New thoughts about combat flow and strategy

[sylphaen]

Hi everyone,

I decided to share this post following the new release of Esamir and the revival of concerns about sanctuary warpgates, number of continents at release, lack of a lattice system, lack of SOI, etc… My purpose is not to declare which is superior between PS1 vs. PS2 or that I’m right and everyone else is wrong , etc… I simply want to share my perception and the understanding I arrived to while thinking about the current state of PS2.

NOTE: Of course, being a PS1 vet, my thought is heavily influenced by my personal experience. If you believe PS1 vets are the horrible bastard child by-product of a sub-par game gone terribad, I suggest you avoid this thread so people (vets or not) who actually like to think and discuss ideas can share in a civilized environment.


EDIT: I wrote my post offline but other interesting posts were made today:

- Important Issues, Life or Death of the Game:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=48403 by The Kush

- Resources really piss me off:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=48411 by EVILoHOMER

___________________________________________


Let me start by asking a generic question:
What if PS2 devs wanted to test for PS2 a warpgate/continent system similar to PS1? What if they were able to do it using placeholders? For example, let’s say they could duplicate Indar/Esamir to test a warpgate system in PS2. How much better would PS2 be?

My feeling is that even with a large server (let’s say 4 continents) and a lot of people (let’s say 3000), the lack of direction or flow in combat would make a game that feels somewhat empty before just as empty after.

Let me explain.


Fundamental difference of dynamics between PS1 and PS2

PS1 had the lattice/bases system which created ACTIVE frontlines.
PS2 has the hex/thousand outposts system which is a glorified influence overlay.

PS1 had a simple and somewhat-linear system that was directly involved in the creation and flow of combat. The rules were hard-coded in facilities and their lines linking bases and continents. Those strict rules were the basis on which strategies were built and from which resulted combat. As PS2 devs admitted, they also limited combat along those lines or facilities since they were the only strategic points which mattered.

In short, continents were a neutral territory and only a small portion of it had strategic significance (i.e. bases). The only relevant parts of the map were the next base on the lattice, their vicinity and the paths leading to those places. From that simple but very restricted gameplay evolved some kind of leadership strategy metagame.


In PS2, the hex system is an illusion of a territory system. If you hide the map color overlay, all you see are bases/outposts dispersed around a map unrelated to each other. Two unrelated rules tie it all together:
a. You can only capture border hexes (PS2 lattice)
b. You want to capture territory because they give out resources (PS2 base benefits)

So essentially, the only interesting thing to gain is resources (indirectly from territory).


Do you see the difference?
In PS1, objective and incentives were strongly tied together and the system was very restrictive. In PS2, there is a separation between capture rules and incentives.


What impact does the resource system have?
No one cares about outlier territories. They are painted a color what appears full of action ("There is a border so it must be a contested territory with a lot of action!") but in reality, they are rarely active. In PS2, there are Auraxium bases and glorified towers.

I feel that the resource system is too complex and too indirect to efficiently create and direct combat flow. It is not obvious for an empire which target should be next. To make empire strategy matter more, devs gave resource quotas per player. What about players who prefer a different play style and will thus favor a specific kind of resource? What if they cannot play that style they like due to lack of said resources?

The only obvious objective everyone agrees on is Auraxium bases because:
- They are the most entertaining , map-wise and capture mechanics-wise
- They are the most interesting, resource-wise

What we currently see in PS2 is that cohesive intense fights are usually at large bases where specific mechanisms are in place to (somewhat) give a flow to the base capture: outpost capture phase, shield generators phase, point control phase.

Guess what? This exciting flow of combat originates from restrictive rules that directly impact tactical combat. The resource system does not matter when choosing which outpost to take first: spawn tubes do! Resources do not matter either when choosing whether to destroy a generator or not.


Do resources matter in adressing combat flow issues ?

So how do resources actually impact strategy? They do not!

In a 33% vs. 33% vs. 33% game, in an even situation (even population, even maps, even skill, balanced playstyles), you would own your 33% of the map and get enough of your 4 resources to play. In such a situation, the need of resources is weak and you could care less about the next objective. In short, boredom is the largest incentive to start-up a fight than resources.

Acknowledging that no world is perfect, let’s assume than an empire has the upper hand, how does the resource system fare? Well, we get the rich gets richer dynamic. With fewer resources available, weaker empires are forced to choose which resource they prefer but does it mean that resources play a strategic significance at this point? Not really, it only means that weakened empires are weaker. Except if they are specifically trying to starve a specific resource of an empire (and only if that kind resource is in a contiguous territory), the winning empire could care less about which zone to attack next. The winners have a good income of resources and personal quotas, the losers are starved.

The only exception is Auraxium. It is the only resource which is truly significant:
- You can never get enough
- It is the only resource that allows your character to progress (unlock new weapons)

Since it is the only resource that matters long-term, it’s the only resource people care about and auraxium bases are the only bases people care about. If people play for resources, it’s the only resource they will play for.

We thus reach this final question:
Is PS2 about fighting a large-scale war over territory or about playing unlock mania?


Conclusions

Surprisingly, I find that the “unlimited” aspects of PS2 are actually the most limiting factors to fun in this game. In PS1, your only limits were certs, timers and the lattice benefits. In PS2, if you want to pull a vehicle, you are limited by timers AND resources. Instead of one unlock system (cert system), there are 2 (cert system + auraxium system). If you lose, you are resource starved and less able to fight for auraxium; if you win, you are favored by the auraxium system which makes the next victory easier.

In the end, if all certs/weapons were unlocked and auraxium was thus a non-factor, would Planetside 2 be a fun game to play? Indirectly, would a paying customer (for whom auraxium is not or less of a factor), keep paying to play PS2?

As a paying customer, I very much preferred PS1 reserves model. With no evident combat flow or direction which I attribute to weak map design (except auraxium bases which are improving), PS2 is dull. In my opinion:
- the resource system is strategically insignificant in its current state and believing that fixing the resource system will fix everything is an illusion.
- PS2 needs rules and base/objectives interactions to structure combat over its maps.
- If resources are to be used, devs should realize they are not a proper way to direct combat flow and should not use them for that purpose. I think only one is needed (auraxium) and should be used to reward active combat, not holding territory.

