Is the recource system bad for the metagame? Solutions!

[Sturmhardt]

Okay, I just wanted to answer to the tank spam thread in this forum, when it came to me: The resource system based on owned territory is fucked up how it is. Originally it was supposed to motivate people to conquer territory or buy resource boosters, but I think none of it is acutally the case in reality.

It also has a very bad effect on the defending underdogs of a continent - they get less and less resources, which makes it impossible for them to take back territory and so everyone only joins the continent where they have the high pop. And that sucks. You need to have a chance to fight back.

So I say:
Scrap the resource gain based on owned territory

I mean totally. It is fucked up and creates more problems than it does good:


It's intended to motivate people to conquer territory, so they earn more resources, but it does not motivate anyone. I've never heard anyone say "Hey, let's capture that base, we need mor aircraft resources!". Never.Ever.
It supports the already winning faction which does not make sense
--> By supporting the winning faction, the other factions will eventually quit the continent and start their own zerg somewhere else.


My idea:
Just give out the same amount of resources to all factions at all time and divide it by the number of players (or a factor that is tied to the number of players)

That way the underdogs get an advantage (more resources to pull tanks and planes per person) and have an incentive to join a continent where they are underpopulated. This would be a step forward AGAINST the continent zerging where there is one faction owning it all just because they have the high pop.

They could still sell resource boosters for resources, nothing would change that.

Does that sound good? Or bad? Any issues I did not see? Any ideas? Discuss!

[bpostal]

I can see the benefits: Discouraging overpopped conts and adds some favor towards the faction being warpgated.
There must be cons but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is what happens to the people who want to play TR (or VS or NC) but the server is overfull of them at the moment? Should we (the given, overpopped faction) really be punished for logging in (by way of everyone having less resources) with my outfit if the server is 40% TR?
I agree with this being a possible solution and can live with everyone on my side having less resources if they've more players...it's logical to me, but I can see this leaving a bad taste in players mouths.

Also, what do we do with the players who don't have (but for some reason need) a purpose for turning the entire map Red? Again, those who have not played Planetside before will be expecting some kind of 'super awesome mega win' condition upon zero basing an/both empire(s). Upon such an occasion, I'd personally take a picture but I can see those who would, again, be disappointed and not realize that they've 'won' if only for a while.

[igster]

Why do we need to reinvent stuff? Do NC and TR want to drive magriders? Don't the VS want to try Vanugards and Prowlers?

Seriously - the new players as well as the old players would love this win condition.

What was so wrong with the old meta game? Who gives a shit about 10% infantry resource cost? Give me the chance to fly a reaver any day.

Resources in the current form are numbers. Starcraft is for accountants.
You guys want to give people plasma in the face or vanguard shells up the arse!

PS. Magriders in Red and Black would suck - they always did.. and always gave me the incentive to kill them as a priority!! *8) You know all you TR want them...

[Ghoest9]

If you want to help underdogs give them more xp/certs.

Nothing else matters really matters.

[igster]

Completely agree with the xp/certs

Meaningful xp multiplier for the people defending against large zergs/overwhelming populations.

Also less XP for newly spawned players. Conversely give someone who kills a player who has been alive for a long time an increasing amount of xp. Kill someone who has killed a lot of ppl a bumper xp windfall.

Always used to love killing a known scumbag who had been alive for a long time and getting a whisper 'how much xp was i worth?' Used to be good for the killer and the killed... like an ego boost for both sides.

[bpostal]

Why do we need to reinvent stuff? Do NC and TR want to drive magriders? Don't the VS want to try Vanugards and Prowlers?

Seriously - the new players as well as the old players would love this win condition.

What was so wrong with the old meta game? Who gives a shit about 10% infantry resource cost? Give me the chance to fly a reaver any day.

Resources in the current form are numbers. Starcraft is for accountants.
You guys want to give people plasma in the face or vanguard shells up the arse!

PS. Magriders in Red and Black would suck - they always did.. and always gave me the incentive to kill them as a priority!! *8) You know all you TR want them...

