each player's overall pool is larger. It's a very board game-style mechanic, but I think that's what makes it work. It doesn't take much for people to figure out.

*EDIT* I just remembered that Auraxium is used to permanently purchase things in the game. The system could be adapted so that Auraxium is stored by the user, just as it is now.

Mechzz

2012-06-21, 08:20 AM

Good discussion.

On the point of players losing some resources when a hex is lost, the simple explanation would be that those resources were physically held in the lost hex.

I also think the % multiplier that kicks in as you drop below 33% territory will cause the losing empire to go negative in its resource inflow/outflow.

So if you drop to 20% (-13%) and your biggest enemy goes to 46% (+13%) they're getting resources 2.5 times quicker than you.

The losing empire in that case will experience "brown-outs" where they can't pull vehicles for increasingly longer periods of time.

The exact speed at which you run out of resources is determined by many variables, so I think this is a classic example of a system the devs will want to tune during the beta.

disky

2012-06-21, 08:31 AM

What happens if the resources are dynamically relocated?

Explain.

Greeniegriz

2012-06-21, 08:49 AM

Question: Do we know the rate at which resources are generated? Safe to say the more bases of X resource you have the quicker it will generate but do we even know the actual base rate?

If not, then its hard to determine whether losing a base will/wont have enough impact.

Either way, I like the OP idea of border bases generating more resources. Perhaps you'd also need to be holding that particular border hex for a period of time before it generated at a higher rate.

Cheers,

GG

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

disky

2012-06-21, 08:55 AM

In July last year at SOE Fan Faire in the initial developers meeting with fans, Higby said resources would be dynamically moved about a cont. At what intervals I have no idea but the general idea is that map Xyntech posted would not be static. Resources would be shifted around the continent in order to "shake up the battlefield", I believe is how Higby said it. However, since then he has said otherwise I believe, I haven't heard that but others said they have. I didn't read all of this thread and whatever has been said this resource movement may not matter but it is a dynamic I hope to see in the game, sooner rather than later.

As far as the idea I suggested is concerned, I don't see how it could negatively impact the system overall. I can see it forcing players to pay more attention to what they're trying to capture, which is a good thing. It may also complicate some of the more esoteric suggestions in this thread, but I'm not sure.

thegreekboy

2012-06-21, 08:56 AM

Great discussion, and I agree with malorn that the devs need to figure out a way to make resources fit the specifications in the the OP.

amblingalong

2012-06-21, 09:10 AM

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 09:10 AM

Luieburger

2012-06-21, 09:16 AM

Good thread I say. I agree with most of this, but don't have any PS1 experience to compare.

kaffis

2012-06-21, 10:03 AM

The concepts here are a sound outline of the situation, but without more details, it's difficult to determine whether there's a problem or not.

The value of the personal resource cap will have a big impact on what you call immediacy, for instance. We also have no idea what kind of vehicle pull-rate can be sustained by "average" resource incomes. This, relative to average vehicle lifetimes, will also have an indication on how sensitive people's ability to pull vehicles ends up being when a facility is taken...

So.. good framework for beta discussion, but we won't be able to tell whether the discussion even needs to take place, let alone what kind of character the solution will have to take on, until we're in beta.

MCYRook

2012-06-21, 10:51 AM

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!
Dis I like. Dart smart man!

A couple other ideas that crossed my mind regarding this, although none of them really solve the entire issue:

Diminishing returns.
Facilities/territories produce less stuff the more you have of the same type. Helps alleviate the "rich get richer" problem.
Downside: Not as easily comprehensible.

Local personal resources.
You still have your personal pool of resources, but the sum of those are tied to the hexes that produced them. Like, your empire has held hex 43 for half a day, and it has been producing lots of resource A for you, so out of the total of 2300 resource A you currently have, 850 of those were produced and are "stored" in hex 43. If you now lose hex 43, you will lose 850 A.
Small downsides: Every player needs a personal resource map to see where all his current resources are "stored". Also needs a comprehensible system what location your resources are deducted from when you spend them.
I pretty much like this tho tbh. ;) Especially since it means that way-behind-the-lines hexes will make for really juicy targets.
Bigger downsides: People hate having their personal stuff suddenly taken away. And: This aproach means that if an empire loses all their A-producing hexes, they lose ALL of their A except the portion that is earned via combat. That's pretty harsh and while it does give resource denial lots of impact (and immediacy as well), it's not necessarily a good thing if it's too hardcore, especially regarding a "sanc-locked" empire getting back on its feet.

Small personal resource supply cap.
Pretty straightforward way to combat the "resource hoarding" problem and make the impact of resource starvation more immediate - just make the pool that you can hoard smaller.
Alternatively: Personal diminishing returns, i.e. if you already have > 1000 resource A, your income ticks are reduced by some amount, > 2000 some more, and so on.

Kalbuth

2012-06-21, 11:02 AM

Zipping through the thread, just a question : do we know if resource are rewarded per tick based on global territory possession, or based on territory held on the continent you are in?
I hope the latter, making for territory possession more impacting the resources.

Kalbuth

2012-06-21, 11:07 AM

Just per cont for now.

Good, this opens up possibilities for continental domination, tbh.

Traenor

2012-06-21, 01:17 PM

Here is how i am seeing it, and restating some of Malorns points.

The Problem

How can you make a strategic and complex system that supports denial of resources, and thereby increases interesting choices in how you can affect what vehicles enter the battlefield? This needs to be impactful and immediate, since if it is neither of these two things, choices will not be or feel meaningful.

What we have¨

We have a resource system, wherein different resources are gained from different locations, or "hexes". The resources are stored per player. I think it has to be stored per player, as shared resources will open up for griefing, and create general bad will player inbetween.

Solutions

So we need to have varied decisions to take, so it not only is expand empire, acquire resources. Darts suggestion, that each area producing resources also affects the timers on how often you can draw the vehicles is very good. Why?
It feels good when acquiring areas. I will try to get that tech plant so that i can spawn my beloved scythe more often.
It also feels good for denying. I will take that tech plant so that the Vanu´s air superiority is reduced, while my own mosquito´s now will flood the sky.
It is logical. It makes sense that if acquire/lose hexes producing that resource, production of said vehicles are affected.
It is simple. A lot of the other ideas have a lot of learning baggage and does not fit that well in this system. This does.
It is elegant. It ties production and timers together, two things that already exists in PS2.

It will ofcourse need to be done so you always can make vehicles faster than you gain by income, but that is simple balancing. I had personally thought of a lot other solutions, but this fits the bill.
The only problem is that it does not help sieging as much. This is broadly affecting, not locally affecting. But since the system is hexes and not links, i cant really see supply lines as fitting in any way, shape or form.

ParisTeta

2012-06-21, 01:19 PM

Nice topic! To make resource matter, they must be limited. So the Personal Resource schould be limited. Example: For 150 you get every vehicle in basic gear. You can own up of that resource till 200. Your empire conquer a hex with that resource, you have a faster income and can now own 33 more of this resource to 233. If they lose it, the extra amound could be lost (any mount, from full to 50% whatever fits balance wise) or/and extra regeneration is frozen.

Exception would be Auraxium, the shop/implants currency.

Someside concerns, Auraxium in alpha/e3 is only gained in facilites, not on the open field, making them the important and center of fights again.

Malorn

2012-06-21, 02:05 PM

Good, this opens up possibilities for continental domination, tbh.

If resources were global then resource denial would be impossible. By having them continental-based it means you can impact the local battle by acquiring or denying resources. I don't think it was intended for continental domination. In a way it actually works against it because the more back line resource objectives you have the more you have to defend, and it gives an underdog with few territories to more attack options and a way to hurt the juggernaut empire that's dominating much of the continent.

Diminishing returns.
Facilities/territories produce less stuff the more you have of the same type. Helps alleviate the "rich get richer" problem.
Downside: Not as easily comprehensible.

Intuitive solutions are important, PS1's system was fairly straightforward. However, diminishing returns might help reduce the stark difference in resource production from a large empire to a small empire, but diminishing returns hurts resource denial. It makes territories in larger empires less valuable, so denying any resources becomes less meaningful. If you get to the point where you need diminishing returns then the empire is already at a point where they have more than they need.

I like the idea of making management of large amounts of territory more difficult because it creates more resource targets. More territory - more targets, so the empire would potentially need to expend more energy going around and securing that territory.

Local personal resources.
You still have your personal pool of resources, but the sum of those are tied to the hexes that produced them. Like, your empire has held hex 43 for half a day, and it has been producing lots of resource A for you, so out of the total of 2300 resource A you currently have, 850 of those were produced and are "stored" in hex 43. If you now lose hex 43, you will lose 850 A.
Small downsides: Every player needs a personal resource map to see where all his current resources are "stored". Also needs a comprehensible system what location your resources are deducted from when you spend them.
I pretty much like this tho tbh. ;) Especially since it means that way-behind-the-lines hexes will make for really juicy targets.
Bigger downsides: People hate having their personal stuff suddenly taken away. And: This aproach means that if an empire loses all their A-producing hexes, they lose ALL of their A except the portion that is earned via combat. That's pretty harsh and while it does give resource denial lots of impact (and immediacy as well), it's not necessarily a good thing if it's too hardcore, especially regarding a "sanc-locked" empire getting back on its feet.

Small personal resource supply cap.
Pretty straightforward way to combat the "resource hoarding" problem and make the impact of resource starvation more immediate - just make the pool that you can hoard smaller.
Alternatively: Personal diminishing returns, i.e. if you already have > 1000 resource A, your income ticks are reduced by some amount, > 2000 some more, and so on.
I think that a solution to making resource denial viable and opening up strategic options on the map would involve some sort of binding of territory to personal resource supply.

I also like the idea of having resource supply depots of sorts that exist in territories that can be attacked without having to capture the territory. This is the sort of thing that would make continental domination difficult - the more territory you have, the more resource nodes you have to protect. Additionally, supply depots can help bring combat to areas of the continent that would otherwise rarely see it (like right around warp gates, or on the edges of the map).

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!

This introduces another variable that might make it more difficult to understand and balance. Also, this sort of approach seems to punish an empire that's losing. Not a bad idea, but I'd like to find a way to localize its effect.

I think the idea of resource denial should be such that it is a tool for a losing empire to turn the tables. If straight up slugfests aren't working, try some behind the lines stuff. It gives smaller outfits meaningful things to do as well, both in attacking and defending these points.

In order to keep a losing empire competitive, resources need to be more valuable when they are close to the fighting. That way all the resources behind the lines aren't as big of a factor and its more about what's going on now. Instead of continent-wide resource denial I really like the idea of localized resource denial. You deny to specific territories, not the entire continent. In this way a force could deny reosurces to the front lines, but even if they take that front line and the enemy falls back, the enemy falls back to fresh resources has an opportunity to strike back (and possibly do the same thing).

Smokingrabbit

2012-06-21, 03:15 PM

I fully agree.
I also see potential in this system to cause empire hop'n.
As I see it any system that has players paying for deployment from a cash stockpile is going to at least be confusing.
You did a great job ilistrating the major flaws, thanks for brining more attention to this.

qbert2

2012-06-21, 03:33 PM

I'm going to grasp onto the idea of resources are problematic to transport (ignoring the lore of having soldiers spawning wherever they want) I'll keep the idea of the fixed percentage dividend that is the current design.

I'll add in the idea that you have your current personal supply that you have immediate access to. This is what depletes when you pull something that requires resources. This source is not too large, in that it's possible for it to be depleted.

I'll add in resource acquisition terminals. Here you gain access to your larger pool of resources to fill up your current immediate pool. The resources from the acquisition terminal fills up over time.

Now, you can adjust the impact of resource denial in at least two ways. One, the closer you are to the front, i.e., the further you are from your empires' claimed areas, the slower the acquisition terminal fills at your current location. Two, it allows for a capture point or some other game mechanic to disable the acquisition terminals.

This will impact the pulling of items that cost resources at the front and force people to relocate to gather more of their resources.

The largest problem with this idea is the fact that, afaik, the current design allows you to spawn anywhere without penalty. So it wouldn't take much time to spawn somewhere else and fill up your personal pool and then spawn back to the front.

You could mitigate this in two possible ways. One, make your personal pool smaller, or two, remove the personal pool altogether and only have a pool of resources that's currently available to you at that location.

Edit: just wanted to point out that this isn't offering very much in the way of new ideas. I was just summing up and grouping together some of the ideas I liked that were previously posted.

PsychoXR-20

2012-06-21, 03:42 PM

Just spit-balling a few idea's here, StealSky's idea made me think of a few similar methods.

I scanned over the second page so hopefully these weren't mentioned.

We've seen in the E3 videos, that each territory has an influence, this influence could determine how the resources are gathered.

1: Your Empire must have a certain influence over a territory to gain its resources. If the enemy come behind you and takes a territory, not only would that territory stop producing resources for your Empire, but so could potentially all adjacent territories. This makes losing even a single territory behind the front lines impactfull, as losing one territory could cut off your supply of several other territories.

2: Each territory has a resource value; use the influence of the controlling empire for that territory to determine the final amount of resources it generates. So if the TR take a piece of NC territory behind front lines, the NC outright lose the resources for that territory, but also take a hit on all nearby territory. Those surrounding territories may only be producing 70%, 60% etc. amount of resources as normal.

Malorn

2012-06-21, 03:52 PM

Not responding to anyone in particular, but when writing my OP I originally had 3 I's, one of which I removed for emphasis on the other two, but I do think it's worth mentioning

Intuitive - whatever system exists for resource denial it needs to be intuitive for someone to understand why they don't have resources, what caused them to not have those resources, and how they can get them back.

PS1 had this being fairly straightforward. The continental map had icons for each facility showing the resources provided at that facility. The lattice clearly showed links, and links that were severed were yellow/gray. Solid empire-color links were good. By looking for the resource provider and the lattice links you could fairly easily determine where and why you did or did not have access to a resource. From there it's simple to see what had to be done. Was a generator down? Was a hack on? Those were really the only options that would cause you to lose access to resource.

Point being it was easy to sort out what to do and how to impact the resource system.

Complexity doesn't strictly mean that things become less intuitive, but the more complex it is it certainly becomes harder to simplify it down to a few core easy-to-understand concepts. The underlying code and methods can be quite complex so long as it's represented in an easy to understand manner. We don't have to know what sort of diminishing returns something might have, only that the simple concept might be that things further away are less impactful. That's a simple idea, though the implementation of that idea may be quite complex.

Simple ideas and simple concepts are key. Some simple concepts that I've seen in this thread that I like.

* Resources owned by players are tied to the territories which produced them
* Closer territories provide more resources
* Losing a territory means you lose the resources it was holding

I don't think all of these need to be incorporated but I hope it gives an example of how something that might be fairly complex can be boiled down to a few simple statements that are easy to understand that might be concisely represented on a map.

super pretendo

2012-06-21, 04:01 PM

I think diminishing returns is really hamfisted as well. In fact, I think the opposite would be an even better idea; having many producers of the same resource type increases their efficiency, a way of abstracting economies of scale.

Why, do you ask? Because that actually makes empires more heavily committed to certain types of strategies. An empire could try to pursue heavy tank production, and other empires would have to scramble to deny them their final production node. Or, the other empire lets them have their nodes, but the savvy players see it as an opportunity to pursue a strategy that counters tanks; the tank-heavy empire then wouldn't be able to switch to a more suitable strategy instantly and would have to deal with their previous strategy being outplayed.

Do you all see the grand-strategic depth this would add?

Now, contrast this with diminishing returns; DR would make it so every empire has homogeneous resource ratios, making it so it's rare that empires would have considerably different balances of specific resources to make them have different gameplay experiences based on their strategic choices.

super pretendo

2012-06-21, 05:07 PM

bump, I hope the devs consider this thread, especially since malorn articulated the ideas very well.