[Whiteagle]

Well I don't think resources are a bad mechanic in and of themselves, but I would agree that there implementation is a bit lacking...

...Most players seem to fail to realise their importance only to bemoan their inability to pull a tank.

As for the Hex system... I prefer Indar's smaller hexes, as the need to capture them at least slows down large enemy pushes and allows smaller groups to contribute to a Factions' efforts by offensively or defensively capturing.

Esamir does have a much better distribution of major Facilities though...

In the end, I kind of wish I had some experience with the original Planetside's Lattice system, just to have an idea of how it worked and how it could change the current game play.

[Gonefshn]

Have you read about the upcoming change to resources I think it sounds promising. They are making them simple to understand by breaking them down into, tank resources, infantry consumable resources, and aircraft resources.

[Whiteagle]

Have you read about the upcoming change to resources I think it sounds promising. They are making them simple to understand by breaking them down into, tank resources, infantry consumable resources, and aircraft resources.
Eh, that sounds like a double-edged sword to me...

I mean, what am I, someone who can't fly, going to do with "Aircraft" resources?

At least with Polymers I can purchase Lightnings and some consumables, same deal with Alloys and Catalyst for their respective Air and Ground Vehicles.

[Gonefshn]

I think it helps new players understand what they need to focus on. If you don't fly you don't need aircraft resources, precisely why it's a simpler approach.

I see where you are coming from though but i like the change.

I am mostly excited that C4 won't cost 2/3 as much as 1 tank meaning I can't ever really use both.

[Whiteagle]

I think it helps new players understand what they need to focus on. If you don't fly you don't need aircraft resources, precisely why it's a simpler approach.

I see where you are coming from though but i like the change.

I am mostly excited that C4 won't cost 2/3 as much as 1 tank meaning I can't ever really use both.
True, but then I would hope they would implement some kind of Resource trading, so that I could maybe get some Auraxium for my otherwise useless Green/Yellow/Orange stuff.

[The Kush]

I think this post makes some very interesting and well thought points. I agree, the resource system is failing. If the devs wanted you to play the way you want to play (which they have said) then you would be able to pull any vehicle or weapon you want without too many barriers and definitely once unlocked as many times as you want. This further goes to show how the hex system is failing and removing a core aspect that makes planetside fun. Huge battles and the feeling of conquest can only be achieved by the lattice system and sanctuaries. It is boring as hell fighting in the same 1/3 of the map everyday with no clear goals feeling like I'm not doing anything.

[sylphaen]

Thinking more about it, I have found a way to summarize my post:

In its current state, the resource system does not improve nor serve battle mechanics in PS2. If there was no resource system (and we kept Auraxium or not - auraxium rewards the wrong things but is not the issue imo), I believe the behavior of fights and the game would be the same overall, excepted that vehicle-side would be more lively and outposts would be less contested and captured when an army moves through it.

I find that resources bridle players more than they add any strategic depth or interesting gameplay. Interesting gameplay comes from other mechanics, not from the resource system.

______________________________________

Comments:

Have you read about the upcoming change to resources I think it sounds promising. They are making them simple to understand by breaking them down into, tank resources, infantry consumable resources, and aircraft resources.

I think it's a good idea to make names less confusing and their purpose clearer. However, I also think that it will not solve the lack of strong mechanics that will generate entertaining battles.

True, but then I would hope they would implement some kind of Resource trading, so that I could maybe get some Auraxium for my otherwise useless Green/Yellow/Orange stuff.

If you look at the shop tab, you can see plans to allow exchanging auraxium for Green/Yellow/Orange stuff (but not the other way around). Auraxium is bought from SOE cash.

It's hard to not infer what is meant to be (i.e. players on the losing side can cough out money-equivalent resources for temporary equipment resources to keep a fair fight) and I think it is a wrong direction for the game.

Instead of going through intermediary resources (Auraxium -> resources -> temporary equipment), why not just have a timer and allow Auraxium (i.e. money or game time) to act directly on that timer ? Without resources, the current winner would not have an unfair advantage and the money paying (or time paying) customer would not feel like he wastes money into a drain.

If the devs wanted you to play the way you want to play (which they have said) then you would be able to pull any vehicle or weapon you want without too many barriers and definitely once unlocked as many times as you want. This further goes to show how the hex system is failing and removing a core aspect that makes planetside fun. Huge battles and the feeling of conquest can only be achieved by the lattice system and sanctuaries. It is boring as hell fighting in the same 1/3 of the map everyday with no clear goals feeling like I'm not doing anything.

I am also on the side of free vehicles. At worst, with the current resource system, vehicles from the sanctuary should be free. The significance of resources would then be about time-costs (i.e. logistics). For people with resources on the offense, it will be about keeping pressure on the frontlines with equipment that has a low time-cost to resupply. As the defenders lose ground, they will get closer to their sanctuary with free equipment and things would start to even out. Both teams will have equipment that costs little time to redeploy except that attackers will run out of resources faster than the defenders and their equipment's redeployment time will increase vs. the defenders'.

If mutual destruction works for troopers, why wouldn't it work for vehicles ? As far as I know, vehicles also shoot at each other and also blow up. Why worry about too many of them on the battle field unless they are parading and not fighting ?

______________________________________

Your opinion:

If there was no resource system, how do you imagine PS2 would change ?

[Whiteagle]

I think this post makes some very interesting and well thought points. I agree, the resource system is failing. If the devs wanted you to play the way you want to play (which they have said) then you would be able to pull any vehicle or weapon you want without too many barriers and definitely once unlocked as many times as you want. This further goes to show how the hex system is failing and removing a core aspect that makes planetside fun. Huge battles and the feeling of conquest can only be achieved by the lattice system and sanctuaries. It is boring as hell fighting in the same 1/3 of the map everyday with no clear goals feeling like I'm not doing anything.
Well I don't agree that Resources are a failure, but I will admit that static footholds do make the game a bit too repetitive...