It seems to me, that the devs who created PS2 wanted it to be as remotely distanced from Planetside as possible so as to open the game up to everyone. This results in working parts of the game being discarded to the detriment of PS2. It's a damn shame I know, but if they don't want to go back to what worked then it behooves us to think up something else that works in the hopes it gets seen and helps influence the game in a better direction.
With that said, Yes! Give me Maggies and Vannies! I never was a fan of Blue (or Purple) Prowlers, but nothing is sexier than a Black and Red Vanguard.
Not to mention I can snipe with a Magrider. :D

[DirkSmacker]

If they are going through with their dream of a sandbox economy, the current resource system seems to be just a placeholder. Then again, it all depends on what products players would be able to make. If its just stuff like ammo, the current resource system could remain.

As for the solution in the OP, it deters lots of people working together to win.

[Sturmhardt]

Also, what do we do with the players who don't have (but for some reason need) a purpose for turning the entire map Red?

That's a whole other question and I would say it's nearly off topic because the resource system does not motivate anyone to take territory. They are just not important enough since you can pull the vehicle of your choice anyway if you don't fuck it up all the time. The problem of motivation is not addressed right now so we should not think about it when we talk about the resource system - I have never seen anyone being motivated by resources to conquer anything.


As for the solution in the OP, it deters lots of people working together to win.

In what way? People don't take territory for res anyway, they take res for base benefits, but even that incentive is not very strong.

[ShadetheDruid]

Personally what I would do is focus the resources more, so rather than having every territory give resources, not all of them do - and those that do would give a bunch, so it creates a noticeable difference if it gets taken away.

This would also give focus to an underdog faction pushed all the way back to their warpgate (as well as strategic purpose to resource "hubs" in general, taking areas to get resources or deny them to the enemy etc), where they could specifically target a base to get the resources to start pulling armour (for example).

The smaller outposts/bases that then don't have any resources/other bonuses, I would give unique and interesting (and useful) bonuses to so they actually have a use.

[RykerStruvian]

Why do we need to reinvent stuff? Do NC and TR want to drive magriders? Don't the VS want to try Vanugards and Prowlers?

Seriously - the new players as well as the old players would love this win condition.

What was so wrong with the old meta game? Who gives a shit about 10% infantry resource cost? Give me the chance to fly a reaver any day.

Resources in the current form are numbers. Starcraft is for accountants.
You guys want to give people plasma in the face or vanguard shells up the arse!

PS. Magriders in Red and Black would suck - they always did.. and always gave me the incentive to kill them as a priority!! *8) You know all you TR want them...
THIS! The resource system doesn't make sense and works as a poorly implemented carrot on a stick. The real carrot has always been about dominating the enemy and eventually being able to drive their stuff. Toss out the resource system. It doesn't serve a purpose because we have vehicle timers already.

Capturing territory serves one purpose: making base captures easier. Base captures serve one purpose: to give incentives to the faction that owns it. Why try to over complicate something so simple? Tech plants grant advanced vehicles and weapons, biolabs decrease spawn timers, interlink facilities give enhanced radar.

Seriously, the system worked fine for its purpose. Instead of reinventing it, it should have been improved. For instance, new facilities that give new benefits, like access to artillery weapons, orbital strikes, etc. In that situation, perhaps resources could then be tossed in to the mix like NTU silos, where outlaying facilities granted NTUs to power a base.

[bjorntju1]

In my around 35-40 hours of playtime, I only got low on resources once or twice. The system as it is in place doesn't really work. If you spawn a tank, by the time you get killed you already earned your resources back.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

How about this one? Increase the resource cap to about 2000, then award MORE resources for actually capturing territory but get rid of the regular injections EDIT: and vehicle timers.

{Hardcore servers: EVERYTHING costs resources except the very basic, tier one infantry gear. Need an underslung grenade launcher? 50 RU plz. Want grenades too? 25 each thanks. Grade 5 med gun? 50xp, ta. Can't afford 50 yellow RUs? Oh well, take a level 1 med gun.}

A big base should be worth more resources for everyone involved in the cap divided by the length of time they were involved in the battle. Similar to the PS1 system. Join the cap 5 seconds before the win and you only get 5 resources. Been there since the start, killing thousands of enemies, get a hundred thousand resources. Smaller resource multipliers/ratio for smaller bases.

With no regular injections, it would encourage people to actually capture territory. If you stagnate, your resources dry up.

The counter to this is to territory swap, but that involved co-operation between factions. Harder to do with the zerg being mindless.

Also, what's wrong with looking at PS1? Having black and red vanguards would be cool.

[NewSith]

Talking about metagame and suggesting encouraging pop balance? You, sir don't understand what the metagame is.