Kalbuth

2012-06-21, 06:37 PM

If resources were global then resource denial would be impossible. By having them continental-based it means you can impact the local battle by acquiring or denying resources. I don't think it was intended for continental domination. In a way it actually works against it because the more back line resource objectives you have the more you have to defend, and it gives an underdog with few territories to more attack options and a way to hurt the juggernaut empire that's dominating much of the continent.

Well, in theory the underdog at this point is not supposed to be able to hurt the juggernaut for long, because he will be lacking tanks, aircraft and such due to lack of resources.
This resource system will create a king of resource barrier under which you're going to be unable to respond with force, and your only answer will be footzerging essentially. Once your opponent has forced you into this situation, he has basically won, until the 3rd faction balances things out.
If one of the 3 empires manage to force both other empires into "footzergers", it's only a matter of time before he's going to dominate the cont.
Q : if this happens, how do you get out of it?
Answer 1 : the other 2 empires are going to the other 2 conts, and their soldiers are going to farm resources there, enabling them to come back to their foothold and get out in force
Answer 2 : After X minutes of an empire gaining dommination, resources from the other 2 conts begin to transfer to troops in the losing empires footholds. It's essentially the same as #1, just faster and without the need for players to go to other cont, and lowering their income on other cont, impacting fights there.

All this blabble not answering the questions at hand : how to make the resource management impact immediatly and significatively?

I think a resource cap rather low is the answer. When you have enough resources, your resource bucket is filling fast enough for you not to feel this cap.
Once your empire lacks resources, and because you couldn't cash in from previous period of full resources, your bucket is going to empty fast and fill slowly.

Dagron

2012-06-21, 06:57 PM

In order to keep a losing empire competitive, resources need to be more valuable when they are close to the fighting. That way all the resources behind the lines aren't as big of a factor and its more about what's going on now.

If the resources behind the lines were less of a factor, wouldn't that also discourage people from doing backdoor jobs even more?

Malorn

2012-06-21, 07:10 PM

If the resources behind the lines were less of a factor, wouldn't that also discourage people from doing backdoor jobs even more?

Depends on how much less of a factor it was and how the rest of the system works. As of now there isn't really any encouragement for behind the lines jobs so I don't see how it would discourage it. Any sort of system that encourages back door action would first need a reasonable objective back there to take.

As long as the influence system makes it unreasonable to take rear territories in that really only leaves resource-related objectives, like something that might disable the flow of resources from one territory to another.

Dagron

2012-06-21, 07:45 PM

As of now there isn't really any encouragement for behind the lines jobs so I don't see how it would discourage it.

I see.

Any sort of system that encourages back door action would first need a reasonable objective back there to take.

As long as the influence system makes it unreasonable to take rear territories in that really only leaves resource-related objectives, like something that might disable the flow of resources from one territory to another.

I know, but i really liked the idea of sneaky teams taking facilities deep inside enemy territory...
I suppose just having them make sabotage runs or other similar missions would also be cool though.

I guess i'm diverting the topic though, so i'll be quiet now. :p

ArcIyte

2012-06-21, 08:27 PM

In Company of Heroes resources dot the entire map, much like in PS2.

However, not all resource nodes are equal. CoH uses Manpower, Ammunition and Fuel as resource. There are 3 grades of resource node: High, medium and low. A High fuel node is essentialy 3 low fuel nodes, so it is very valuable and you don't want your enemy to have it. Much of a CoH match is centered around fighting for a High Fuel point or a High Ammunition point.

The node values can always be changed or moved to fine tune the map balance, and I think it would solve the issue of a large empire not caring about losing resources, while still rewarding them for taking lots of map control.

noxious

2012-06-21, 08:31 PM

So here is the system I have come up with after thinking about it some more.

First, there are two types of territories. There are facility territories (the major bases), that generate no resources but provide bonuses, and which are the only location (outside of your warpgate) where you can spawn vehicles. All other territories are resource generating territories. These territories provide no bonuses and they can't spawn vehicles, but they generate the personal resources that you need to spawn vehicles, buy certain equipment, etc.

To gain the benefits of a facility bonus or to obtain resources generated by a territory, you must be in a hex that is adjacent to a functioning friendly territory. You gain the benefits from the adjacent hex and all friendly hexes that are connected to that hex (obviously including the hex you're in, if it is friendly).

All facility and resource generating territories can be disabled rather than captured via sabotage. Doing this not only stops that territory from providing benefits or generating resources, it also severs the link between contiguous hexes; this makes it possible to cut off an enemy territory by capturing or disabling all of the enemy hexes that surround it.

There is one glaring problem with this system as it has been described thus far; resource generation is a public good. Individual players have no incentive to assault resource generating territories because a player will obtain the same amount of resources even if all they do is attack/defend facilities. To rectify this, resource territories should have terminals from which a player can obtain a modest but immediate injection of resources (with a cooldown of N minutes so you the player can't reach the resource cap by visiting a single resource territory).

A successful attack/defense of a resource territory should provide an even greater immediate injection of resources. Finally, players operating behind enemy lines should be able to steal resources (since they won't be adjacent to friendly territory, they won't have any natural resource generation) from enemy resource territories. These last two abilities will be an important balancing aspect when an empire has lost a lot of territory; even though such an empire will have little or no natural resource generation, the enemy will have a lot of territory to be captured or stolen from, allowing for a quick injection of resources to get back into the fight.

The final piece of this puzzle is the individual player's resource cap. A cap that would allow the purchase of 3 to 5 of the most expensive vehicle would seem appropriate, but this is the kind of thing that would require a lot of testing. The cap should be set such that a defending group can hold out for 10-15 minutes after being cut off from the rest of their territory (long enough for a counter attack to regain the connection) while still being low enough that resource/facility benefit starvation is a viable strategy.

The system described above would be relatively easy to understand, emphasize the importance of every hex, allow for more varied empire-wide strategies, and provide a viable avenue for an underdog with little or no territory to get back into the fight.

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-21, 08:40 PM

I'm a big fan of adding a resource "truck driver" or some version of the ANT.

noxious

2012-06-21, 08:47 PM

I'm a big fan of adding a resource "truck driver" or some version of the ANT.

I am personally, but I get the feeling that SOE are very interested in eliminating 'boring' roles from the game, so we're extremely unlikely to see one.

Toppopia

2012-06-21, 08:53 PM

Maybe the closest thing we might get, is convoy missions, where a convoy of sunderers drive from resource sights, to the foothold and it shows up as a mission for enemy factions to attack, and as defend missions for friendlies, the attackers get bonus xp/resources for every truck they destroy, while defenders get bonus xp/resources for each truck that survives. This could allow resources having to be transported to the foothold to actually be distributed to your empire instead of magically acquiring resources.

Seagoon

2012-06-21, 09:00 PM

EDIT: this was a pointless post, read the damn thread next time before posting me...

If players dont want to do the resource hauling (who would :/) then we can have the AI do it for us.

Simple, you have some robotic cargo transporters that follow set routs from the bases to the warpgate and will deliver the resources from that bases 'catchment area' of hexes.

Another option is to have a pipeline map where resources flow from their hex to the nearest base and then through other hexes to the warpgate, this will create choke points where a number of hexes worth of resources can be blocked by a blackops team capturing that hex. Think of this map like a series of rivers flowing to the sea (the warpgate) with each hex providing a tributary to the main line which comes from a base.

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 09:00 PM

also Malorn, you need to make a thread on resource gain and distribution, not many people seem to care about the potential problems with it, if not done right.

MrMorton

2012-06-21, 09:09 PM

while this concern does have merit, I would like to point out that the resources gained will hopefully be fairly small per person. Meaning that a relatively small change in resources could still decide the winner of a battle.

more importantly. The hex system means that there will be a lot of territory with a very low defensive presence.

So, if VS gets some dropships to set up camp somewhere in the middle of NC territory, they can quickly cap multiple enemy hexes, effectively spiking down NC's resource gain for a small amount of time. This spike wouldn't instantly take effect, but 20 minutes after recovering their territory, NC would be very low on resources and vulnerable to a frontal assault of which VS would happily oblige).

Malorn

2012-06-21, 09:29 PM

also Malorn, you need to make a thread on resource gain and distribution, not many people seem to care about the potential problems with it, if not done right.

There's a couple other resource-related topics I wanted to post about but I wanted to keep it to one goal at a time. Gain and distribution is rather tightly related to denial in this case.

I was thinking about this some more today and I think there's two solutions

1) The ideal solution
This is probably too involved for them to implement before release. It's good to brainstorm what this would be, but I don't think we'd see the fruits of that for a while after release.

2) The quick-and-dirty, viable-but-meh solution
This is the one I think is most interesting for now.

I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I like something that gives behind-the-lines objectives like the classic gen drop at a tech plant, or lattice-severing like behavior.

As for the quick and dirty viable but meh solution, I think it's rather simple.

* Different weights on the territory value to make things interesting, as Arclyte mentioned with the CoH example.

* Scaling loss of player resources when a territory is captured. The resource that the territory gives is the resource that is lost. I described this in my OP. Something simple like you lose 20% of your current resource amount * the weight of the resource. So if you lose a high resource territory (3) you lose 60% of your resources for that resource. If you lose a low resource territory it's only 20%. I just made up those numbers for the sake of illustration. Actual numbers and formula would have to be carefullly considered and should ideally take total number of resource producers into consideration.

Only downside to that I think is the people may not like losing resources and it might be a bit tricky to balance the scaling right.

I do think though that the above two things would make resource denial viable as a strategy. Not the best solution, but one that is workable before release within the current game mechanics.

SKYeXile

2012-06-21, 09:34 PM

you could perhaps do it malorn so that you have a base amount of resources you can carry, say 2500 of each, but then capturing more nodes means you can increase your maximum storage, taking a node from somebody would mean if they're over that 2500 then they would loose those extra resources. (if they're at the maximum they can store)

Seagoon

2012-06-21, 09:57 PM

Ok now that I have actually read the thread, how about this:

-Each base has its own resource pool, this is automatically filled from the contenents overall pool. This pool of resources will be small enough that in a heavy fight with constant vehicle spawning it runs the risk of being depleted.
Bases have much larger resource pools than outposts and towers, if the local resource pool is drained then you will have to travel to a nearby hex to resupply.

-Personal resources dont exist anymore other than auraxium, which will be gathered in the same way as it is currently. Instead of your own resource pool, you will see the resources of the area you are in at the moment.

-To supply the contenent pool with resources they must be transported to the teams warpgate via automated convoy or a tributary system of 'pipes'.

Another option is to have a pipeline map where resources flow from their hex to the nearest base and then through other hexes to the warpgate, this will create choke points where a number of hexes worth of resources can be blocked by a blackops team capturing that hex. Think of this map like a series of rivers flowing to the sea (the warpgate) with each hex providing a tributary to the main line which comes from a base.

-Resources can be blocked from resupplying, or maybe even drained from a site using some special gear, maybe even a specialised galaxy loadout.

-This system allows players to attack the resource system directly.
-It alows for meaningful impacts from either not haveing enough income or having your resources attacked.
-It allows for the dammage to the resources of the opponent to become apparent quickly.
-It opens up a new method of winning fights through attrition.
-It lessens the impact of losing hexes by the fact that less hexes require supplying by the losing empire.

EDIT:

A more complicated idea might be to have a combination of both the pipeline idea as well as the automated supply convoy idea.

The pipes would transfer raw resources to the warpgate, and the convoys would transport real supplies to the front lines.

The difference this would make would be that attacks on the supply convoys would be even more instant in their effect on the front lines, and that black ops work capturing choke points in the pipelines would provide more of an effect on the over all empires supply situation.

This pipeline/convoy combination would provide even more options for blackops and raids than either on their own, this as well as creating a much more dynamic resource system compared to just using one transportation method due to the more varied and dramatic impacts attacks could have.

It would also provide more interesting combat, in that the defenders dont just have to protect the base, but also the main route of resupply into the base, if they get surrounded then the transports will have a much harder time getting through. And this also makes attacking more interesting, since you can apply a larger variety of strats to take a base, maybe even replicate real life situations where strongpoints were surrounded and cut off from resupply and the rest of the army moved on past the strongpoint to the next target, I belive this was done by the germans when attacking russia in WW2.

Synapse

2012-06-21, 11:23 PM

Well convoys certainly are a lot more fun than (visible or invisible) pipes, Seagoon.

ArcIyte

2012-06-22, 01:02 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/ArclytePS/map1.jpg?t=1340341465

(photobucket is being a pain in the ass with sizing, right click -> view image to zoom in and make it larger)

OK, I'm going to expand on my Company of Heroes example but hopefully this makes sense.

As you can see each empire starts out with 2 +10 munition and 1 +16 fuel right next to their foothold, so they are least have some form of income unless they are completely beaten on that cont.

Obviously the crater and surrounding area containing all that +16 fuel and ammo is going to be hotly contested, but it's not the only place that has them. Strike teams could hit the heart of the enemy empire and take out the +16 resource nodes, in the hopes that the enemy will bleed themselves out fighting elsewhere.

Anyway, I think having varying degrees of income from nodes (provided they are placed properly) is the way to fairly award territory gain all the while giving people strategic targets to take away from the bigger enemy.

MrMorton

2012-06-22, 01:06 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/ArclytePS/map1.jpg

OK, I'm going to expand on my Company of Heroes example but hopefully this makes sense.

As you can see each empire starts out with 2 +10 munition and 1 +16 fuel right next to their foothold, so they are least have some form of income unless they are completely beaten on that cont.

Obviously the crater and surrounding area containing all that +16 fuel and ammo is going to be hotly contested, but it's not the only place that has them. Strike teams could hit the heart of the enemy empire and take out the +16 resource nodes, in the hopes that the enemy will bleed themselves out fighting elsewhere.

Anyway, I think having varying degrees of income from nodes (provided they are placed properly) is the way to fairly award territory gain all the while giving people strategic targets to take away from the bigger enemy.

aren't they already doing that?

they mentioned that each base would have special bonuses/abilities as well as certain bases giving access to more advanced vehicles.

disky

2012-06-22, 01:23 AM

Malorn

2012-06-22, 01:24 AM

They explicitly do not want to make combat focused around the facilities, so facility-based resources does not work.

disky

2012-06-22, 02:07 AM

They explicitly do not want to make combat focused around the facilities, so facility-based resources does not work.

If you're referring to my mention of bases in my previous post, I meant to say territories. Each territory would be assigned a resource value. I've edited the post to make it more clear.

Kalbuth

2012-06-22, 03:11 AM

I honestly think the easiest way to keep it simple and balanced is to just assign resource values to territories, and when your faction controls the territory, everyone on the continent gets the resource at a set time interval, and if they haven't used the resource by the next time interval, they don't get it again. This prevents stockpiling and creates an incentive to capture, because the more territory you have, the larger each player's resource pool becomes and more resources are restored to their personal pool at the time intervals. And obviously, it also diminishes the pool of the opposing players.

With this system the game isn't complicated with transportation and personal storage because each player's personal resources are defined solely by the bases their faction owns. I'm probably one of the few people that actually liked ANT runs, but I feel like this would make it much easier for new players to grasp quickly.

Simple, and elegant.
Maybe a little harsh to a losing faction.

Possible addition : personal gain (not sure it has been mentionned already) : apparently, we're also going to gain personnal resources by killing people. A simple possible rule : on top of having resources corresponding to your empire territory, you have the resources of the last guy you killed

Sirisian

2012-06-22, 04:01 AM

I think you're targeting the problem wrong by looking at strategic denial via the resource system. The concept that turning off resources doesn't create an immediate effect has been explained in previous resource threads. You're on the right track though with thinking of the PS1 system. Specifically the tech plant bonus and the concept that certain vehicles required a connected link. The territory system offers the same connections.

1) Personal Supplies
Personal supplies of resources are at the root of the problem. As long as players have their own supplies they are shielded from the effects of resource denial. Any solution to make denial a viable strategy would have to affect personal resource supplies. Without this it can never be immediate and any impact would be delayed until supplies ran low, which will vary on a player-to-player basis. It will be inconsistent at best, completely ineffective at worst.