I mean, fighting over the same twenty so Hexes does get a bit old after awhile...

...I do have an idea, but I'm not sure how feasible it would actually be...

Playing off my "Auraxis low-orbital Mega Structure" idea (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=837932#post837932), what if the Orbital elevators attaching that structure to the surface were connected to a network of pipelines?
These pipelines would transport Resources from various Stations across the surface and funnel them up to different processing Facilities in the low-orbital Grid.

"Sanctuaries" would be re-instated, not as land masses, but massive Faction-controlled ships that are in a constant slow orbit around the Planet.
They would only ensure a Factions ability to control a small portion of the "Orbital Processing Grid" and the "Resource Pipeline Network" by being able to "Hotdrop" troops directly beneath them.

This would not only give us an excuse for a Lattice system, but also make the battle environment itself a constant visual reminder of the lore.

What do you guys think?

===========================

If you look at the shop tab, you can see plans to allow exchanging auraxium for Green/Yellow/Orange stuff (but not the other way around). Auraxium is bought from SOE cash.

It's hard to not infer what is meant to be (i.e. players on the losing side can cough out money-equivalent resources for temporary equipment resources to keep a fair fight) and I think it is a wrong direction for the game.

Instead of going through intermediary resources (Auraxium -> resources -> temporary equipment), why not just have a timer and allow Auraxium (i.e. money or game time) to act directly on that timer ? Without resources, the current winner would not have an unfair advantage and the money paying (or time paying) customer would not feel like he wastes money into a drain.

...Bwah?
Your opinion:

If there was no resource system, how do you imagine PS2 would change ?
Well... it'd certainly wouldn't help the Vehicle Spam problem...

[Buggsy]

Can't wait for the day when a MMOFPS comes up with a realistic logistics system. It would finally solve all the quirks that come with FPS.

[psijaka]

As a newcomer to Planetside I'm not in a postition to make comparisons to PS1, but I have to say that I am a bit underwhelmed by the PS2 resource system. Auraxium is what counts; the others - cant even remember what they are or what they are good for - might as well just ignore them.

What drives me is either conquering/defending territory (irrespective of resources) or going where the action is. Simple as that.

[sylphaen]

I mean, fighting over the same twenty so Hexes does get a bit old after awhile...

I am not certain things would really change unless some new battle/map/incentive mechanics are put in place. The way I see things, the resource system is somewhat neutral strategy-wise since what we only care about in the end is Auraxium and Auraxium is located on large bases.

I think Auraxium could be gained in a different way than rent from controlling a main base.

The resource system was meant to be the main strategy driver in PS2. What I say is that its current state is inadequate. Hexes (attackable territory is the currently contiguous territory) and the map configuration (e.g.: the crown) have more of an effect on battles/gameplay than resources (e.g. Indar's northern part).

In the end, only Auraxium is sought out. Resources only determine whether you are resource-starved or not. Since being resource starved has for effect to increase the chances of being starved even more, I do not see the gameplay fun that could come from this negative feedback loop.


...I do have an idea, but I'm not sure how feasible it would actually be...

Playing off my "Auraxis low-orbital Mega Structure" idea (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=837932#post837932), what if the Orbital elevators attaching that structure to the surface were connected to a network of pipelines?
These pipelines would transport Resources from various Stations across the surface and funnel them up to different processing Facilities in the low-orbital Grid.

"Sanctuaries" would be re-instated, not as land masses, but massive Faction-controlled ships that are in a constant slow orbit around the Planet.
They would only ensure a Factions ability to control a small portion of the "Orbital Processing Grid" and the "Resource Pipeline Network" by being able to "Hotdrop" troops directly beneath them.

This would not only give us an excuse for a Lattice system, but also make the battle environment itself a constant visual reminder of the lore.

What do you guys think?

I am not sure I understand everything. So there would be 3 orbital ships moving above the map with hotdrops available under them ?

That would be a solution to fix "always fighting at the same spot" syndrom and allow sanc-locking empires. However, it would not solve the rich gets richer problem coming from the resource system.


As a newcomer to Planetside I'm not in a postition to make comparisons to PS1, but I have to say that I am a bit underwhelmed by the PS2 resource system. Auraxium is what counts; the others - cant even remember what they are or what they are good for - might as well just ignore them.

What drives me is either conquering/defending territory (irrespective of resources) or going where the action is. Simple as that.

"What drives me is either conquering/defending territory (irrespective of resources) or going where the action is. Simple as that."

Thank you ! That is what I am trying to say:
PS2 has no adequate system to structure its action. The resource system which was supposed to play that role only incentivizes players to ghost hack empty outposts and base switch (because of the points mechanic). (sorry for the dramatization and raw simplification but it's to help the point across)

Other factors play a larger role.

Auraxium could perfectly be kept in the game and not be a resource gained from land-rent. Resources do not play a significant role in structuring action in PS2. More focus should be given to other models.


@psijaka: no worries, all constructive feedback is welcome. And anyways, if you played other static objectives based FPS, that is essentially what PS1 gameplay was. On a larger scale and with specific mechanics, of course.

My point is that while PS2 appears to have mechanics, it is terribly lacking on that side.

[Whiteagle]

I am not sure I understand everything. So there would be 3 orbital ships moving above the map with hotdrops available under them ?

That would be a solution to fix "always fighting at the same spot" syndrom and allow sanc-locking empires. However, it would not solve the rich gets richer problem coming from the resource system.
Well I didn't get to explaining it, but the Resource Pipeline would probably have hackable "valves" that could cut the flow of Resources off, allowing a well coordinated Spec Ops team the ability to deny a Faction the materials they need.

Then there is the Orbital Processing Grid, practically a spread-out continent in its own right that connects the others with Orbital Elevators, which splits a front into Surface and Orbital Grid battles.
Even if you pushed to take a large amount of the Surface for Resources, that could leave you open up on the Grid for enemies to ride the elevators down to flank you, or cut you off from the Processing Facilities which provide you with Auraxium and/or access to things like Vehicles and Consumables (Working with the idea that Tech Plants, Amp Stations, and Bio Domes will eventually be responsible for such things).

Finally, there is the natural Territory creep that comes with the moving Sanctuaries.
Sure, you might be able to extend around and enclose the area beneath one of the other factions ships, but are you still going to be able to project that much force in an hour when the ship has moved West by three Hexes?
There would also probably be multiple ships per Faction, orbiting in different ways in order to mix up where different Factions would be interacting...

[sylphaen]

Eagle, your best option would to make a post about your idea on the Idea Vault forum. I see one large flaw in undestructable flying mobile spawn points is that there would always be a bias in hotdropping the way the flying fortress is moving (since it provides a spawn advantage) while the defenders have the same incentive to go on offense. You would get a nice merry-go round to cap resources unless the flying fortresses move towards each other.

The good news is that we might get those flying fortresses in the future (ala BF2142 titans).

In any case, I think titans could be a fun addition but it won't solve the problems I'm trying to address. PS2 would still suffer from a irrelevent resource system and no adequate system to structure the game's action.

[Ohaunlaim]

I pretty much agree with everyone here in that I ignore the resource system because it literally has no impact on my game play until my empire gets zero-based. Then it only serves to keep me zero-based.

I feel that ALL territories should provide Auraxium and only Auraxium. People would be forced to choose between spamming their favorite vehicle or saving to unlock nifty stuff.

Paying customers would probably have less mental angst due to having lots of Auraxium at hand, but would be no more powerful because everything "should" be side-grade rated. They may also still be limited by having to first cert stuff with points earned in game.

I wouldn't drop the resource system completely though. Instead I would make each territory grant points towards awarding certain boosts to either aircraft, vehicles, or infantry. These might be hitpoint boosts, timer reductions, top speed boosts, Auraxium cost reductions, etc.

The points from each territory grant nothing until a threshold is reached at which point you gain the entire boost (ie. not gradually). For example to gain a 5% infantry hitpoint boost you would need 25 points from research centers or some such. Less than 25 you loose the boost, more than 25 and you still only have 5% boost to hitpoints.

To make it interesting there would only be 60 (or so) total points available on the map per type meaning two empires maximum could gain any one boost. Suddenly strategy matters on an empire wide basis, and zero basing doesn't give the winning team any overwhelming advantage.

**Auraxium is still a problem when zero-based though. Solve this by making vehicles half price or free when an empire is pushed to their warpgate.

[Timealude]

You know Higby was talking in a recent stream about adding base benefits back into the game which i think would really help with the motivation to capture certain bases. Which is sorta like a lattice if you think about it and it gives more incentive to cut your enemy's base off.

[Gonefshn]

I pretty much agree with everyone here in that I ignore the resource system because it literally has no impact on my game play until my empire gets zero-based. Then it only serves to keep me zero-based.

I feel that ALL territories should provide Auraxium and only Auraxium. People would be forced to choose between spamming their favorite vehicle or saving to unlock nifty stuff.

Paying customers would probably have less mental angst due to having lots of Auraxium at hand, but would be no more powerful because everything "should" be side-grade rated. They may also still be limited by having to first cert stuff with points earned in game.

I wouldn't drop the resource system completely though. Instead I would make each territory grant points towards awarding certain boosts to either aircraft, vehicles, or infantry. These might be hitpoint boosts, timer reductions, top speed boosts, Auraxium cost reductions, etc.

The points from each territory grant nothing until a threshold is reached at which point you gain the entire boost (ie. not gradually). For example to gain a 5% infantry hitpoint boost you would need 25 points from research centers or some such. Less than 25 you loose the boost, more than 25 and you still only have 5% boost to hitpoints.

To make it interesting there would only be 60 (or so) total points available on the map per type meaning two empires maximum could gain any one boost. Suddenly strategy matters on an empire wide basis, and zero basing doesn't give the winning team any overwhelming advantage.

**Auraxium is still a problem when zero-based though. Solve this by making vehicles half price or free when an empire is pushed to their warpgate.

giving actual boosts to performance would be no better than the current system all it does is make the winners more powerful in a different way.

Also having Auraxium be the only resource would be terrible. Same issues as currently. If I want to drive tanks all day and enjoy my favorite playstyle I suffer at a loss of currency to purchase new items.

I seriously haven't had huge issues with the current resource system other than the cap being 750. If you could bank more resources your options would be so much greater.

[sylphaen]

I seriously haven't had huge issues with the current resource system other than the cap being 750. If you could bank more resources your options would be so much greater.

If they increase the resource quota per player, there will be even less pressure to capture territory with resources (since you have a greater piggy bank). It would be like the invasions of Russia: you would get tired before the russians run out of land.

Low quotas: very frustrating situations can happen to players of sanc-locked empires. Double-whammy for losing.
High quotas: the higher the personal resource quota, the less pressure there is on players to care about recapping those non-Auraxium territories. People will go straight for Auraxium and let others deal with retaking territory giving resources after they log off.

I say quotas but it's the same problem when they play around with resource acquisition rates and equipment resource prices. As a matter of fact, I think quotas were put in place because winners could stock up on too many resources, weren't they ? (if anyone knows or remembers why, please, let me know).

With the resource system, you either feel starved or you don't. It's always the loser who will get starved.

FYI, I consider Auraxium as a money-equivalent, not a resource. Yes, it is currently acquired in-game through the resource system but it could also be modeled differently.

In PS1, the BEP system provided both the weapon unlocks and the character progression unlocks. In PS2, certs provide the character progression, Auraxium provides the weapons. We currently get points through actions (healing, repairing, fragging,...), why not give Auraxium as rewards (e.g. CEP/BEP bonus on facility captures in PS1) ?