Actually resources aren't the root of the problem. If anything using the resource system to control strategic denial will just alienate casual users who log on to play for an hour or two. They will notice they are getting less resources and invariably having less fun than the other factions. In fact this is something they have very little control over in the short time they play every day with their outfit.

Now to show a balanced system that's fun for everyone while allowing strategic denial a few changes need to be imagined.

Simplify to two resources. Auraxium and Nanites. Auraxium is used to unlock certs and is gained slowly. Nanites are gained frequently as explained next. The reasoning being that for someone that doesn't fly or drive they are going to accrue useless resources. A unified resource for personal purchases allows all play styles to be exist without favoring one, which I don't think the game needs. If you want to stop air pull a bunch of AA. You don't need a strategic gameplay element for it. Especially since it artificially limits the use of all gameplay styles simultaneously. That's what most people want to see in the game when playing. Auraxium isn't capped, Nanites are.
Remove the resource accumulation system from the territory. Replace it with with a faction loyalty bar system per player from 0 to 100% loyalty. Killing the other factions, fulfilling a support role, being near points when they're captured, etc would all increase this percentage quickly. Shooting teammates, going idle, etc would quickly drain the bar. The loyalty bar is proportional to a maximum resource gain of Nanites. Auraxium would be gained at a slower pace and also by taking individual territory, but not for holding it. This allows both casual and dedicated players to have resources independent of their faction while also controlling their level of customization over time based on their faction loyalty. (Getting to 100% loyalty wouldn't be overly difficult). This also still means that very casual players might want to buy cert unlocks if they are accruing Auraxium too slowly.
In replace of the resource system per territory, create a lattice of bonuses. I'll only explain generator bonuses and drains and tower bonuses.
Generators at bases slow hacks in adjacent tiles and for the tile itself. (Easily defended in a base. Requires tactics to destroy like a galaxy drop ideally).
If a generator goes down adjacent friendly tiles must power that tile draining their power to run the nanite generators. This create a loss in efficiency where equipment and vehicles are hit with a nanite penalty if the player chooses to upgrade in that tile or an adjacent one. Probably like 20% more. The more generators taken down the further this hurts the adjacent tiles as power must be redirected.
Tech plants would increase nanite creation in adjacent tiles by 10%.
Implement universal resource sinks for all play styles. Whether you're a grunt, driver, or pilot. To do this everything costs resources except stock weapons, certs, and ammo. So any cert utilized on a weapon or vehicle would cost a different amount of nanites depending on its relative bonus. This creates a constant drain every spawn in a player's nanite resources. Whether they choose to pull an upgraded rifle or an upgraded tank and creates a deep sense of meaning for resources and unlocked certs. Especially for creating loadouts of different complexity. This also allows identical certs with varying perks by utilizing different resource counts. I digress, this has been discussed to death in other threads.
Tower nanite pipeline bonuses give a nanite generator efficiency of 10% to all adjacent friendly bases. Anything spawned at the tower is 20% cheaper. (Incentive to use towers with spawn systems, I might be the only one that loved tower fights).
Pulling from a hex where all adjacent hexes are owned gets a 20% decrease in nanite costs. You're affectively pulling a loadout or vehicle from behind the front lines so if someone needs that they can do that to defend their territory. Pulling from the uncapturable is a 30% reduction in nanite costs to offset any bonuses a base might have.

Other bonuses might relate to certs. For instance, an advanced nanite outpost might unlock any certs in adjacent bases with a tag "Requires Advanced Nanite Research Bonus". Those kind of things make certain loadouts harder to pull from the front lines and easier to disable.

3) Limited Attack Options
The Influence system is sort of causing problems in this instance. On one hand it creates the same idea that the lattice did in PS1, which was to funnel troops to certain areas to fight at a time and not go anywhere and everywhere at once. But the Lattice had a dual function - not only did it govern hacks but it was also the supply line for benefits. The Influence system doesn't provide a way to make a resource impact behind lines. Captures behind lines are described as taking roughly 30 minutes to capture and possibly 30 seconds to lose. That is, at best, a very risky attack decision. The only practical resource attack options for denial are along the borders, of which there may be only 1-2 of any given resource. This exacerbates the too-many-producers problem. There needs to be a means of impacting resource flow without plowing through all of an empire's territory.

Agreed. The fronts will open up quickly, but there has to be a way to cut-off supplies from the back. If places have generators or nanite facilities to attack they can remove for instance hack time delays ideally for adjacent hacks. Still makes it difficult, but it would open up for more complex hacks. Like where infiltrators take out multiple generators to help a hack go through faster. Ideally the strategic events should affect where an individual soldier uses their resources, not how many they gain. Very subtle difference with how players will perceive the game. Also both teams should be able to perform these hacks. Imagine both teams trying to take out each other's generators at the same time. That's just one system that could be disrupted.

I was thinking more oil pipes or power lines that could be blown up at particular points, but that would be rather annoying to repair and maintain and confusing to intercept. something like a train could work, provided it couldnt be damaged by mines and would need multiple AV aircraft, tank or infantry to takedown, i think it could work....though maps would need some fair redesign...so prob not gonna happen.
I was trying to think of a way to make that work also. Having a kind of nanite pipeline system that transports nanites for individual players that could be destroyed. I can't think of how it would help gameplay. You cut off a base to 1 of them and they have connections to other friendly bases. Do you need to cut off all of them? I wrote up a huge idea for them, but ended up erasing it to go with a generator system since it allows 1 generator to affect adjacent tiles in a way that it gives players a choice about how they use their resources. You could have tower bonuses that increase nanite generator efficiency so owning a tower makes things created 10% cheaper. Those are simple idea for single capture points to adjacent bases. I added that as idea 8.

I took some of the GW2 ideas about adjacent bonuses. (Without any complex ANT transport. I think a pipeline is fine between a tower).

Also I love the idea of trains guys, but I don't think their benefit has been clearly defined.

Also I'm glad everyone seems to be on the same page about not denying vehicles like in PS1. With how many vehicles we're going to have it might be odd. Pushing players back to by expensive ones cheaper behind the front lines I'm fine with though. Honestly, I'd like to see maybe pulling vehicles from behind the front lines where all adjacent hexes are friendly get something like a 20% nanite bonus. I added it as idea 9.

Well you guys are the ones saying what you had in PS1 was good.

To me it sounds like a recipe for making sure an empire that's losing, keeps losing.
I think you'll find the ideas I just put forth stop this scenario from occuring by not directly cutting into a player's resources for fighting on a losing continent.

I just had an interesting thought about what SOE could do when it comes to resources. They could create resource spikes when they want to encourage combat in an area. This could be coupled with a resource shortage in an area that has been getting a lot of action and is getting stale. These spikes could help move the fight but also create more opportunities for resource denial.
Already proposed a while ago. Hold the meteor resource mode (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37160). Forces areas that need some chaos to get it as it plays on player's greed for personal resources.

Bases should produce NO RESOURCES. They should instead GREATLY REDUCE the cost of vehicles purchased at the base. Any resources they might have given is made up from the resources saved from buying there. This makes bases more than just differentiated hex capture mechanics and actually valuable points of interest.
Eh if you just subtract uniformly for all the bases then you end up with 0. Unless you mean the more bases you own the less vehicles cost? I've included an adjacency bonus for spawning behind front lines in item 9. Makes sense.

In July last year at SOE Fan Faire in the initial developers meeting with fans, Higby said resources would be dynamically moved about a cont. At what intervals I have no idea but the general idea is that map Xyntech posted would not be static. Resources would be shifted around the continent in order to "shake up the battlefield", I believe is how Higby said it. However, since then he has said otherwise I believe, I haven't heard that but others said they have. I didn't read all of this thread and whatever has been said this resource movement may not matter but it is a dynamic I hope to see in the game, sooner rather than later.
If they do keep the 3 resources system this kind of changing of resources per tile seems extremely important. Maybe explain it away as deep mining and extreme plate tectonics because of all the moons. Either way keeping it static was one of the huge problems I saw with what they were explaining.

There is one glaring problem with this system as it has been described thus far; resource generation is a public good. Individual players have no incentive to assault resource generating territories because a player will obtain the same amount of resources even if all they do is attack/defend facilities. To rectify this, resource territories should have terminals from which a player can obtain a modest but immediate injection of resources (with a cooldown of N minutes so you the player can't reach the resource cap by visiting a single resource territory).
I think a system using strategic elements and bonuses would work better. Things like taking out generators or connecting towers to bases for bonuses or unlocks seems much more strategic than going after resources for individual gain. The loyalty system I proposed would mean someone in a battle no matter where will get resources for helping their faction. They could be rewarded for mission objectives. That could be done with extra bonus resources separate from the loyalty. If it's not exploitable it would work well.

Really really good ideas here but overall this has to be simple enough a 12 year old can understand it, if you know what I mean.
They can play the game and have fun. The mission system will help the zerg find their way anyway.

(Also this thread took a while for me to read. Information dense, good luck to anyone jumping into this thread halfway through, hmm this looked smaller in notepad when I was making it).

Figment

2012-06-22, 04:02 AM

The easiest thing to do is limit the personal pool of resources to allow for the pulling of very few units per player. With sub, double that tops.

This would make transports more important, plus would allow tanks to be a bit more powerful (rate of death of units also affects resource drain).

It is also possible to have bases as storage of supplies and towers and outposts as producers. Storage would simply change ownership of the supplies stored in that facility. The outposts and towers would affect the net gain of resources of bases bordering that outpost.

Distribution then would be impacted by bases, divided by territory held (amount of hexes) and secure bases, then divided per player in that hex. This would mean that even a semi controlled base would decrease resources, especially for an empire with a lot of hexes. A frontline base with a lot of players per hex would then run out of resources much faster. Could be there are treshold levels that provide priority modifiers to larger groups to compensate a little bit.

Either way, this would give more clear advantages, the impact of capturing an outpost would be felt in multiple connected bases and the impact would be more significant.

The effect of losing and capturing a base would also immediately benefit your empire's production.

Lastly, I would suggest and expect that encircling an enemy by capturing the terrain around them should cut them off from supplies altogether. Meaning only linked resources are distributed.

ODonnell

2012-06-22, 05:42 AM

I never saw a problem with the way PS1 resources worked. A lot of the concerns raised by the OP and posters I had been thinking about for a couple weeks now. I won't be able to make judgment until we are actually in the PS2 beta. Until then its just exhaustive theory crafting.

Seagoon

2012-06-22, 06:42 AM

Well convoys certainly are a lot more fun than (visible or invisible) pipes, Seagoon.

Yeah I would agree, but the pipes offer a completely different style of attack much closer to PS1. It also has very different implications as to how long and serious an outage a attack on the resources might produce.

The main reason for this is that vehicle transported resources are in bulk and pipeline transported resources are a continuous flow.

With the bulk transportation method, you would have a delayed effect on the opponents resource system from ambushing a convoy. This is because the ballancing of the system would require a stockpile to keep an uninterupted flow of resources to the players, this would mean there would be a delay before the resources became an issue as this stockpile runs out.

The pipes however could be designed to produce a much more immediate effect in that you dont need a stockpile to smooth out the resource system, so as soon as a hex is attacked and it blocks off that part of the maps resource gain, then the effect will be that the opponents resource income would drop straight away. This also has the benifit of never completely starving a player of resource income but still making it so they have to be more careful about producing tanks.

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-22, 07:28 AM

One solution would be have 1-3 silos scattered through each faction territory. To gain a resource from a facility the silo has to be linked to the facility. The links could be established by some sort of teleportation node for pipelining resources. In order to establish the link, the node has to be driven from the facility to the silo, and then add some sort of mechanic for breaking links at the silo (enemy sappers) or as a result of enemy facility captures.

GuyFawkes

2012-06-22, 07:38 AM

I honestly think the easiest way to keep it simple and balanced is to just assign resource values to territories, and when your faction controls the territory, everyone on the continent gets the resource at a set time interval, and if they haven't used the resource by the next time interval, they don't get it again. This prevents stockpiling and creates an incentive to capture, because the more territory you have, the larger each player's resource pool becomes and more resources are restored to their personal pool at the time intervals. And obviously, it also diminishes the pool of the opposing players.

With this system the game isn't complicated with transportation and personal storage because each player's personal resources are defined solely by the bases their faction owns. I'm probably one of the few people that actually liked ANT runs, but I feel like this would make it much easier for new players to grasp quickly.

This sounds simple enough, but I think it should be resources gained that you are in direct connection with you should benefit from , not continent wide. If you can scissor a factions area and cut off benefits to either part it brings added tactical play .

All the outbuildings and small outposts should be like a supply line , ways to interrupt resource gathering. Instead of killing an ant , you hack and hold an outpost . Its things like this to draw people away from the main fight , resecuring , denial . Same principle as ps1, just in a more realistic , modern rethink that is required.

Asp

2012-06-22, 09:34 AM

I was tossing around ideas similar to Noxious, about bases and resource nodes, but slightly different..

Facilities Several types, no resource generation, resource storage for the empire controlling. Transmits it's resources to outfits/players as dividend.. Losing that base, results in a physical loss of resources for the empire/player (enough to be noticed but not crippling due to one base being lost), and obviously a slight decrease of the continuous resource gain for the empire/player (% of resources accrued by the base while in enemy control is removed from empire stockpile; so % of the divdend you've received from that base is removed). Possible gen drop on the facility could also deny resources, or slow acquisition. Players wont like the resource loss, but there's no denial without loss, so...

Non-base capture points Resource generation, transmits to specific bases. Losing these nodes deprives the base connected of the resources generated for the empire controlling the base. Future possibility for engineer certs/equipment to siphon that resource (once you control it) from the enemy without controlling the base?? Gives smaller outfits a role in going after the resources around bases (not just tower drops).

Loss of all resources of {insert type} continent wide results in slow drain of that type of resource for the empire(s) not in control. 5%, 10% drain? Whatever is balanced and appropriate. Now not only are you not receiving resources from a particular continent, but it's also adversely affecting you. Easy to counter, yes, but you don't want it to be something an empire has serious difficulty coming back from.

Loss of {insert base type here} Loss of all (for example) tech plants on a particular continent increases costs of vehicles, or advanced equipment, or anything built with auraxium (example) by 10% (or insert balanced penalty here).. You have benefits for an empire controlling a base, along with deficits for empires that control none of them on a continent.

Those kinds of denial penalties could apply globally or even in a continental sense, depending on balance. Resources penalties would be global.

Any of those ideas can be tweaked or modified. The general idea is, the bases should be worth something, but collectively the non-base capture points should be worth something equally as well. You want resources and benefits? You're going to need to capture bases, and the surrounding territories. You want resource denial, it's the same, but it can also be achieved by going after the resources specifically.

bmfof

2012-06-22, 10:13 AM

Only read the OP's post, so pardon me if I repeat something already noted.

Aiming straight for a solution to the questions:

How to maintain value of resources?

Taking away resource control from individual players will only cause frustration, so I don't think limiting resources through limiting their operators is the smartest idea. Last thing I want from this game is to be dependant on my outfit/empire leadership for access to basic gameplay abilities. I know that might not go well with some of the hardcore types, but you have to keep in mind that if population is the one thing that can keep things interesting, the game has to be designed in a way that doesn't discourage or frustrate individuals for the benefit of coordinated play, especially if there are solutions that don't sacrifice player freedom and control.

As for a solution to resource distribution that doesn't devaluate resources, a risk like system seems appropriate enough. The following steps should be taken:
- Players should have access to a set limit of resources per owned frontline territory IF there are 2 or more adjecent;
- Resource generation should be somewhat dependant on frontline owned territory IF there are 2 or more adjecent (except for footholds);
- Resource generation should be heavily dependant on the number of owned territory in general;
- Individual pieces of territory (with no adjecent territory under your control) should be subject to resource degeneration 30 minutes after they are taken.