When talking about the resource system, Higby often cited the cool "embargo" strategy that would be possible. What I am trying to highlight is that:
- tying strategy to resources or hoping combat will structure itself out of the current resource system is a false hope.
- It's a nightmare to fix and balance.
- PS2 needs better mecanisms than one carrot (Auraxium) and sticks (resource starvation) to direct gameplay over the map.

________

I felt I had to develop on that topic but I do agree with the rest of your post.

[Whiteagle]

Eagle, your best option would to make a post about your idea on the Idea Vault forum. I see one large flaw in undestructable flying mobile spawn points is that there would always be a bias in hotdropping the way the flying fortress is moving (since it provides a spawn advantage) while the defenders have the same incentive to go on offense. You would get a nice merry-go round to cap resources unless the flying fortresses move towards each other.

The good news is that we might get those flying fortresses in the future (ala BF2142 titans).

In any case, I think titans could be a fun addition but it won't solve the problems I'm trying to address. PS2 would still suffer from a irrelevent resource system and no adequate system to structure the game's action.
True enough, which is why I figured there would be multiple ships per Faction, at least two sets flying in opposite directions at the upper and lower portions of the maps, as well as grouping Resource distribution to various parts of the map.
This would provide constant "friction", forcing the Factions to compete not only with those retreating in front of or advancing behind them, but also the possibility of oncoming ones swooping in.

Gameplay would only become MORE dynamic if non-parallel orbits are then introduced, especially if it provides temporary windows for assaulting other Sanctuaries and sabotaging their Resource gathering abilities.

Still, this is a zero sum game and, unlike other smaller counterparts where individuals skill can greatly alter the experience, its size means the Law of Averages ultimately prevails and everything will become "normalized"...

This is why I'm begining to think static Warp Gates are going to be more of a detriment then anything else...

...Still, enough of my rambling.
Really looking at it, I believe this problem stems from Auraxium being treated as just "another Resource" despite the fact it is used for Individual Weapon Unlocks as a Currency instead of the "Raw Material" for Consumables and Vehicles like the rest.

You are right, there is only incentive for the Individual Player to fight for Auraxium Hexes, the rest are just supplementary because they make it easier.

While your "Auraxium as a reward for Individual Effort" idea has merit, I think I've come up with something better...

Instead of Major Facilities just GIVING you a set sum of Auraxium for your Faction owning them, why not have their output determined by the amount of a certain Resource your side is bringing in?

Let's just claim that your Faction needs those places in order to process the "Raw Material" into something more useful; Tech Plants require Alloys to "build stuff", Bio Domes need Polymers to "synthesize proteins", and Amp Stations need Catalyst to... "catalyze things" (Seriously, what do they do at the Amp Stations, the place is set up like it's some sort of refinery but of what I don't know...); thus Auraxium is rewarded Players as a means of "spreading the prosperity around" and as an enticement for Soldiers to fight in the first place.

[sylphaen]

While your "Auraxium as a reward for Individual Effort" idea has merit, I think I've come up with something better...

Just to nuance that sentence, I only mentioned Auraxium being used as a reward (since it's meant to be the carrot). While the reward Auraxium reward is indeed given to individuals (for their individual effort), capturing a base is rarely solely the effort of an individual.

The BEP/CEP SOI reward for base captures in PS1 was a decent system to reward everyone's participation in a team effort. FYI, the amount were proportional to the amount of time spent fighting over a base along with the intensity of the fight.

It rewarded fighting and did not promote ghost hacking. The resource system borderline forces you to go ghost hack outlying bases no one cares about (or you get punished by resource starvation).



Instead of Major Facilities just GIVING you a set sum of Auraxium for your Faction owning them, why not have their output determined by the amount of a certain Resource your side is bringing in?

It would indeed force the people who own the Auraxium base to go capture surrounding territories but only because of the leverage effect on their auraxium income.

If there were multipliers instead of resources, the effect would be the same.

Winners would just take more care of their surrounding territories but they usually have it anyways and it would not solve the issue of winner takes all.

Trying to fix people's behavior through the resource system or, said differently, seeing the game through the resource system layer is an illusion. It's just a layer over a map empty of structuring mechanics (exception made of Auraxium base capture mechanics). Resources only decide if you play at a disadvantage and make it worse if you do.

Maybe there is a way to make it work but I am human and unable to see it yet. I think other gameplay mechanics could give better results with far less efforts and complexity.
e.g. improved maps, improved bases, better command/alert systems, etc...

Most of those ideas did not come from me yet I think they will be more fruitful than obstinating in fixing the resource system. The core interest of PS2 should not be resource collection or auraxium farming, it should be epic combats. There will always be way to insert auraxium and payment models once epicness is in.

[sylphaen]

One thought I just had:
maybe people get their priorities confused because of the two progression trees (Auraxium vs. certs) ?

People mentioned the constant base flipping: you get points popping up when you flip a capture point/outpost. You are rewarded instantly for your action. It's the cert system that pops in your face.

Resources only flow in tick by tick. It feels much less rewarding and important (unless it's Auraxium - and I still do not consider Auraxium a true resouce).

I still do not think rewarding resources for captures would make it a valid system but at least, it would gain some psychological importance.

There was an old post about a topic similar to this when a resource system was mentionned. There were good exchanges about it.

Found the thread: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39921
This was the idea I was reminded of: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39921&page=4&post=48

A lot of theorycrafting in that before we even got a chance to touch the game ! PSU at its best !
:)

[CrankyTRex]

As a new person to PS, I find that I am usually just frustrated by the resource mechanic even if I liked it in theory.

When I'm playing alone, I want to fly. That generally means pulling the same vehicle over and over again, which means using the same resource and potentially standing around waiting for a timer to finish depending on how committed I am to not having to do something else.

In theory, not allowing people to spam a given vehicle is a good limiting factor that requires some thought ahead of time and forces teamwork etc. Problem is, it doesn't succeed in doing anything but getting half a team to stand around doing nothing for five minutes waiting to play how they want to play.