The logic is simple: the more battle your empire is engaged in, the more resources it should have access to as it expands. The more your empire presses onwards and dominates, the harder it becomes to maintain all that territory, thus the actual decrease of the individual resources limit as frontlines decrease. Finally, the requirement of 2 or more adjecent territories to be controlled in order to generate resources from the frontline creates the sought after supply line simulation that is suppose to bring tactical depth to the game, e. g. - even with limited resources you can sneak in a few coordinated teams to cut of a territory from the frontline, thus sapping the resource generation and from it. That's where the resource degeneration to individual pieces of territory also comes into play - if you have owned a frontline territory for more than 30 minutes, the moment it's cut of from the rest of your empire, it actually starts losing you resources, halting your drive in this way.

Basically, no matter what you resource generation is, if you ever come to a point where you've cornered your opponent, your resources will be limited, thus making you an easier target for the time being. The more you yourself are pressured, the more buying ability you get as the number of frontlines increase.

Ideally, with the above system, resource generation - even with an insane amount of territory under your control - should never be faster than spending (or outflow, w/e).

Of course, there are probably flaws with the above.

Kalbuth

2012-06-22, 10:28 AM

Not to sound trollish, but please, KISS : Keep It Simple Stupid.
Rules should be straightforward and everyone should be able to assess at any time, quickly, what resources he's gonna have, and why

Nemises

2012-06-22, 01:35 PM

I initially spawn with 5000 "resources".
I buy a Tank (cost 3000 resources)
I kit up in my uber HA (cost 1500 resources)
I now have 500 resources left

My empire owns 8 territories (out of a possible 24) currently
Each territory generates 10 "resources" per tick
Each tick is..I dunno, 2 minutes?

I drive my Tank out, get in a massive fight and am dead within 10 minutes

In that time I have received 400 resources (80 * 5) passively
I also managed to kill 5 people in that 10 minutes, for which I get 50 "resources" per kill...

So,
I now respawn, and have 500 + 400 + 250 = 1150 resources...

If I want to get my cool tank again (3000 resources) I must wait 11.5 minutes, or go kill a bunch of dudes..
If I want to get my cool HA kit (1500 resources) , I must wait 2.5 minutes

if my empire captures more territories, I get 10 more resources per tick per territory
I kill a bunch of dudes , I make a ton of cash.

Simple system..I expect this is more or less what SOE are planning

Malorn

2012-06-22, 02:17 PM

Sirisian, you have a lot of complexity in your post and I don't quite know what to make of it.

To me the entire purpose of the resource system is denial. If the absence of the ability to have something is meaningful then that will motivate to go after resources, which makes territories valuable, spreads out the combat, and gets the diverse gameplay they are after in the first place. Without meaningful denial there is no reason to go after territories for their resource value and the game missed a lot of tactical potential.

PS1 had these denial elements. They were really simple, and tied in well with the lattice system. It was quite elegant. PS2 has different goals. Here are those goals as far as I understand them. This goes all the way back to last July when PS2 was revealed at fan faire.

1) Stop the base back-and-forth

PS1 revolved around facilities and the pathways between them, which left a lot of territory on the map unused. They want to increase the use of non-facility space. If you think of resources as replacements for facility benefits of PS1, they are moving the benefits away from the facilities and to the other territory. A great idea to lessen the value of the facilities. Makes sense.

2) Fight over every inch of territory

Between resources and the influence system, territories gain value. The influence system makes them must-capture in order to more easily capture other things, and the resources give you a reason to go after specific territories as strategic targets. Since they are only shipping with 3 continents, they also need people to fight over every inch to help the game feel massive and to make the most out of the content.

3) Use resources as currency for motivation and another layer of skill

Having personal currency helps make the acquisition of resources more personal for players. Helping your empire get a benefit - not everyone will care about that. But they will care if they personally benefit from resource acquisition. Additionally, individual resource management is another layer of skill and adds depth to the game.

All great goals, and they make sense. It does not seem like the design they have doesn't fit those goals very well.

Fighting over all territories does not seem meaningful beyond building influence, because of the number of resource producers combined with the resources from fighting. There's no obvious way to significantly impact the resource production of the other team. So why bother? And if there's no way to significantly impact resource production then the personal motivation to attack or defend on the basis of resources is minimal. With the influence system fighting over rear territories ins't practical, so we aren't really fighting over every inch most of the time and there's a large amount of territory that will see little action (like the ones near the warpgates). In the absence of fighting over every inch of territory for resources what will players do? They'll go for the big obvious objectives that signify clear achievement - facilities. So without effective resource denial all three goals fail.

And this is why I made this post. Resource denial is a very important thing and at the heart of what they are trying to do in replacing the lattice.

Were resources clearly deniable and have a significant effect on all players, then they would be motivated to fight over them and move away from the facilities. If you could impact resources without capturing territory (like classic PS1 gen drops) then you could spread the fight out a little bit and get fighting over more places. You won't see huge groups behind lines doing this but it does give something useful and interesting for smaller outfits to do who do not want to be in a giant zerg meatgrinder. And such a thing is a natural counter to an empire getting too big.

I initially spawn with 5000 "resources".
I buy a Tank (cost 3000 resources)
I kit up in my uber HA (cost 1500 resources)
I now have 500 resources left

My empire owns 8 territories (out of a possible 24) currently
Each territory generates 10 "resources" per tick
Each tick is..I dunno, 2 minutes?

I drive my Tank out, get in a massive fight and am dead within 10 minutes

In that time I have received 400 resources (80 * 5) passively
I also managed to kill 5 people in that 10 minutes, for which I get 50 "resources" per kill...

So,
I now respawn, and have 500 + 400 + 250 = 1150 resources...

If I want to get my cool tank again (3000 resources) I must wait 11.5 minutes, or go kill a bunch of dudes..
If I want to get my cool HA kit (1500 resources) , I must wait 2.5 minutes

if my empire captures more territories, I get 10 more resources per tick per territory
I kill a bunch of dudes , I make a ton of cash.

Simple system..I expect this is more or less what SOE are planning

And this is precisely the problem. In the above example your primary motivation is kills, not territories. You can play the game and not give two shits about territory. And if you lose one, so what? It doesn't affect you immediately and you can overcome it by going back to kills. Your example illustrates why the system is bad, especially this bit...

"I kill a bunch of dudes, I make a ton of cash" <-- epic fail, there is no motivation to do anything but go out and zerg. There is nothing that would motivate you to go do anything other that kill in the most efficient way possible. Support activities - they are a liability. Going after territory - why? Helping others - that's a risk to self.

This is exactly what the system should not be. The more I think about it the more I really dislike the idea of getting resources for kills. It is an uncontrollable source of resource income and allows players to ignore a fundamental part of the game. If they wanted some minimal income to ensure players dont' get completely screwed, then have a minimal base resource income for all players. The kills bit only discourages certain playstyles, namely support.

OutlawDr

2012-06-22, 02:27 PM

I agree that we should keep is as simple as possible, but at the same time lets not shy away from more complex solutions that are clearly better. I think the resource metagame in general is simple enough for the average player to figure out. For example, a player will see that a tank costs X res. The player will simply look to see whether or not he has the res to buy it...and it ends there.
Most players don't care or need to know the exact mechanics determining how much res they have. Its not a requirement to play the game properly. Maybe at the highest strategic level, but the players involved in that are going to be hardcore vets and outfit officers. They can be expected to put in the homework to figure out the exact mechanics. PhDs shouldn't be required, but a 5-15 minute read on some PS2 wiki is perfectly reasonable imho.

Above all, there should be a reasonable player resource pool cap. Low enough so that a player can not stockpile enough to trivialize any subsequent territorial loss. Also low enough so that resource regen via territories is something you don't want to lose, so that loss of a territory has a noticeable impact on vehicle acquisition. In other words, losing a tank should sting. It won't put you completely out, but losing 3 tanks in a 10 minute time span is something a player should NOT be able to recover from in less than 10 minutes..for example. This is where beta will come in to figure out exact values, and Im' saying this is for sure going to be enough. But definitely start here.

Nemises

2012-06-22, 03:00 PM

This is exactly what the system should not be. The more I think about it the more I really dislike the idea of getting resources for kills. It is an uncontrollable source of resource income and allows players to ignore a fundamental part of the game. If they wanted some minimal income to ensure players dont' get completely screwed, then have a minimal base resource income for all players. The kills bit only discourages certain playstyles, namely support.

Agreed...
Hopefully it will not be resources per kill...

...unless, as others have stated, there are multiple resource types, and only one of which gets generated by kills..Auraxiam as bounty I suppose..

..tis a tricky problem, we can only hope the chaps at SOE have something worked out

Sirisian

2012-06-22, 03:11 PM

To me the entire purpose of the resource system is denial. If the absence of the ability to have something is meaningful then that will motivate to go after resources, which makes territories valuable, spreads out the combat, and gets the diverse gameplay they are after in the first place. Without meaningful denial there is no reason to go after territories for their resource value and the game missed a lot of tactical potential.
You're using the word tactical wrong. My post laid out strategic goals and benefits which indirectly affect how forward bases fight and how players spend resources while giving players choices with what to do with their resources.

PS1 had these denial elements. They were really simple, and tied in well with the lattice system.
We had generators in PS1. I proposed a better use for them as strategic bonuses outside of bases by changing hack times and stopping the:

1) Stop the base back-and-forth

While allowing players to down generators to easily fight over:

2) Fight over every inch of territory

And the resource system I propose creates a very powerful model for customization:

3) Use resources as currency for motivation and another layer of skill

My system makes it more about customization. So skill through choosing the best loadout for a specific situation. Everyone has the same choices ideally.

And this is why I made this post. Resource denial is a very important thing and at the heart of what they are trying to do in replacing the lattice.
Indeed. The denial system I proposed does exactly what you proposed. It creates a way for players to immediately have an effect on the battlefield by taking objectives and fighting for them on the front lines while allowing players to back hack when conditions are met. (Enough generators are down to not slow the hack).

Were resources clearly deniable and have a significant effect on all players, then they would be motivated to fight over them and move away from the facilities. If you could impact resources without capturing territory (like classic PS1 gen drops) then you could spread the fight out a little bit and get fighting over more places. You won't see huge groups behind lines doing this but it does give something useful and interesting for smaller outfits to do who do not want to be in a giant zerg meatgrinder. And such a thing is a natural counter to an empire getting too big.
Exactly what I proposed. Read the part about generators going down draining the bases and nearby bases efficiency to increase nanite costs. This creates an immediate draw on the players resources.

And this is precisely the problem. In the above example your primary motivation is kills, not territories.
I know this comment is to someone else, but everything I explained is to make kills and support even out via a loyalty system. After a while kills don't matter since you're capped at 100% loyalty as explained in other threads on this subject. So the main goal of players is to take objectives to get cheaper stuff. Taking towers and downing generators drain the enemies pulling power in their territory. That with other bonuses for certs like I mentioned create a very tangible denial system, that's much fairer to every type of player and playstyle.

Seriously read what I wrote again and then read your post in detail and the others. I spent a while taking into consideration what everyone says with a pro and cons list. It is the simplest system sadly. I'm saying this after weighing every proposed solution people have brought up previously.

Malorn

2012-06-22, 03:37 PM

Sirisian, I re-read your post. I have a difficult time understanding many of your posts because I don't see a clear Problem -> Solution mapping, or an enumeration of the goals of the design. I often try to work within the goals and current design of the game as entirely new systems are highly unlikely to be adopted.

That said you had two concepts that I wanted to outline because I think they are right along the lines with what myself and others have been trying to arrive at.

1) The idea of resource production of one hex impacting others

This is essentially a 'supply line' like mechanic. It existed in PS1 and was good. We need a PS2 equivalent that utilizes territories, so I think your idea of drain on one hex absorbing resources from another is good. I also like that it is localized, so the drain doesn't impact the entire continent. The challenge here is mapping territory resource holdings to a player's individual resource supply in a simple and intuitive way. I know you proposed the loyalty system but I don't think that is a realistic thing to expect, and I also admit I don't understand its purpose, what is solves, or what goals it is trying to achieve.

2) Resource-related objectives in territories not linked to capture.

I mentioned this in my OP and may others have had variations of this, and your post mentioned generators which can affect nearby territories. As above the effect is localized (much like PS1's effect was often localized), and it doesn't require capturing the territory. That's key. I believe that truly fixing the denial problem means that there is some way to impact all resources on the map - not just territories that can be captured. Obviously capture is the preferred way to impact resources by flipping them to your control, but neutralizing resources is another way that should be supported.

You also touched on something that will be the subject of another post I plan to make in the near future, perhaps this weekend:
"Implement universal resource sinks for all play styles."

This is something I absolutely agree with and is also a problem, but I'm not going to go into it with this thread since it is not directly related to the denial issue. It indirectly affects it and can exacerbate it, but the two can be addressed individually and I didn't want to fracture the discussion too much.

Back to denial - lets try to keep it simple as possible and as close to the current design as we can manage. That makes it not only more realistic for them to actually adopt but also least likely to cause problems with other related game systems. Complete overhauls of systems will probably happen in PS2 but they'll happen well after release as part of significant content releases (like EVE online has done).

Malorn

2012-06-22, 03:53 PM

I like the idea of combination of dynamic relocation of weighted resource regions. Combination of both would really keep people on their toes and make for interesting meta play. By weighted, we are talking about variable resource gain per tick right?

Yes, weighted example would be like so

High Catalyst Territory (3x rate)
Moderate Catalyst Territory (2x rate)
Low Catalyst Territory (1x rate)

The weight could also affect resource loss if losing the territory causes player supplies of that resource to be lost. Higher weight means more loss, that sort of thing.

Idea is to create different values for territory. So while two territories might both have catalysts, they could have very different value. The impact of losing a high catalyst territory should be much more severe. The benefits of gaining one should also make it worthwhile to attack.

DviddLeff

2012-06-22, 04:13 PM

Sirisian

2012-06-22, 04:16 PM

Sirisian, I re-read your post. I have a difficult time understanding many of your posts because I don't see a clear Problem -> Solution mapping, or an enumeration of the goals of the design.
Problem: Allow strategic moves beyond the front lines to affect player purchasing power (resource denial).
Players need a way to attack bases not on the front lines which have an effect on the front lines. However, you don't want a system where someone has to babysit a base more than 2 tiles back from the front line and defend it all the time. The generator concept allows weighting of the tiles by percentages to directly effect how a player spends resources. If a tank costs say 100 Nanites to pull and someone downs a connected generator then power is diverted from the base to power the other base so you get hit with a cost and it's now 120 Nanites to pull the same vehicle. Losing a tower or outpost also cuts into benefits so players will immediately see a problem. (Pulling a base deeper in controlled territory can be done with no penalty). So the solution evolves into a system that focuses on players fighting on the front lines for the most part.

That and as other mentioned you don't want to cut off player's ability to purchase certain vehicles. Ideally you just want to cut into their spending power, not their earning power. Subtle difference, for attacking someone's earning potential, which would be based on their own gameplay, not the factions.

Problem: Allow strategic moves in deep territory still.
Territory should have the ability to be taken strategically behind front lines as mentioned. The solution was then taking down generators and holding them for adjacent cells affects hack times. This allows both the taking of front lines bases while also large scale strategy if multiple generators are taken down. This also allows battles all across the front line, not focused on one base.

Problem: Current resource system is complex.
I also simplified all the proposed solutions down to two resources removing the complexity of balancing a four resource system that the developers proposed. Auraxium for cert purchasing, and Nanites for every play style. The proposed gameplay elements support this.

Problem: Players won't feel the immediacy of objectives being lost.
The proposed system for creating resource drains by requiring resources for all non-stock weapons, certs, and ammo requires that there be a continuous drain on the resources. Pulling from a base with one adjacent generator connected that's down costs 20% more Nanites. Some bases have multiple connections to bases. Dropping 3 adjacent base generators completely wipes the pulling power of a base allowing resource denial in a fair way. Players will be forced to retreat and defend bases on a strategic scale so they can wage war on the front lines efficiently. However player's themselves aren't getting hit with their resources being taken away. They are merely having their options from where to spend them removed. They will invariably view this as fair compared to the developer's and your proposed solution.