When I envisioned an MMOFPS, I always figured the limiting factor to spamming stuff would be that you could only launch vehicles from certain facilities and not resources. That way you'd start making "airports" and "factories" incredibly strategic bases to cap/destroy/defend.

I'd like to seem them try tossing the resources and the timers in favor of that form of limitation. Take a power station, and you shut down the power to the nearby bases. Take a radar tower, and you can see all enemy movements in an area. Etc.

It would also help with variety of things to cap. It seems like there are three, maybe four, actual structures with minor differences in appearance and virtually zero differences in game play.

[Whiteagle]

Just to nuance that sentence, I only mentioned Auraxium being used as a reward (since it's meant to be the carrot). While the reward Auraxium reward is indeed given to individuals (for their individual effort), capturing a base is rarely solely the effort of an individual.

The BEP/CEP SOI reward for base captures in PS1 was a decent system to reward everyone's participation in a team effort. FYI, the amount were proportional to the amount of time spent fighting over a base along with the intensity of the fight.
Ah, I see...
I don't know if that would work alongside Experience gain, but perhaps something like the current "Medal" system could work, where after completing a set quota for an action you'd be rewarded with some Auraxium.

It rewarded fighting and did not promote ghost hacking. The resource system borderline forces you to go ghost hack outlying bases no one cares about (or you get punished by resource starvation).
Eh, I actually like ghost hacking as a Resource Denial and Distraction strategy.
I mean, if it pulls a fraction of the Zerg away from the front, that's a fraction less my Faction has to push against.

It would indeed force the people who own the Auraxium base to go capture surrounding territories but only because of the leverage effect on their auraxium income.
Exactly!
This would require them to spread their Forces out, thus weakening their overall defensive front.

If there were multipliers instead of resources, the effect would be the same.
Uhhh... I really don't know about this...
I see the Resources as the "Raw Materials" your War-machine needs to run.
Their acquisition, defense, and denial should be a major component of the Meta-game, just like it would be in a real war.

Winners would just take more care of their surrounding territories but they usually have it anyways and it would not solve the issue of winner takes all.
This really seems like less of a symptom of the Resource system itself then of the "momentum" able to be built up with static Warp Gates...

Remember, this is suppose to be an engineered "Zero-Sum" game, where in the end no one can hold their advantage long enough for it to truly disadvantage their opponent.
Problems arise, however, when a Faction's push is able to build enough "critical momentum" to force another into their stationary Warp-gate.
It allows them to effectively neutralize one of only two sources of opposition with a minimal amount of force, creating a territory vacuum quickly filled by the remaining factions.

This is further compounded if the locking Faction has even more momentum then the critical amount needed to push to a single Warp-Gate, as it will simply snowball until they've locked BOTH opponents out.

Trying to fix people's behavior through the resource system or, said differently, seeing the game through the resource system layer is an illusion. It's just a layer over a map empty of structuring mechanics (exception made of Auraxium base capture mechanics). Resources only decide if you play at a disadvantage and make it worse if you do.

Maybe there is a way to make it work but I am human and unable to see it yet. I think other gameplay mechanics could give better results with far less efforts and complexity.
e.g. improved maps, improved bases, better command/alert systems, etc...
Yes, it is sad that the current layout isn't good, but I don't think the Resource mechanics are at fault...
Really, there is a lack of stimulation or agitation in the field.
I think the Devs expect this to happen organically through Faction interaction, but as stated before the Law of Averages just normalizes everything.
That creates a dull trudge to capture the same Outpost and Facilities over and over and OVER again...

Most of those ideas did not come from me yet I think they will be more fruitful than obstinating in fixing the resource system. The core interest of PS2 should not be resource collection or auraxium farming, it should be epic combats. There will always be way to insert auraxium and payment models once epicness is in.
Well as I said before, I like Resources as part of the Meta-game, but you are probably right; they aren't something that drives most players and they can't be a source of conflict in their current state.

One thought I just had:
maybe people get their priorities confused because of the two progression trees (Auraxium vs. certs) ?

People mentioned the constant base flipping: you get points popping up when you flip a capture point/outpost. You are rewarded instantly for your action.

Resources only flow in tick by tick. It feels much less rewarding and important.

I still do not think rewarding resources for captures would make it a valid system but at least, it would gain some psychological importance.
Well I think you do get a small bonus in whatever Resource the particular base you're fighting for provides... but that just reinforces the importance of Major Facilities as Auraxium mines...
This is often why Outfits will hold one long after they've been cut off from the Warp-Gate, they are still getting Auraxium for it!

As a new person to PS, I find that I am usually just frustrated by the resource mechanic even if I liked it in theory.

When I'm playing alone, I want to fly. That generally means pulling the same vehicle over and over again, which means using the same resource and potentially standing around waiting for a timer to finish depending on how committed I am to not having to do something else.

In theory, not allowing people to spam a given vehicle is a good limiting factor that requires some thought ahead of time and forces teamwork etc. Problem is, it doesn't succeed in doing anything but getting half a team to stand around doing nothing for five minutes waiting to play how they want to play.

When I envisioned an MMOFPS, I always figured the limiting factor to spamming stuff would be that you could only launch vehicles from certain facilities and not resources. That way you'd start making "airports" and "factories" incredibly strategic bases to cap/destroy/defend.

I'd like to seem them try tossing the resources and the timers in favor of that form of limitation. Take a power station, and you shut down the power to the nearby bases. Take a radar tower, and you can see all enemy movements in an area. Etc.
I think that would be the Lattice system from the Original Planetside, but I'm also rather new so don't quote me on that...

It would also help with variety of things to cap. It seems like there are three, maybe four, actual structures with minor differences in appearance and virtually zero differences in game play.
Yeah, the Cookie-cutter design is certainly getting old...
It doesn't help that all the Esamir Facilities are carbon-copies of their Indar Counterparts, with maybe one or two variations...

I mean, I can get the "Prefab" aesthetic from a Lore perspective (Everything is like that because they are using pre-programmed Nanite Construction templates), but you want me to believe that there aren't any NON-Template structures of human design on Auraxis?!?!