Problem: Casual players that play only 2 hours should not have their play style limited.
The loyalty system places each player in full control of how many resources they earn by actively completing missions and helping their faction. Their purchasing power is the only thing limited which is based locally meaning if they want to pull a tank they can, but they might need to pull it from a tower for the same cost since a base is currently experiencing efficiency problems due to generator or the lack of tower bonuses.

Back to denial - lets try to keep it simple as possible and as close to the current design as we can manage. That makes it not only more realistic for them to actually adopt but also least likely to cause problems with other related game systems. Complete overhauls of systems will probably happen in PS2 but they'll happen well after release as part of significant content releases (like EVE online has done).
I'm indifferent to when it gets implemented. I'm just stating your "fix" is flawed and simply makes the problem worse by perpetuating a territory gain resource model instead of denying resource indirectly while still allowing players to accrue resources. If they implement your method or any other one instead of the one I proposed it will just take much longer until a balanced and fun system is implemented, but if that's how it has to be then okay.

Interesting tweet (https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/216266427970228224) from Higby:
I've been following that thread, lots of supposition there is wrong, there is more complexity in our system than you guys think
Apparently we're missing some details from their system.

Malorn

2012-06-22, 05:15 PM

I'm just stating your "fix" is flawed and simply makes the problem worse by perpetuating a territory gain resource model instead of denying resource indirectly while still allowing players to accrue resources. If they implement your method or any other one instead of the one I proposed it will just take much longer until a balanced and fun system is implemented, but if that's how it has to be then okay.

You are misreading my post. I haven't proposed any silver bullet "fix" - just ideas on how the problem might be alleviated, but I have yet to find a set of ideas together that I think creates a good system and meets their stated goals, yours included. I created the thread to have a good discussion and get other thoughts from folks because outside perspectives are always good.

I also disagree with your assessment.

Lots of great contributions in this thread. There are some recurring themes that are solid, like having resource-related structures/objectives in territories that can indirectly impact other territories. You yourself mentioned this theme. Guild Wars 2 has a model like this and their motivation as to provide meaningful things to do for different sized guilds, so there could be the massive battles, but also smaller fights and confrontations that are fun and meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

Interesting tweet (https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/216266427970228224) from Higby:

Apparently we're missing some details from their system.

Of course we are. Compared to other things they haven't talked much about the resource system, and most of the information we do have about it is nearly a year old. It would not surprise me that some of the information has changed, but all we have to go on is what they've told us. This is a macro-economic aspect of the game and the problems discussed here are not problems that are readily observable on a small scale.

They've focused on creating a first-rate shooter experience and that is of course vital to the success of the game. It makes sense not to talk about the macro aspects all that much at this point, but this is an MMO - the macro aspects are what makes it different. That's the most interest part to me. A COD/BF like shooter clone in sci-fi isn't particularly interesting. MMO with a huge persistent world and strategic objectives creates grand achievement not possible in a session shooter - that's interesting to me. So naturally I study it. And my resulting conclusions are part of the subject of this thread.

Knowing which suppositions are allegedly incorrect would be helpful. I could cite the things we know but it is possible the design has changed since the information was given to us. If previous information is no longer valid then that would change things. I also wouldn't objecto to them telling us how it actually works. :)

Higby

2012-06-22, 05:20 PM

Malorn

2012-06-22, 05:27 PM

Great post Malorn - as always!

This is a serious problem that you have hit dead on - the territory system is great to get fights away from bases but resources appear too abundant behind the lines for it to be a major strategic factor.

Some great ideas here - I particularly like weighted resource nodes and the strategic option to knock out resource flow by destroying/disabling some kind of in game structure like an extractor. I especially like this option if players could add extractors to regions themselves, boosting the resource flow but making it more of a target.

As you say the "shield" of a personal resource pool makes the immediate effect a problem - and without a system that will feel artificial I do not see how this can be avoided unless ALL equipment different to default kit costs resources.

I too like the idea having resource disruption without capturing the territory. I like the idea of the weighted nodes, though I'm fairly certain they already have this.

The player-constructed resource enhancements is interesting. When I read that I thought of the eventual plan for outfit-owned structures, and how Smed likes sandboxy EVE-like stuff. Having outfits plop down a structure that improves resource harvesting that might become a strategic objective feels right up that alley. The general idea of developing the land is interesting, though it might take away from the pacing and the action.

I would expect the resource pools we see now aren't the final resource pools. The pool size and values we've seen so far don't seem to jive well with the idea of never feeling like you have enough resources. If I have a resource pool big enough to pull a dozen vehicles that could last me all night.

Then there's resource boosts....eugh, I won't go there this time.

Synapse

2012-06-22, 05:28 PM

Good thoughts in this thread. A lot of valid concerns for sure, and a lot of stuff that we've sort of found solutions or possible solutions (we'll see when beta starts and people actually actively metagame) to some of these issues. I'm not going to go piece by piece through all the ideas and respond, but a couple things I wanted to clarify:

1 - it's not just kills that grant resources in moment-to-moment gameplay, any score generating event (healing, spotting, repairing, capturing, vehicle destruction, etc) will all generate resources. This moment-to-moment gain is also there for empires that are super pushed back, if you don't own any (or very little) territory that is generating resources for you, it's designed to give you enough to sustain fights while you recapture areas.

2 - re: Malorn's initial idea of removing resources when territory gets captured... I think this would be pretty difficult to pull off fairly. People would either log out when their territory was about to get capped so they didn't get the punishment, or we'd have to punish people who weren't even online which seems odd, especially if you log in in the middle of or right after a big territory losing streak.

3 - our influence system is going to have more effects than just territory capture bonus, things like longer respawn times, vehicle timers, resource costs, sphere of influence for deploying galaxies so you have to be further out from a base to set up a mobile spawn point, are all things we're planning on being associated with the influence system - which effects and their degree will be tuned a lot during beta

4 - the current maps are showing temporary resource values, we will have a more varied landscape at launch. The idea of making frontier territory more valuable is interesting Malorn, I'll have to chew on that a bit.

5 - we've talked quite a bit about having continental resource pools per empire vs per player, so if your empire owns 100 units of Alloys you can spawn a tank, but if they own 80 you cant. We've sort of gone away from this for a variety of reasons, most notably is it really discourages people to begin campaigns on continents where they don't already have strong resource yeilds, makes an empire that has dominance over a continent extremely hard to break, whereas if you can earn resource elsewhere and use them to go to war on other conts it fixes that.

6 - it's possible for us to do bonuses based on connectivity, i.e. if my empire owns two separate chunks of territory on a continent i may get a lessened yield until they're "connected" to my warpgate - again, that's something we've discussed and we're open to doing if it helps add strategic depth, but we sort of want to see how things work "as is" first.

Whew! Okay, carry on TheorySiding.

Zomg higbywall!

Interesting thoughts higby. I'm not sure I quite agree that a personal resource for each player is a good idea. As people pointed out, it makes the taking of a base quite weak in terms of weakening the other empires.

It should be pretty clear what we want is a way to attack the empire, not just the players in front of us, and we expect to do that by warring on their resources. I dont see that happening with individual resource stores though because the effect seems like it would be way too weak and diffuse. I think you should take another look at #5, perhaps give players a free vehicle at the start of the day so it won't matter to them where they start.

#3 I like the idea of more variables to influence, good stuff, but please give us a way to have an impact beyond the front lines as well.

#1 if you can sustain a fight based on your kill bonuses alone...why have the passive income bonus from territory at all? It just pushes the winners to have slightly more vehicles but isnt directly more fun for anyone, and it makes resourcing an unstable equilibrium. The guys camped in the warpgate will always get fewer vehicles, and have no tactical options for quickly reducing the supply their enemies have.

SgtMAD

2012-06-22, 05:36 PM

6 - it's possible for us to do bonuses based on connectivity, i.e. if my empire owns two separate chunks of territory on a continent i may get a lessened yield until they're "connected" to my warpgate - again, that's something we've discussed and we're open to doing if it helps add strategic depth, but we sort of want to see how things work "as is" first.

Whew! Okay, carry on TheorySiding.

if anything the group that caps a backhex should get a benefit/boost due to having to defend for a lengthy hack timer and degree of difficulty,

make it the reward for pulling off the hard missions,it sure shouldn't result in a penalty for the capture team.

I think an empire that is cut in half like you are thinking would already be in a bit of trouble,adding to it might break them.

Toppopia

2012-06-22, 05:48 PM

The almighty Higby has spoken, it seems they have lots of ideas about this topic, and we seem to be helping alot. So i am confident that they will with our help think all a really good system. Because this is the second most important part of the game, after the massive 2000 people fights.

Malorn

2012-06-22, 06:01 PM

Good thoughts in this thread. A lot of valid concerns for sure, and a lot of stuff that we've sort of found solutions or possible solutions (we'll see when beta starts and people actually actively metagame) to some of these issues. I'm not going to go piece by piece through all the ideas and respond, but a couple things I wanted to clarify:

1 - it's not just kills that grant resources in moment-to-moment gameplay, any score generating event (healing, spotting, repairing, capturing, vehicle destruction, etc) will all generate resources. This moment-to-moment gain is also there for empires that are super pushed back, if you don't own any (or very little) territory that is generating resources for you, it's designed to give you enough to sustain fights while you recapture areas.

2 - re: Malorn's initial idea of removing resources when territory gets captured... I think this would be pretty difficult to pull off fairly. People would either log out when their territory was about to get capped so they didn't get the punishment, or we'd have to punish people who weren't even online which seems odd, especially if you log in in the middle of or right after a big territory losing streak.

3 - our influence system is going to have more effects than just territory capture bonus, things like longer respawn times, vehicle timers, resource costs, sphere of influence for deploying galaxies so you have to be further out from a base to set up a mobile spawn point, are all things we're planning on being associated with the influence system - which effects and their degree will be tuned a lot during beta

4 - the current maps are showing temporary resource values, we will have a more varied landscape at launch. The idea of making frontier territory more valuable is interesting Malorn, I'll have to chew on that a bit.

5 - we've talked quite a bit about having continental resource pools per empire vs per player, so if your empire owns 100 units of Alloys you can spawn a tank, but if they own 80 you cant. We've sort of gone away from this for a variety of reasons, most notably is it really discourages people to begin campaigns on continents where they don't already have strong resource yeilds, makes an empire that has dominance over a continent extremely hard to break, whereas if you can earn resource elsewhere and use them to go to war on other conts it fixes that.

6 - it's possible for us to do bonuses based on connectivity, i.e. if my empire owns two separate chunks of territory on a continent i may get a lessened yield until they're "connected" to my warpgate - again, that's something we've discussed and we're open to doing if it helps add strategic depth, but we sort of want to see how things work "as is" first.

Whew! Okay, carry on TheorySiding.

Wow, that's a lot Higformation!

The connectivity-based bonuses are cool. I like the potential there, as disrupting connectivity becomes a strategy in much the same way as disrupting the lattice in PS1. Going to give this one a lot more thought.

Good to see score makes an impact so support isn't discouraged. Its a good way to have a base income amount, but only giving that out if the player is doing something (so we don't have bots sitting around gaining resources). Although I'm still a bit concerned about this being too big of an income source and having it devalue territorial resource income. But if it's meant to be a small source so players have something to work with, and the fighting part is to discourage AFK-shenanigans then it seems good to me.

The logoff/leave bit for taking resources from players is a good point I hadn't considered, though I didn't particularly like taking things from players anyway, seems shitty. I guess the only real solution to having a personal resource pool and having denial work reliably is to keep the resource pool fairly small and to have steady sinks for all gameplay styles so any player can't go too long without caring about resources. If we're always hungry, we're always going to be looking for food, and we'll care when someone tries to take it away.

Regarding frontier territory being worth more - you could make influence inversely proportional to resource value. So if you manage to take a big risk and go after a territory that you have a small amount of influence over, the resource gain could be big. This is a bit of a risk vs reward tradeoff, as the more influence the easier it is to capture something, so perhaps reward efforts which go after hard to capture territories. Capture a high-risk territory which you may not hold for long and you get a big yield. As they secure other territories nearby and strengthen influence (risk goes down) the value goes down. It's tricky because it could also discourage taking of territories, but that's probably more of a balancing thing.

This could turn into a sort of diminishing return mechanic so dominant empires don't get massive resources for all their rear holdings. They should get some, but it shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. This could be one way to tone it down and also reward risky attacks. And conversely, it could also help backed-up empires. They won't have much influence so the territories they have would generate more resources.

I like influence having a bigger impact than just capture times. I've been trying to figure out a way to tie in resources to influence and the above idea was as far as I got. The GW2 mechanics are also worth a study. Having read them I like where they're going with that. Might have to try that game until playing PS2 becomes a full-time occupation.

goneglockin

2012-06-22, 07:02 PM

I know PS players wanna be armchair generals, but part of the reason the game died out so quickly last time was because of the meta game. Allowing one person to bring the play time of others to a screeching halt is basically an epic troll.

Most people who want to play these games want to play the shooty end of the business, and what will bring MMOFPS into the forefront as a genre will not be the metagame, but the massiveness and the shootyness.

It has less to do with "casuals." In fact, i'd say armchair generals playing a watered down FPS game for the metagame ARE the casuals. I'm all in favor of more traditional shooter mechanics, and I even like the metagame- but I dont believe for a minute that such a combination will ever be successful.

That's what I'd really like to see this time around more than anything else; for the game's # of players not to drop off a cliff in the first year and end up on life support indefinitely past the second year.

By 2006, I was looking to move on from PlanetSide because the massive battles just weren't there anymore- not like they were in the beginning. I tried FEAR and discovered the most underrated MP experience of the decade, and soon thereafter found my way over to BF2142.

P.S.

Maybe, PS2 will be big enough, long enough, that others will make games like it too. I would like that much better than getting a good two years or so from one PS game each decade. With competition, there's also the chance that the other games will play differently from whatever SOE serves up. Maybe more to your liking. At this point, I really don't care how the game plays. Been playing these things long enough to just adapt and deal with it, and if not, I find something else to play.

Stardouser

2012-06-22, 07:21 PM

2 - re: Malorn's initial idea of removing resources when territory gets captured... I think this would be pretty difficult to pull off fairly. People would either log out when their territory was about to get capped so they didn't get the punishment, or we'd have to punish people who weren't even online which seems odd, especially if you log in in the middle of or right after a big territory losing streak.

Well. Instead of removing resources when territory gets captured, why not do it in the opposite way - increase the resource cost of items a bit as you lose territory/decrease as you gain territory? This would only affect people who are actually online.

In other words, when the server is reset and each empire holds 33% of a continent, all resource costs for vehicles, etc, are at their standard pricing. And as you gain territory, resource costs can go as low as 75% of standard cost or as high as 125% of standard cost as you lose territory. 75% and 125% were just thrown in as examples. Maybe it's between 80 and 120, or 50 and 150, whatever.

RageMasterUK

2012-06-22, 07:44 PM

Ill make this a quickreader so it might get read :D

Make it so territories
1. ...are worth more resources on capture by the longer they have been held.
2. ...give soldiers directly defending the hex a higher resource gain rate the longer the base has been held.
3. ...give the empire holding them a slightly higher continent-wide gain rate the longer they are held.
4... stockpile is reset if the hold on a territory is broken. It pays no extra cap or defend reward untill the territory stockpile fills back up over time.

Territory Stockpile effect. Pays out more over time to defenders, and more on cap for attackers.

In my Planetside 2 hallucinations this would...