[CrankyTRex]

I think that would be the Lattice system from the Original Planetside, but I'm also rather new so don't quote me on that...


I didn't play it either, so I don't know for certain, but from what I've gathered the Lattice system was more akin to Unreal Tournament's node system wherein you have to take certain ones before you could move forward.

I was thinking a less restrictive thing, more that the different bases have very specific, important functions and are interconnected in some ways. If a tower was an airbase, and only an airbase, it would be different than capping say a tank factory or a barracks. We also have all these power plants/amp stations on this planet...but to what do they actually supply power? If you take one, it has no real bearing on the overall map. If taking one gave you control over the power to other facilities, it would be worth assaulting.

It also makes for more interesting game play decisions. For example, if you don't have the raw force to cap a whole area, you can go for the power plant and just turn it off. Maybe even give Sunderer's another cert to act as a mobile generator that can power some limited defenses if that happens.


Yeah, the Cookie-cutter design is certainly getting old...
It doesn't help that all the Esamir Facilities are carbon-copies of their Indar Counterparts, with maybe one or two variations...

I mean, I can get the "Prefab" aesthetic from a Lore perspective (Everything is like that because they are using pre-programmed Nanite Construction templates), but you want me to believe that there aren't any NON-Template structures of human design on Auraxis?!?!

Well, the question is, who did the pre-fabs? I would've expected that facilities that start in a given faction's original area of influence would be built/modified by them, and thus have a different look and feel just as the individual units do. It would certainly help it feel like progress has been made if you go from taking facilities that look like yours to facilities that look like the enemy's.

[Whiteagle]

I didn't play it either, so I don't know for certain, but from what I've gathered the Lattice system was more akin to Unreal Tournament's node system wherein you have to take certain ones before you could move forward.

I was thinking a less restrictive thing, more that the different bases have very specific, important functions and are interconnected in some ways. If a tower was an airbase, and only an airbase, it would be different than capping say a tank factory or a barracks. We also have all these power plants/amp stations on this planet...but to what do they actually supply power? If you take one, it has no real bearing on the overall map. If taking one gave you control over the power to other facilities, it would be worth assaulting.

It also makes for more interesting game play decisions. For example, if you don't have the raw force to cap a whole area, you can go for the power plant and just turn it off. Maybe even give Sunderer's another cert to act as a mobile generator that can power some limited defenses if that happens.
Again, the Original Planetside supposedly had that... currently watching this to find out.

Well, the question is, who did the pre-fabs? I would've expected that facilities that start in a given faction's original area of influence would be built/modified by them, and thus have a different look and feel just as the individual units do. It would certainly help it feel like progress has been made if you go from taking facilities that look like yours to facilities that look like the enemy's.
Nanite Systems (http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Nanite_Systems), but yeah, it is weird...
Then again I'm starting to question permanent footholds on Continents...

[Gonefshn]

How do you think it would affect everything if Auraxium was gained through another means and all the Main large facilities gave you a different Resource in a large quantity, making them matter greatly for earning field equipment.

[Whiteagle]

How do you think it would affect everything if Auraxium was gained through another means and all the Main large facilities gave you a different Resource in a large quantity, making them matter greatly for earning field equipment.
Well a little ways back I tried to suggest that each kind of Major Facility would produce Auraxium depending on how much of a certain Resource your Faction was bringing in, but I don't know how many "other" means there would be for gaining it...

That's sort of the problem, Auraxium is one of the Currencies with which Character Advancement is bought with, the other being Certification Points, which combined provide the only incentive to continue playing the game...

[Gonefshn]

I'd love for auraxium to be earned the way certs are currently. And for certs to be changed to a system that lets you earn them specifically for each vehicle, weapon, and class based on using that wep/class/vech.

[Ohaunlaim]

giving actual boosts to performance would be no better than the current system all it does is make the winners more powerful in a different way.

Also having Auraxium be the only resource would be terrible. Same issues as currently. If I want to drive tanks all day and enjoy my favorite playstyle I suffer at a loss of currency to purchase new items.

I seriously haven't had huge issues with the current resource system other than the cap being 750. If you could bank more resources your options would be so much greater.

Actual boosts as I listed would indeed be better than the current system. As it is now when zero-based you get a mere pittance of resources and eventually your empire simply runs out of resources to pull vehicles. On the other hand the enemy cant spend their resources fast enough. This is because winners get more, more, more while losers get less, less, less.

Minor boosts (ie a 5% hp boost) that are on/off don't have that same innate problem. An empire could have the entire map and would still only have their hp boosted by 5%. Yes, they would also have speed boosted, timers reduced, cost reduced, or whatever but each at a mere 5%. Those are not insurmountable advantages for the loosing side. Challenging, but not impossible.

Auraxium as the only resource is actually a great idea (skip to ** for the reasons why). Currently there is no thought given to resources until, suddenly, they are gone and you can't get your favorite vehicle.

Then you have to leave your current fight to go hack empty territories that provide the resource you need. But most people wont do that. Instead they just rage about the system and how it sucks, and quietly hope someone else captures territories for them.

Of course you have all those other resources that you never use. The ones that are constantly capped at 750 and useless to you and your play style.

** But if EVERY territory provided the resource you needed to play the way you wanted and there was no cap to that resource because you need to save it up to unlock gear, well, then you would end up usually only having to worry about timers. Really the only time you would have to worry about not having the resources for your vehicles would be immediately after making an expensive purchase for a new gun/camo pattern/etc.

But this would then make all the territories equally necessary, dull, and lacking in strategic value. Unless there was some other benefit to them... thus the proposed boost system.

[Whiteagle]

Or if Resource gathering was a means of Auraxium production in conjunction with Major Facilities...

[sylphaen]

When I'm playing alone, I want to fly. That generally means pulling the same vehicle over and over again, which means using the same resource and potentially standing around waiting for a timer to finish depending on how committed I am to not having to do something else.