1 .Incentivises defending long-held terriories potentially, forever. You want it to be your Outfit who holds the foothold hex's forever? Now its actually worth it.
2. Would bring the battle to every single hex, when the cap reward becomes high enough.
3. Would move the frontline around in a organic manner. As the longest held territories are captured and new territories become the biggest payout, troops would push elsewhere.
4. Gives those behind enemy lines nice incentive for their actions. Just breaking long-held territory holds briefly would affect enemy continent wide income.
5. Has many handles. Can have individual stockpile gain profiles for each territory. Can set cap on gain rate or gain or profile it so it flattens out at somewhere reasonable. Or screw it have it exponential gain (j/k)
6. Makes capping worthwile even if it may be impractical to hold the territory. Attacks can be mounted just to break the enemy's hold for a moment to reset their stockpile.
6. GMs can just throw ontop or subtract from stockpile amounts as a control if they need to balance resources/combat areas manually for any reason, or they're having a special event.
7. Balance effect on resource. Empires defending like demons will eventually loose a base worth ALOT OF RESOURCES to their attackers, and suddenly the empire on the back-foot, sad for lack of resource can start ripping tanks out the terminals again.
8. Would encourage many many more 3 way conflicts as the onus to attack/defend longheld bases is equally high for all empires.
9. Allows an empire to survive and earn massive potential resource on holding just a handful of hexs really really well.

Just my blerb. Maybe it has value =D

-RageMasterUK

Figment

2012-06-22, 08:17 PM

May I suggest we look at the global influence of resources?

Currently it is very... Uni-continental.

Xazbot

2012-06-22, 08:46 PM

The player-constructed resource enhancements is interesting. When I read that I thought of the eventual plan for outfit-owned structures, and how Smed likes sandboxy EVE-like stuff. Having outfits plop down a structure that improves resource harvesting that might become a strategic objective feels right up that alley. The general idea of developing the land is interesting, though it might take away from the pacing and the action.

____________
That's a good point indeed, plus with this system I can predict a trend where outfits from diferent faction will try to disrupt the resourse income
of their harder competition. Making that outfit rivalry way more personal.
I think that the devs, if they don't have something on the line of this should probably look in to this as a possibility.

SKYeXile

2012-06-22, 08:50 PM

if anything the group that caps a backhex should get a benefit/boost due to having to defend for a lengthy hack timer and degree of difficulty,

make it the reward for pulling off the hard missions,it sure shouldn't result in a penalty for the capture team.

I think an empire that is cut in half like you are thinking would already be in a bit of trouble,adding to it might break them.

Yea, it makes sense that a hex cutoff from your warpgate is worth less resources, but good gameplay doesn't need to make sense.

OutlawDr

2012-06-23, 12:05 AM

3 - our influence system is going to have more effects than just territory capture bonus, things like longer respawn times, vehicle timers, resource costs, sphere of influence for deploying galaxies so you have to be further out from a base to set up a mobile spawn point, are all things we're planning on being associated with the influence system - which effects and their degree will be tuned a lot during beta

Thanks for the info! The part I quoted has me most interested. Could you tell us more on what determines influence percentage and at what rate influence is acquired as of now. Is it something that will shift drastically day to day, or is something that changes more slowly over a matter of days?

Ohaunlaim

2012-06-23, 12:43 AM

Repeating what Ragemaster said....

Instead of frontier areas having a higher resource gain rate another option is to have long-non-contested areas build up a resource pool which would be immediately distributed (or quickly over X minutes time) when the territory is captured.

This offers some benefits...

1. Factions doing poorly and pushed back to a few bits of land need significant and immediate influxes of resources in order to make a strong push against their enemies. A resource gain increase does not provide that.

2. Long-non-contested areas are areas that have not been seen by the player base for too long. The temptation of an immediate resource pay-out just might be enough to get people to attempt a long-shot capture.

3. The owning faction does not have access to the pooled funds. Although their motivation is simply to keep the enemy from getting the prize (and the pride of not losing a long-held territory), there is also no personal immediate resource hit to make players whine or quit in disgust.**

**note** in case this isn't considered sufficient: The resource gain rate could also increases over time, in direct proportion to the resource pool. Again no immediate personal pain, but more reason than pride.

4. This would work in conjunction with the influence system. Harder areas to capture means said areas are less likely to be captured over a given amount of time which, in turn, makes these areas have increased rewards. No need to arbitrarily designate areas as frontier. The natural flow of the war determines where tempting targets would appear.

5. Simplicity. Zerg players don't need to know the mechanics of how this works, or calculate if a certain resource gain increase on a territory is worthy of their time. They just look at a territory and see that if they helped capture it they would get 5 kittens immediately, no questions asked.

kaffis

2012-06-23, 01:47 AM

Regarding frontier territory being worth more - you could make influence inversely proportional to resource value. So if you manage to take a big risk and go after a territory that you have a small amount of influence over, the resource gain could be big. This is a bit of a risk vs reward tradeoff, as the more influence the easier it is to capture something, so perhaps reward efforts which go after hard to capture territories. Capture a high-risk territory which you may not hold for long and you get a big yield. As they secure other territories nearby and strengthen influence (risk goes down) the value goes down. It's tricky because it could also discourage taking of territories, but that's probably more of a balancing thing.

This could turn into a sort of diminishing return mechanic so dominant empires don't get massive resources for all their rear holdings. They should get some, but it shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. This could be one way to tone it down and also reward risky attacks. And conversely, it could also help backed-up empires. They won't have much influence so the territories they have would generate more resources.
I'm not sure this works as well as it might seem on first blush. The whole reason resource denial could ever work is that you're chopping away at their territory, reducing the total "surface area" of resource-producing territory. If you make the "interior" area not count for much, then it doesn't matter a lot how much territory they have, so long as the front is still long.

What if regions have different resource values for different empires? That way, you could directly tie places deemed "more difficult to hold" based on location relative to footholds to higher values, without trivializing interior spaces in general. Sure, the ones closest to your foothold wouldn't help a lot, but if you gain the middle by pushing the front forward two hexes, the former front lines don't become worthless since they're not high-influence. They're worth just as much before, and that's a premium vs. foothold-adjacent stuff. Similarly, the front lines are your enemy's most valuable holdings, so taking them away actually hurts them, instead of simply making the row behind them now more valuable (by virtue of being more contested now).

Also, when we're talking about making hexes that are "cut off" worth less (which is an idea I like vis a vis representing logistical supply lines), what if the way you measure "cut off" isn't by connecting back to your foothold, but rather, by connecting back to you?

So if you backhack deep in enemy territory, and secure one facility for yourself as a staging ground.. Bully for you, but you're still trapped deep behind enemy lines, and so you need to preserve resources because it's hard to get them back to your staging ground to pull a new vehicle. This could even replace hack timer differential as the "increased difficulty" to make backhacking rarer and more challenging. You could take the bases at normal speeds, but you need to do it with what you brought, basically; you're not getting more resources dumped in your pocket while you fight there, not until you've carved out a big chunk to support yourselves, at least.

This also makes splitting holdings off work as a tactical maneuver.

Nemises

2012-06-23, 10:13 AM

What if regions have different resource values for different empires? That way, you could directly tie places deemed "more difficult to hold" based on location relative to footholds to higher values, without trivializing interior spaces in general. Sure, the ones closest to your foothold wouldn't help a lot, but if you gain the middle by pushing the front forward two hexes, the former front lines don't become worthless since they're not high-influence. They're worth just as much before, and that's a premium vs. foothold-adjacent stuff. Similarly, the front lines are your enemy's most valuable holdings, so taking them away actually hurts them, instead of simply making the row behind them now more valuable (by virtue of being more contested now).

Hmm....so more of a Denial as a strategic weapon, rather than tactical gain...?

Ie. hex 15 , currently held by TR and bordered by 3 NC hex's and 1 friendly TR hex

Is worth:
- (X) for the NC
- (X*3) for the TR (defending)

The gain for the NC is in terms of resource denial to the TR ... the value of the Hex to the NC diminishes as it is bordered by additional friendly Hex's.

The gain for the TR is in defending, as the value of the Hex increases as less friendly Hex's border it

...havent played that through properly in me 'ed, ...pretty sure there is a flaw in there WRT backhacking..
Still...interesting proposition...
Favours the defender quite strongly...might cause turtling

Captain1nsaneo

2012-06-23, 10:28 AM

kaffis

2012-06-23, 10:35 AM

Hmm....so more of a Denial as a strategic weapon, rather than tactical gain...?

Ie. hex 15 , currently held by TR and bordered by 3 NC hex's and 1 friendly TR hex

Is worth:
- (X) for the NC
- (X*3) for the TR (defending)

The gain for the NC is in terms of resource denial to the TR ... the value of the Hex to the NC diminishes as it is bordered by additional friendly Hex's.

The gain for the TR is in defending, as the value of the Hex increases as less friendly Hex's border it

...havent played that through properly in me 'ed, ...pretty sure there is a flaw in there WRT backhacking..
Still...interesting proposition...
Favours the defender quite strongly...might cause turtling
Well, this is more like what Malorn was suggesting, with resource gain being inversely proportional to influence over a tile.

What I was thinking was more like.. imagine all the tiles have 3 resource values displayed in the map. For the NC, the resource values trend upward as you radiate further from the NC foothold. Likewise for the TR values and the TR foothold, and the VS values and the VS foothold.

So, mid-continent, where people expect the 3-way deadlock to occur, everybody's extractable resources would be similar. We'll say 6's on a scale of 1-10.

I'll use VS as an example, since they're at the north end, and we can just talk about north/south as an expedient way of indicating closer or further from their foothold.

So the middle is 6ish in resources. South of that a row or two, would be 7's. North of that would be 5's. Immediately adjacent to the VS foothold would be 1's and 2's, while the southern coast would be 8's, 9's, and 10's. For the VS. Because some of that southern coast is practically next door to the TR and NC footholds. So next to the NC foothold, would be like a 10 for VS, and a 10 for TR, but a 1 for NC.

Now, as people settle into the mindset of capturing territory for optimal resource gain for themselves, you'd see a lot of backhacking near the enemy footholds to get those 9's and 10's. You'd probably initially even see people ignoring backhacking near their own footholds, because it's more important to secure the 10's than to lose the 1's.

But then, ease of access and resource denial come into play... and you'd see *denying* the enemy territory near your own foothold become an objective. It's not important to hold it for yourself, but you *really* want to make sure the other guy can't hold it, because those are his gold mines.

The thing I can't quite wrap my head around is whether the inclination to deny enemy A his high-producing territory near enemy B's foothold is more attractive than denying him his high-producing territory near your own foothold is just way too silly, as it would mean that the two people most likely to be fighting near a foothold are the two empires whose foothold ISN'T the one nearby...

Dagron

2012-06-23, 10:41 AM

3 - our influence system is going to have more effects than just territory capture bonus ... deploying galaxies so you have to be further out from a base to set up a mobile spawn point
Is anyone else terrified of this? I mean this just shoots a lot of asymmetrical gameplay right in the knees.
I can no longer dream of landing a gal on top of a capture point, on a base wall, on a base, turn a bad but survived landing in an unusual spawn point, and can't setup a spawn point on the roof of a Tech plant despite the large open area.
This would force fights to always be infantry grunting across open areas which was normally something avoided as best we could in the original. It also stops people from being able to attack back hexes as you'd want to use your enemy's walls as protection for your own forces and spawn point.

You can always have 2 gals: one deploys outside the base and the other keeps going back and forth hauling people from the first one to the roof. :p

All kidding aside i see your point, but making a spawn point basically inside the enemy facility could be a little too unbalancing.
I'm not saying that's why they're doing it, just pointing out that it might be.

Nemises

2012-06-23, 10:59 AM

bit hard to fit a Gal underneath a low base bridge anyways...and a bit unsubtle without a cloaker ;)

Well, this is more like what Malorn was suggesting, with resource gain being inversely proportional to influence over a tile.

What I was thinking was more like.. imagine all the tiles have 3 resource values displayed in the map. For the NC, the resource values trend upward as you radiate further from the NC foothold. Likewise for the TR values and the TR foothold, and the VS values and the VS foothold......

.......

Ah I see...so fixed values, but empire specific...like an inverse radial from each empires foothold..

seems sensible..

means the hex's worth the most are the ones nearest the enemy's foothold though...can't quite see if thats a good idea or not

Captain1nsaneo

2012-06-23, 11:02 AM

You can always have 2 gals: one deploys outside the base and the other keeps going back and forth hauling people from the first one to the roof. :p

All kidding aside i see your point, but making a spawn point basically inside the enemy facility could be a little too unbalancing.
I'm not saying that's why they're doing it, just pointing out that it might be.

There's no stopping the defending side from having in base spawn points as well and squad respawn allows for inbase spawning as well.
I get where you're coming from with fear of being unable to remove the spawn. The counter to that is allowing both sides to do it and then it comes down to whoever plays better. Besides, the randomness of spawn location adds to the gameplay. Otherwise there's going to be a fairly limited number of places to stick your spawn point outside a base safely with good access.

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-23, 11:23 AM

How about this... Instead of having a large resource pool, keep the resource pool very small (about enough to spawn 1.5 MBTs - 2 MBTs). To balance out the small resource pool, the resource generation rate would have to be high. The baseline for resource regeneration could be: If your empire controls 1/3 of the map (it's base territory) you will accrue enough resources to buy another tank at the minimum possible time to spawn a tank. In other words, if your empire is holding it's portion of the continent, every time the countdown timer on your MBT is up, you should always have the resources to buy it.

When an empire gets pushed back into the foothold the resource gain for the empire should jump back up to the baseline amount to give them the ability to push back out and avoid getting stuck in the gate.

Also, instead of giving resource gain benefits for performance to individual players, give them to squads. This way team play is always encouraged. If you aren't in a squad you don't get increased resources for doing well as a lone wolf.

All of this put together should result in: Teamwork is rewarded, benefits for captures are immediately noticed, penalties for losses aren't harsh, but are definitely felt, playing well is rewarded and buffers against penalties, foothold battles won't feel one sided.

The exact numbers on this system would have to be played with, but the nice thing is I believe it could be implemented without having to do any major changes to the existing system.

Stardouser

2012-06-23, 11:28 AM

Is anyone else terrified of this? I mean this just shoots a lot of asymmetrical gameplay right in the knees.
I can no longer dream of landing a gal on top of a capture point, on a base wall, on a base, turn a bad but survived landing in an unusual spawn point, and can't setup a spawn point on the roof of a Tech plant despite the large open area.
This would force fights to always be infantry grunting across open areas which was normally something avoided as best we could in the original. It also stops people from being able to attack back hexes as you'd want to use your enemy's walls as protection for your own forces and spawn point.

Yes. Noting that you could place an AMS right outside a base wall in PS1, I would have thought that, sure, you can't place a galaxy spawn inside the perimeter of a base,but that apart from that, minimum placement distance would be left to player common sense and preparation. If you are capable of setting a galaxy within range of the base turrets and surviving, why should the SOI make you place it even farther away?

There's no stopping the defending side from having in base spawn points as well and squad respawn allows for inbase spawning as well.
I get where you're coming from with fear of being unable to remove the spawn. The counter to that is allowing both sides to do it and then it comes down to whoever plays better. Besides, the randomness of spawn location adds to the gameplay. Otherwise there's going to be a fairly limited number of places to stick your spawn point outside a base safely with good access.

Squad spawning is apparently going to be rendered impotent and for occasional use only, so I really don't think it even merits mention as a factor. It might make a difference in rare situations but as a prime mover, it's going to be pre-nerfed.

And with squad spawning pre-nerfed, if the minimum Galaxy placement distance is very far, well, do the math.

MrQuiet

2012-06-23, 01:35 PM

I would like to propose a simple easy to understand solution. KISS

Basic premise is resources flow from Territory -> to Resource Depots (RD) -> active players pools on that continent.

With 3 resources to mine and 3 empires competing for those 3 resources I suggest 2 Resource Depots per unique resource, i.e. 6 hackable Resource Depots scattered around the continent idealy away from bases and footholds. That means 2 RD for resource A 2 for resource B and 2 for Resource C. Obviously at least one empire is not collecting A, One is not collecting B etc.. This will leave at least one empire hungry for each type of resource creating a titanic struggle for each type of resource Depot.

The teritories would send there resources to the nearest friendly RD of that resource type. (simple method would not require a physical link, more complex method would require a physical link).

Every 15 minutes the unhacked RDs would distribute its resources to all of its factions players that are logged onto that continent (exception could be players hanging out in warp gate). This way Low Pop gets a bigger % of resources then Higher Pop.

The RDs would be subject to the same capture influence rules as any other capture facility. Hacked RDs do not distribute. Deep Raids are more practical than actual caps. At anytime players could click on friendly RDs on map and see how much they are distributing per cycle.

PRO
1) Easy for anyone to grasp.

2) Effects of hacking or capturing a Resource Depot are felt fairly quickly since most of the time the empire that held that depot only had one of that type. This assumes maximum personal resource pools for players are in the range of 2-3 expensive vechicles.

3) A weak empire can hack or capture a RD from the rear of a strong empire and efectively hurt the strong empire. Raiding becomes worth the risk.

4) Moves the fights to 6 important locations away from bases plus individual resource producing territory is still important and worth fighting for.

CON

1) A empire that is not holding any depots is in big trouble and not collecting resources via mining. There options are to take a depot, or accumalate resources via fighting or travel to a continent that there empires is doing better on to build up their resource pool and then return.

2) A very strong empire will be collecting a lot of resources. But if max resource personal pool is low enough it may encourage players at max pools to try taking another continent, which will improve the chance for weak empires to strike.

I cant think of any other cons.

Thanks for reading
-MrQuiet

wOOtbEEr

2012-06-23, 05:28 PM

I think RageMasterUK is really on to something with his escalating resources idea.

Make it so territories
1. ...are worth more resources on capture by the longer they have been held.
2. ...give soldiers directly defending the hex a higher resource gain rate the longer the base has been held.
3. ...give the empire holding them a slightly higher continent-wide gain rate the longer they are held.
4... stockpile is reset if the hold on a territory is broken. It pays no extra cap or defend reward untill the territory stockpile fills back up over time.

Territory Stockpile effect. Pays out more over time to defenders, and more on cap for attackers.

-RageMasterUK

I really like points 3 and 4. For number 2 I'm not sure if there are going to be any resources given based on where you are fighting. Number 1 can fit in the current system but I'm not sure the devs want even more encouragement to attack back line bases. Hurting the enemy should be enough.

But lets just stick some numbers on this and see what we get.

Lets say a small 2 hex territory next to the NC foothold gives 10 polymers per tick. Every 20 minutes it is held it adds one bonus polymer to this value. This seems pretty slow, but that's a good thing. It's a back line territory and probably wont see much real action unless the NC are getting kicked back into their foothold.

So the battle lines have been out near the center of the map all day and this territory, along with all the other non contested territories, has about 25 bonus points built up for a total of 35 polymers a tick. I think polymers pay for aircraft so lets say the NC are pulling Reavers and Liberators as fast as their timers allow and have the TR locked up in buildings all along the front line.

Now is a great time for a few squads of TR to load up in some Gals and attempt to sneak to that backline territory and try to hack it. They wont be able to hold it very long because the capture mechanics will favor the NC too much. But if they are successful the NC will be back to getting 10 polymers a tick instead of 35.

Over time each empire will have a few territories that work their way up to being good targets. But there won't be any reason to try and capture a territory behind the line until it has built up enough resources to be an advantage to their empire.

This will be a bit like Generator holds in PS1. A few squads from one empire would go blow up the generator in an enemy tech plant and then guard the room to stop it being repaired. This would keep that empire from pulling their empire specific tanks and their reavers until they could kick the trespassers out and repair it. The problem with Gen holds was as soon as you kicked them out there was nothing to stop them from coming back except sitting and waiting at a base with no fight going on. Not much fun.

Some other thoughts.
This shouldn't work for auraxium. Back hacking it would feel like players taking money from each other. It's value will stay constant. Also the full size bases are the only territories that produce auraxium right now and the 5-7 capture points they are supposed to have would be hard for a small group to hold.

Also the timer could be scaled to give the first few bonus points more quickly but then exponentially slower after that to make very high bonuses very rare.

Empires with a lot of land will be more vulnerable as they have more territory to defend. Empires pushed back to their last 5 or 6 territories will have an easier time reacting to these types of attacks.

The rate a territory earns bonus points should also be based on how many people are fighting on that continents. No bonus if no one is there.

More Complicated Stuff

We don't have information on any capture mechanics other than the one at E3. But I know they said there would be a few different ones. Perhaps which capture mechanic is at which base could depend on how many bonus resources the base has. Keeping the multipoint ticket system at the more front line bases for big battles. Having an LLU like system at the bases that changed hands over an hour ago. And then then a base starts earning 3 times its base resources, it switches to a more PS1 like system where a few squads can hold out against superior numbers defending a single point. Then if they cap the point it will switch back to the multipoint capture and the home empire can take it back quickly.

Fluff.

When an empire takes a territory their nanites immediately start harvesting the resources in that territory and also improving the harvesting infrastructure. As the infrastructure improves the territory will produce resources at a faster rate but produce new infrastructure at a slower rate as the harder to reach resources are harvested. If the territory is taken away the infrastructure self destructs so the new owners start from scratch.

I feel like I have built a whole house out of textwalls now. Hope you had fun reading it.

w00tb33r

Malorn

2012-06-24, 01:01 AM

Influence doesn't necessarily end at the hex border. If it is like Civilization the influence could reach beyond the hex border giving plenty of locations along frontier territories to deploy galaxies.

The more-value the longer it's been held bit is not something I think would work out border/middle territories will change hands a lot. Territories by warpgates not so much. In practice it would end up with rear territories always having the high value and the border territories having little value. I believe the opposite should be true so strategic resource attacks along vulnerable territories can have an impact.

If rear territories are to be targets the idea of a resource structure or set of structures that can be destroyed/captured independently of territory ownership is the way to go.

GuyFawkes

2012-06-24, 04:59 AM

I don't like being negative but a galaxy is just a big ass bullet magnet. Can it not be like Thunderbird2 (lol I know but only thing I can think that would work), drop an ams , it cloaks, then go grab another sort of thing. Maybe keep the galaxy to do the same job, just something more.

Captain1nsaneo's concerns are justified.

As for the resource denial thing - is there any? The hex thing seems more about resource acquisition and few tools so far as seen towards denial. Its not even like if you manage to take hexes to 5 sides of an enemy hex that it reduces that hexes acquisition of resources by 5/6ths.

Resources are continent wide, so there's little tactical benefit map wide other than keeping your third of the map tidy. Just hold your ground and go grab a cup of tea. Taking over a continent give little bonus to another so world wide they might as well be on another server for all it matters.

There doesn't appear to be any immediate 'oh shit' factor in the equation. You have x amount of whatever in your resources screen. That resource is denied but you still have x on your person. Its not like when someone drops a gen on some bio lab, and suddenly you are denied tech , galaxies etc until someone goes sort it out. Or there's even continental benefits by taking the battle islands and so on.

Marsgrim

2012-06-24, 05:29 AM

Zomg higbywall!

Interesting thoughts higby. I'm not sure I quite agree that a personal resource for each player is a good idea. As people pointed out, it makes the taking of a base quite weak in terms of weakening the other empires.

It should be pretty clear what we want is a way to attack the empire, not just the players in front of us, and we expect to do that by warring on their resources. I dont see that happening with individual resource stores though because the effect seems like it would be way too weak and diffuse. I think you should take another look at #5, perhaps give players a free vehicle at the start of the day so it won't matter to them where they start.

#3 I like the idea of more variables to influence, good stuff, but please give us a way to have an impact beyond the front lines as well.

#1 if you can sustain a fight based on your kill bonuses alone...why have the passive income bonus from territory at all? It just pushes the winners to have slightly more vehicles but isnt directly more fun for anyone, and it makes resourcing an unstable equilibrium. The guys camped in the warpgate will always get fewer vehicles, and have no tactical options for quickly reducing the supply their enemies have.

This is a very good point that I think it would be good to consider Higby.

The game is a war between factions and from the response you made, I think too much effort is being made to satisfy the casual individual gamer (my understanding) as opposed to punishing and rewarding the empire as a whole. Further to Synapse's response on point #6 you are effectively rewarding solo play above teamwork by an empire if all that matters to resource levels is individual effort.

Not only that, but I think it may make the idea of capturing territory meaningless - it could create the attitude of "Why take that base or defend this tower, my resources are fine I am just going to keep flying around as a lone wolf".

Whilst on the one hand you may view empire resources as punishing an individual, I don't think any player of the game will think that. However individual resources will undermine the faction/teamwork element of the game to a significant degree I believe. If personal resources are all that matter then there is no point in having a territory control function, an empire can just sit at their warpgate and fight around it.

Look at PS1 - you needed a tech plant to pull the advanced vehicles and air craft. No one (well I hope no one is so petty) ever rage quit because their empire didn't own a tech plant, it made getting a tech plant a priority. Therefore the empire pushed to take a tech plant and it became the common goal.

I know there is a drive to make the game accessible, however I don't believe that it should come at the expense of undermining teamwork. Every game has reward and punishment mechanisms within it, that is the fun element - risk and reward - and eliminating risk ultimately makes the game less fun. There are a number of posts on the forum that talk about the fears of "dumbing down" games and how this impacted BF3/COD etc, and I think the resource element needs carefully looked at in line with that concern.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 09:23 AM

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-24, 09:35 AM

Stupid thread. Beta hasn't even started and you are trying to say there are resource type issues. You don't even know how much things cost, if resources are tradeable, if outfits can tax, or even how much you get for things.

This is exactly the type of thread that wrecks games. You get a bunch of idiots complaining about something with no information and then a change is made and something that probably worked fine is wrecked.

Just because you haven't bothered to look at the numbers doesn't mean others haven't. Yes the numbers in the Alpha are subject to change, but SOE is working with and improving upon the same base numbers that we are all looking it.

Tell me, if you have 5000 resources stockpiled and it costs 100 to spawn a tank, why would you care if one of the high resource yielding facilities is lost? You are going to fight where ever you feel like because resources aren't important anymore. If your foothold yields enough resources to keep your massive pool up, why bother attack bases with high resource yields? Why bother defend them? Frontier battles are tough, with enough resources you could fight and farm kills anywhere at random and it has no real effect on your ability to get equipment.

I'm a big fan of making foothold facilities yield low resources and frontier facilities yield higher resources. Couple this with a very small resource pool with a quick resource gain rate and things could be balanced, fun, and strategy will really matter.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 09:47 AM

Just because you haven't bothered to look at the numbers doesn't mean others haven't. Yes the numbers in the Alpha are subject to change, but SOE is working with and improving upon the same base numbers that we are all looking it.

Tell me, if you have 5000 resources stockpiled and it costs 100 to spawn a tank, why would you care if one of the high resource yielding facilities is lost? You are going to fight where ever you feel like because resources aren't important anymore. If your foothold yields enough resources to keep your massive pool up, why bother attack bases with high resource yields? Why bother defend them? Frontier battles are tough, with enough resources you could fight and farm kills anywhere at random and it has no real effect on your ability to get equipment.

I'm a big fan of making foothold facilities yield low resources and frontier facilities yield higher resources. Couple this with a very small resource pool with a quick resource gain rate and things could be balanced, fun, and strategy will really matter.

Link factual source(ie like Sony released information) for rate of resource gain, resource cap, outfit resources, taxes, decay, and cost of resource items or STFU.

PS: I have spent way too much time on 4chan and Reddit not to notice you didn't actually say you had the numbers.

TeaLeaf

2012-06-24, 10:26 AM

Haven't read all 10 pages but what if each faction had a resource cap that individuals couldn't exceed? The cap would be greater the more resource generators of that type you hold so losing a base not only slows income but also drops the max resources you can hold. You could have 1200 of a resource stockpiled but losing a base may drop it to 1100.

You could also make resource pumps provide a discount to connected hexes for stuff that uses that resource. For example tanks are cheaper the more producers of whatever the tank resource is are near.

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-24, 10:43 AM

Link factual source(ie like Sony released information) for rate of resource gain, resource cap, outfit resources, taxes, decay, and cost of resource items or STFU.

PS: I have spent way too much time on 4chan and Reddit not to notice you didn't actually say you had the numbers.

Outfit resources, taxes, decay: none of these were mentioned as planned components of the resource system in beta or even launch. They were just ideas being thrown about in this thread.

The exact resource gain rate is unknown, but there is a map of territory values which should give you a sense for it. If the three major foothold regions are worth 48 (about half the price of an MBT) all together (16 a piece [find the map in this thread]) you could imagine that the gain rate would have to be slow enough that holding these regions would not be enough to spawn a tank every 3-5 minutes (about the cool down length for a vehicle spawn [see the video below]). It would be reasonable with the current system if you get a resource gain from controlled territories every 5-30 minutes. It's a wide range I know, but it's something to work with. They might have even mentioned the exact gain rate, but maybe someone else could fill you in with more of those details. In any case, the gain rate is highly dependent on the value of territories, which is most of what this discussion is about...

For all of the rest of the resource information, watch this vid and pay attention:
http://youtu.be/onvySU5NkFo

If you asked nicely I might have linked you to the exact moments that show this stuff off...

Akadios

2012-06-24, 10:50 AM

Outfit resources, taxes, decay: none of these were mentioned as planned components of the resource system in beta or even launch. They were just ideas being thrown about in this thread.

The exact resource gain rate is unknown, but there is a map of territory values which should give you a sense for it. If the three major foothold regions are worth 48 (about half the price of an MBT) all together (16 a piece [find the map in this thread]) you could imagine that the gain rate would have to be slow enough that holding these regions would not be enough to spawn a tank every 3-5 minutes (about the cool down length for a vehicle spawn [see the video below]). It would be reasonable with the current system if you get a resource gain from controlled territories every 5-30 minutes. It's a wide range I know, but it's something to work with. They might have even mentioned the exact gain rate, but maybe someone else could fill you in with more of those details. In any case, the gain rate is highly dependent on the value of territories, which is most of what this discussion is about...

For all of the rest of the resource information, watch this vid and pay attention:
http://youtu.be/onvySU5NkFo

If you asked nicely I might have linked you to the exact moments that show this stuff off...

Thank you for proving my point. He gave no specifics, all the numbers you just mentioned are total speculation. Simply writing a paragraph with numbers in the middle and linking a youtube video doesn't make facts.

You proved that all numbers in this thread are speculation and thus my original post stands.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 10:53 AM

double posted

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-24, 10:55 AM

I have seen that and there are no specifics dude, thank you for proving my point. He doesn't give numbers he just talks about general concepts and this entire thread is speculation.

In the video you can see the cost of vehicles, mods, and the number of resources available in your personal pool. He doesn't talk about it, you have to look at the UI.

Dagron

2012-06-24, 11:01 AM

Stupid thread. Beta hasn't even started...

We have nothing else PS2 to do, so we share our thoughts and ideas to get our minds in the game, so we have some background knowledge on the general subject to have more educated opinions for when they start letting us into beta.

This is exactly the type of thread that wrecks games.

The worst thing this type of thread does is kill some time... and even if it did anything to hurt a game, just a tiny portion of the actual player base sees it. If it doesn't apply at all when actual numbers are released, it just vanishes because people won't discuss it anymore.

Even Higby saw and posted in this thread and didn't seem to think it was bad in any way.
The sky isn't falling, put down the doomsday sign.

I have spent way too much time on 4chan and Reddit not to notice you didn't actually say you had the numbers.

He actually said we don't have the numbers, just alpha footage glimpses. Those still give us some insight on the matter, just enough for a harmless discussion.

Seems like you spent too much time on internet forums and caught the agressiveness virus it tends to infect people with.
Relax, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, we're just chatting about something we all like.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 11:04 AM

We have nothing else PS2 to do, so we share our thoughts and ideas to get our minds in the game, so we have some background knowledge on the general subject to have more educated opinions for when they start letting us into beta.