In theory, not allowing people to spam a given vehicle is a good limiting factor that requires some thought ahead of time and forces teamwork etc. Problem is, it doesn't succeed in doing anything but getting half a team to stand around doing nothing for five minutes waiting to play how they want to play.

I feel the same. It's the frustrating aspect of the current iteration of the resource system.

When I envisioned an MMOFPS, I always figured the limiting factor to spamming stuff would be that you could only launch vehicles from certain facilities and not resources. That way you'd start making "airports" and "factories" incredibly strategic bases to cap/destroy/defend.

I'd like to seem them try tossing the resources and the timers in favor of that form of limitation. Take a power station, and you shut down the power to the nearby bases. Take a radar tower, and you can see all enemy movements in an area. Etc.

It would also help with variety of things to cap. It seems like there are three, maybe four, actual structures with minor differences in appearance and virtually zero differences in game play.

That's also how I feel PS2 could have better control over combat flow. The lattice was similar to such a system. Enemy Territory had such an objectives system. You mentionned Unreal Tournament having those (I haven't played it.).

Of course, all of this does not exclude a resource layer applied above the core gameplay if they work well together.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Totally agreeing here with CrankyTRex. Different facilities giving different "perks" would be awesome and would make the bases actually valuable, aside from the associated resources.
As of now, aside from the resources the only difference i noticed was that you can't spawn every vehicle/aircraft at every base (though i may have missed something).

[CrankyTRex]

Anybody know what the story is on having actual working doors? Because that would help some too. They don't have to be complicated, just a straight sliding up/down door would be sufficient.

[Toppopia]

Anybody know what the story is on having actual working doors? Because that would help some too. They don't have to be complicated, just a straight sliding up/down door would be sufficient.

I would love to sit in a room with 1-2 door entrances and everyone pointing at the door, all you can hear is lots of footsteps and some talking. Then you see a red glow start radiating from the door, looks like they are going to burn it open. (Or could maybe need an infiltrator to open the door and it slowly opens as the hacker hacks it, so 50% hack complete means the door is open halfway so people can shoot through it.)

That could add a whole new depth, maybe even being able to jam doors so they can only be blown open or something.

[Whiteagle]

Anybody know what the story is on having actual working doors? Because that would help some too. They don't have to be complicated, just a straight sliding up/down door would be sufficient.
If I had to guess, I would assume it would be to keep the netcode simple and streamlined...
They don't want to risk clegging it up with thousands of dynamic entities reacting to players presence...

It's just a guess though, I'm no computing expert to say the least... I've only got experience with how easy such things can be screwed up from Second Life...

[CrankyTRex]

I would love to sit in a room with 1-2 door entrances and everyone pointing at the door, all you can hear is lots of footsteps and some talking. Then you see a red glow start radiating from the door, looks like they are going to burn it open. (Or could maybe need an infiltrator to open the door and it slowly opens as the hacker hacks it, so 50% hack complete means the door is open halfway so people can shoot through it.)

That could add a whole new depth, maybe even being able to jam doors so they can only be blown open or something.

I agree. Doors lead to all manner of strategic possibilities inside and outside. Does anyone really think they'd put these capture terminals in an open room?

Plus for bases, it solves the problem of needing open entry ways to let vehicles in and out but not end up making it too easy to assault them. Make a big gate that the owning team controls. If it can be hacked, all the better, since then you'll need to get people inside to let your forces in.

If I had to guess, I would assume it would be to keep the netcode simple and streamlined...
They don't want to risk clegging it up with thousands of dynamic entities reacting to players presence...

It's just a guess though, I'm no computing expert to say the least... I've only got experience with how easy such things can be screwed up from Second Life...

I imagine that is probably the case, but it's frustrating to say the least. It seems like we're going downhill in that regard, considering even the original Doom had working doors. Surely if you can build a game that is as vast and full of stuff as PS2 is, you can figure out how to have some strategically placed functioning doors.

[Whiteagle]

I imagine that is probably the case, but it's frustrating to say the least. It seems like we're going downhill in that regard, considering even the original Doom had working doors. Surely if you can build a game that is as vast and full of stuff as PS2 is, you can figure out how to have some strategically placed functioning doors.
The original Doom didn't have a couple thousand players on a server though, did it?

I think the easiest way to do it would be to simply have "doors" as opaque textured shields (the kind that let Infantry pass through them but not bullets or Vehicles) and then have them play an animated "re-rezzing" textured (Like when you pass through a teleporter) when ever someone passes through them.

Explanation: Nanites are deconstructing and reconstructing those barriers as you pass through them!

...Still don't understand the lack of Windows though...

[CrankyTRex]

The original Doom didn't have a couple thousand players on a server though, did it?

I think the easiest way to do it would be to simply have "doors" as opaque textured shields (the kind that let Infantry pass through them but not bullets or Vehicles) and then have them play an animated "re-rezzing" textured (Like when you pass through a teleporter) when ever someone passes through them.

Explanation: Nanites are deconstructing and reconstructing those barriers as you pass through them!

...Still don't understand the lack of Windows though...

No, it didn't, but it didn't have vehicles or terminals or capture points or turrets either. We interact with that stuff as players just as much as we would with your average sliding door.

It just seems rather silly to not have them anywhere.

[Whiteagle]

No, it didn't, but it didn't have vehicles or terminals or capture points or turrets either. We interact with that stuff as players just as much as we would with your average sliding door.

It just seems rather silly to not have them anywhere.
Well there's also the fact that their Prefab, Forge-style base constructs have no where for the "door" to slide to...

But that just makes one further question why everything on Auraxis is constructed like it's some kind of paintball obstacle course...

...Are these suppose to be stand-ins for the final product?

[Toppopia]

Well there's also the fact that their Prefab, Forge-style base constructs have no where for the "door" to slide to...

But that just makes one further question why everything on Auraxis is constructed like it's some kind of paintball obstacle course...

...Are these suppose to be stand-ins for the final product?

Maybe the inhabitants played Paintball alot :lol:

But some buildings have door like shapes on the outside, which i keep running up to thinking they will open :doh: silly me