The worst thing this type of thread does is kill some time... and even if it did anything to hurt a game, just a tiny portion of the actual player base sees it. If it doesn't apply at all, it just vanishes because people won't discuss it anymore.

Even Higby saw and posted in this thread and didn't seem to think it was bad in any way.
The sky isn't falling, put down the doomsday sign.

He actually said we don't have the numbers, just alpha footage glimpses. Those still give us some insight on the matter, just enough for a harmless discussion.

Seems like you spent too much time on internet forums and caught the agressiveness virus it tends to infect people with.
Relax, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, we're just chatting about something we all like.

Actually he didn't say anything as when I said that I was quoting someone else but nice pointless quote You literally quoted one person and then fake quoted me as if I was responding to them when I was clearly responding to Pillar of Armor about one thing he said. Good for you with faking quotes tho.

As for the doomsday sign, I didn't say it is wrecking the game I said this is the TYPE of thread that wrecks games but good job with that too bro.

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-24, 11:06 AM

You showed alpha footage of vehicle costs that he says right in the video are not final at all. IE not fact.

What is even more funny is you were like ohh so you shouldn't be able to have enough resources to get a tank every 3 to 5 (speculation, you do not know)

Then you took your own speculation and speculated on that by saying, "It would be reasonable with the current system if you get a resource gain from controlled territories every 5-30 minutes. "

Then you made a ridiculous statement when you said That the numbers you put out were "something to work with" you just made the numbers up 2 lines earlier lol

Anyways I think I made my point it is just silly now..

Maybe you should have bothered to read and quote my posts correctly... You've proved you either have low reading comprehension or don't want to contribute.

None of the numbers I mentioned were speculation except for the 5-30 minute resource gain time. They were taken from things I saw in the UI during the videos. And i did mention that gain time wasn't the main topic of this thread... The only reason I worked that out for you was because maybe you or others were having a difficult time figuring out that number in relation to the rest of the data (territory gain rate) that has been shown off during the alpha.

The folks having this discussion have taken the time to look at the data that is in the game... you clearly haven't. You asked for numbers, I gave you numbers and you shrugged them off and didn't even bother to read my posts or look at the facts. I'm done here, I don't want to derail this thread any more.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 11:07 AM

In the video you can see the cost of vehicles, mods, and the number of resources available in your personal pool. He doesn't talk about it, you have to look at the UI.

You showed alpha footage of vehicle costs that he says right in the video are not final at all. IE not fact.

What is even more funny is you were like ohh so you shouldn't be able to have enough resources to get a tank every 3 to 5 (speculation, you do not know)

Then you took your own speculation and speculated on that by saying, "It would be reasonable with the current system if you get a resource gain from controlled territories every 5-30 minutes. "

Then you made a ridiculous statement when you said That the numbers you put out were "something to work with" you just made the numbers up 2 lines earlier lol

Anyways I think I made my point it is just silly now.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 11:10 AM

Anyways I am signing off this thread your just talking speculation, your video proved my original point, and Dagron came in obviously so angry about my opinion that he intentionally did a hatchet job to attempt to make what I said wrong by quoting someone else and then trying to make it look like I was responding to them.

Gotta go get my BBQ now. peace.

Dagron

2012-06-24, 11:18 AM

Actually he didn't say anything as when I said that I was quoting someone else but nice pointless quote You literally quoted one person and then fake quoted me as if I was responding to them when I was clearly responding to Pillar of Armor about one thing he said. Good for you with faking quotes tho.

What? You made very little sense here.
I quoted things you said in 2 posts and i didn't add anything to your text, i just commented on them.

I never said you were responding to anyone other than Pillar of Armor, i don't know what you're talking about.

As for the doomsday sign, I didn't say it is wrecking the game I said this is the TYPE of thread that wrecks games but good job with that too bro.

So you're saying this type of thread ruins games, but not this one in particular? Why did you post exactly that in the one thread you don't think it applies to then?

Please stop drinking coffee, cool down and try to understand what people are actually saying before spewing your angry defense mechanism on them.

wOOtbEEr

2012-06-24, 11:24 AM

Thank you for proving my point. He gave no specifics, all the numbers you just mentioned are total speculation. Simply writing a paragraph with numbers in the middle and linking a youtube video doesn't make facts.

You proved that all numbers in this thread are speculation and thus my original post stands.

Yes there are some posts in this thread that are about tweaking a resource system that isn't even finished yet. But most of them are about taking what we do know and putting in something that allows some asymmetrical warfare. The devs have laid a great foundation for a system that keeps everyone on the front lines on a huge map. They have done such a good job that it will not be worth attacking anything behind the line at all. I see the focus of this thread as adding a bit of vulnerability to allow OCCASIONAL but WORTHWHILE trips behind enemy lines.

Anyway check out my idea, middle of page 10. :)

w00tb33r

Pillar of Armor

2012-06-24, 11:32 AM

You showed alpha footage of vehicle costs that he says right in the video are not final at all. IE not fact.

Ok had to quote this because it made me laugh. How could we even discuss things in beta? Everything in beta is subject to change independent of our feedback. Games like this are fluid, even after launch things will change. Discussion helps guide development, brings in new ideas, and it's important at any stage of any project....

Dov

2012-06-24, 11:49 AM

You nerds need to stop arguing about a video game and refocus that energy into positive discussion. This thread, if nothing else brings a fresh perspective and can guide what we players are looking for in beta. Threads like these make us better playtesters by priming us to go seek answers (in beta) to questions this topic poses.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 02:52 PM

What? You made very little sense here.
I quoted things you said in 2 posts and i didn't add anything to your text, i just commented on them.

I never said you were responding to anyone other than Pillar of Armor, i don't know what you're talking about.

The reason I "made little sense" is because you nerd raged so much that you had to go back and edit your thread to remove what I was talking about. :rolleyes: ur cool bro :rofl:

Malorn

2012-06-24, 03:32 PM

Akadios

2012-06-24, 04:01 PM

Don't let the troll ruin the thread. If he thinks it's pointless he's welcome to ignore it. Resume discussion please.

Right now the resource limit is high compared to the costs, and that could well be because they aren't testing the resource system yet, though they could be taking tons of data on resource consumption and rate to see how many resources are consumed for a battle like the one presented at E3. They could then use that to sort out better rates, then lower the max limit.

If the personal supply limit is very low then I think resource denial can matter if there's different weights and if the accessible territories have a bigger impact when gained/lost.

I resent the accusation, I laid out a point of the OPs complaint being unfounded and thus pointless. My reasons for this are based in the simple logic of no one has used the system on a large scale yet and the real numbers aren't even known. One dude tried to jump on me about it and then another guy came in trying to troll me by going back as soon as I posted a reply and editing his thread to make it look like he didn't.

In fact the first insult/ off-topic trollism was swung by Dragon when he said , "Seems like you spent too much time on internet forums and caught the agressiveness virus it tends to infect people with.
Relax, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, we're just chatting about something we all like." The next was by Dagron when he said, "You've proved you either have low reading comprehension or don't want to contribute."

Both of which I did not respond to and attempted to keep it on topic by talking about the numbers not being known. So really who is the troll?

OutlawDr

2012-06-24, 04:10 PM

I resent the accusation, I laid out a point of the OPs complaint being unfounded and thus pointless. My reasons for this are based in the simple logic of no one has used the system on a large scale yet and the real numbers aren't even known. One dude tried to jump on me about it and then another guy came in trying to troll me by going back as soon as I posted a reply and editing his thread to make it look like he didn't.

Heh no, sorry but you can't turn it around and start acting like the victim. You came in with your first sentence and said "Stupid thread" and calling people idiots for having this discussion. Please tell us what we were suppose to think. You were trolling. This is even after Higby came in and posted his blessings on the whole thread. Opps

Akadios

2012-06-24, 04:21 PM

Actually I called the thread stupid and laid out a clear reason why I felt so and defended the statement without resorting to personal attacks like the other people. (Not trolling)

I did however say that threads like this (where people are complaining about something that is not even working yet) wreck games and that the people that do it are idiots. I can back this up with any number of ridiculous changes that are made because of player whining in multiple MMOs (again not trolling).

Simply calling someone a troll doesn't make it so, and doing it to try and back up someone else is just sad.

Hamma

2012-06-24, 04:23 PM

Please get the thread back on topic. If you do not like the topic simply leave it and visit another topic on the forum.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 04:34 PM

OutlawDr

2012-06-24, 04:49 PM

That would have been a better first post, Akadios. Without needing to call the thread stupid and accusing people who have these discussions as idiots.

However if waited for beta to have these discussions, we would never discuss anything. Plus someone earlier said it best...these types of threads prime us for beta testing. Its gives us things to think about and look for once we start testing. Obviously we won't know until we start beta testing, and I doubt anyone is seriously thinking we are going to decide this issue now in this thread...so relax. The end of this discussion will happen in the beta forums....well actually it will probably continue well past post launch...

Malorn

2012-06-24, 04:55 PM

Back on topic (I am trying to contribute by making an opposing point to worry):

The numbers aren't real yet, Higby already said that, he also talked about the points being made were not things to worry about. He also went on to say that he will "chew over" a suggested fix (Which is why it alarmed me).

While I agree that if things were broken this would be a legitimate concern however I have not seen anything in the thread (which I did read all the way through) that was anything more than speculation about potential unbalances or issues with the current system for which the specifics are unknown.

It seems to me that it would be best to wait for beta and see if it works before talking about potential changes that should be made.

We know a lot more than you think. This thread was an accumulation of knowledge over the last year of what we know of the resource system, which is a lot more than is readily apparent in the E3 content. There are some components we know about from many other sources. Intelligent people are capable of putting things together and sketching a reasonably accurate picture of the model formed from the components we know exist.

This thread was also made with lots of first-hand experience of how people actually play in an MMOFPS (PlanetSide), and knowledge of how they strategically manipulated resource mechanics in the past. It doesn't take too much talent to compare the two models of what we know and bring up potential problems and gaps. Perhaps they've thought about the gaps and the problems and have a solution. Maybe it's a new perspective for them to consider.

In either case it certainly isn't a "stupid thread" to discuss these elements, give feedback on mechanics we like or dislike, and bring up concerns with things we see. The devs like and want us to give feedback on what we see of the game. The only stupid thing here is dismissing the topic outright without understanding it.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 04:58 PM

double post.

Akadios

2012-06-24, 05:03 PM

@outlaw I understand that it is something to talk about I don't really see the issue even if resources can't be "cut off" there are so many ways to win a battle.

I don't remember resource cut off being a major factor in the taking of continents in PS1. I mean ya it was nice if you had tech and they didn't but the battles on maps flowed more based on path from base to base and less on what needed to be taken to knock them down. In addition every time you went to a new continent they had all their "resources" again which won't be true in PS2.

In fact a bigger concern for this topic I would think wouldn't be what if people have to much but will be what if we have nothing and are locked down on all the continents.

@Malorn I feel like I do understand it I just disagree with you. I also played PS1 for 4 years and have the experience you are talking about coming together in this thread.

As I said in response to outlaw I simply don't agree, I don't think the system is a problem, I never experienced PS1 battles being focused on resource cutting more than just a techplant gen kill (I felt they followed terrain features).

You also did not address the fact that in PS1 as soon as you jump a to a new continent you have all your resources instantly back but in PS2 that won't be the case.

Anyways it isn't that I don't understand it is that I disagree it is easy to say that I was being stupid dismissing what you wrote about. However you shouldn't dismiss what I am saying.

Malorn

2012-06-24, 05:17 PM

Xyntech

2012-06-24, 06:16 PM

Great, your voice has been heard. Now for those that do think there's something worth discussing, how do you think the Influence system can best be tied into having resource-related objectives in territories while still preserving player resource pools?

I'm still a fan of having separate bonuses, such as regional control bonuses that are similar to the continental lock benefits from the first game.

I think of the Planetside 2 resource system as a more complex version of the tech plant from the first game. It's a more advanced way to control what you have available to fight with. But I don't think that the resource system inherently negates or replaces all of the benefits of a bonus system.

Once the devs balance out the resource nodes, with some being worth more than others, I think we'll see them start to function a lot more like tech plants from the first game. While it may be impractical to remove all of a resource from an enemy empire, we may be able to remove a significant chunk through a strategic back hack.

But the problem in my mind is that if resource gain is tied to a continent, the same way that tech plant use was tied to a continent, then empires with no resources or territory on one continent will have more reasons not to push back into it than they will have to push into it.

But if there were small bonuses that your empire gained globally for controlling regions on continents (specific clusters of hex areas), then there would be inherent reasons to always want to maintain at least some land on every continent. Once you have the drive to hold at least a little land on a continent, then you immediately have a drive to hold more land and resources, to secure your position on the continent.

As long as some resource nodes are worth more than others, I think the resource system will work out pretty well as is. The maximum amount of resources that you can carry should be reasonably low, and the resource gain should be well balanced where an empire with an average income of resources can pull vehicles at a reasonable rate, an empire with a dominant amount of resources can spam vehicles faster than the vehicle spawn timer can keep up with, and an empire with no resources at all can still grind for 10 or 20 minutes in a battle to pull a tank.

So as long as resources are well balanced and distributed, I'm liking what I'm hearing so far.

That one sticking point is cross continental bonuses, and incentives to fight on continents where you have no resources. So I am really thinking that something like a globally affecting regional bonus idea is the one thing currently missing.

Figment

2012-06-25, 10:19 AM

Xyntech

2012-06-25, 10:54 AM

So overstretching effect of resources? What if resource distribution (vertical) per amount of terrain held (horizontal) was parabolic?

Let's take resources distributed of your empire around a third of the terrain you are at standard, or a 100% resource gain. Now, if you capture more, this amount increases up to a certain point. Let's say if you hold 55% of the continent, you're at your max gain and get around 125%. After that, it slowly drops back to 80% gain ("logistical overextension effect"). If you have less than a third up to 0%, gain drops to around 60%. This way there's still an advantage in gaining territory, but the attrition gap might just become a bit smaller and easier to overcome.

And again, what's the global effect of holding terrain? Is it averaged over all territories? Sorted continent by continent? Modifiers?

Well as it stands in their current build, resource gain only applies to the continent you are currently on. So if you have 90% territory on one continent, you are gaining a lot more resources than if you have 0% on another.

But most of the resource distribution occurs based on gameplay, so the more you kill enemies or heal allies or do other valuable things for your empire, the more resources you gain. From some of what Higby has said, it sounds like you still gain some small amount of resources through fighting even if your empire holds no territory or resources on a continent.

So the way I understand it, an empire with no MBT making resource could still pull tanks no matter what, but they may be so costly that you had really better make sure to try and keep it alive, because you won't have enough resources to pull another one for quite a while. You'll be fighting the war on a budget until you gain some resource territories.

It sounds to me like resources will act as sort of a convenience motivator, sort of like a lot of the cash shop items do in other areas. As long as they balance it right, players with no resource territories can still get by, but players with a ton of resource territories will be able to spam shit a little bit more carelessly, while still not overpoweringly.

Let's not forget that there is a certain amount of appeal in taking territory just to take it, or to hold on to territory just because you like to feel like you are dominating and like to see the map in your factions color. It doesn't take a lot to help motivate and balance the territory captures and defenses in the right direction, when the gamers mindset is already pretty close to where it needs to be on it's own.

There could be some inherent flaws that need to be sorted out with the resource system in beta, but I think they will be much more subtle nuances. As long as players are willing to push into a continent where they don't yet hold any territory, I think that most of the battle lines will work themselves out quite nicely and dynamically with only very minor intervention by the game mechanics to push things along in the right direction.

But why would I push into Esamir where we hold no territory and I have to work for 20 minutes to pull a Scythe, when I can fight on Amerish where I can spam grenades all day due to our 70% territory control? I think it will actually be a good thing if empires can get pushed off of a continent and may be disinclined to come back right away, but there has to be a valuable reason to come back there eventually, beyond just pride and wanting to control as much territory as possible on the world map.