Also, the resource system is PERFECT addition to the game. The only problem is - devs are too lazy to change the income rates for global resource gain each time there is a new continent out (they said it themselves on these very forums), so they just made it continent-wide, which is the primary cause for resource and pop imbalances.

[bpostal]

...You...don't understand what the metagame is...

Care to elaborate then? What's the metagame in your own words?

In my own words (in a nutshell either way) it's the 'why' we fight, and to some extent the 'how'. The overarching reason and the interaction of systems in the game, not to mention the interaction of those systems and the playerbase.

Resources, in their current configuration are NOT working. Making them global instead of continental would make the playbase (not all, but enough to matter) shift. Instead of going to another continent, they'd go to another faction and thus the problem would get worse instead of better.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Completely agree with the xp/certs

Meaningful xp multiplier for the people defending against large zergs/overwhelming populations.

Also less XP for newly spawned players. Conversely give someone who kills a player who has been alive for a long time an increasing amount of xp. Kill someone who has killed a lot of ppl a bumper xp windfall.

Always used to love killing a known scumbag who had been alive for a long time and getting a whisper 'how much xp was i worth?' Used to be good for the killer and the killed... like an ego boost for both sides.

Exactly!

Also, have a big orange flashing "Defense bonus +[xx]xp" come up every time you do something "defendy" instead of having it basically invisible.

[Hamma]

I like this idea as well. Some great idea threads on the forum today.

[NewSith]

Care to elaborate then? What's the metagame in your own words?

In my own words (in a nutshell either way) it's the 'why' we fight, and to some extent the 'how'.

I will ignore the last part, because it is a matter of personal opinion, but as for metagame it's different.


Header:
If metagame is, as you said - why we fight, then doesn't 33%x3 remove any reason to fight? It creates stalemates that were the primary cause the devs went haywire on all defensible designs.
Metagame has nothing to do with population balances and it is ALL about HOW we fight, not why. Except for maybe it ensures that both and underdog and an "overdog" are getting something out of what they are doing.


Example:
Example - we have X base on a Y continent. Zerg of Empire A is molesting handful of Empire B. Empire B is blessed with a group of people moving to continent Z, and pulling part of the A zerg to that continent giving some time or even a chance to retaliate to Empire B.

Answer to your post:
TL;DR Genholds, backhacks, NTU drains, maxcrashes, cavern module deliveries and cave fights, empire-wide raids, THIS IS WHAT METAGAME IS (or was, in PlanetSide 1).


Absent metagame in PS2 is represented perfectly by the fact that there is nothing to do except to kill and capture points, that then leads to hex captures. If you prefer to view these (which are part of THE metagame) as "why" we fight, on contra to "how" we fight, as in choosing what we're doing, then yes the metagame is about "why" we fight.


Elaboration on the last paragraph:
Elaboration - you can't make kills AND take points. It's one of two. I mean, if you decide to go for point capture, then all the kills you make are part of the point capture progress. If you choose to zerg, you don't really care about the points you take, just the kills, however captured bases come along as the zerg moves forward.






TL;DR for very lazy asses:
"Metagame" is the game of "choice", not the game of "reason". Why do you think PS1 inventory system was called Inventory metagame?

[bpostal]

I will ignore the last part, because it is a matter of personal opinion, but as for metagame it's different.


Header:
If metagame is, as you said - why we fight, then doesn't 33%x3 remove any reason to fight? It creates stalemates that were the primary cause the devs went haywire on all defensible designs.
Metagame has nothing to do with population balances and it is ALL about HOW we fight, not why. Except for maybe it ensures that both and underdog and an "overdog" are getting something out of what they are doing.


Example:
Example - we have X base on a Y continent. Zerg of Empire A is molesting handful of Empire B. Empire B is blessed with a group of people moving to continent Z, and pulling part of the A zerg to that continent giving some time or even a chance to retaliate to Empire B.

Answer to your post:
TL;DR Genholds, backhacks, NTU drains, maxcrashes, cavern module deliveries and cave fights, empire-wide raids, THIS IS WHAT METAGAME IS (or was, in PlanetSide 1).


Absent metagame in PS2 is represented perfectly by the fact that there is nothing to do except to kill and capture points, that then leads to hex captures. If you prefer to view these (which are part of THE metagame) as "why" we fight, on contra to "how" we fight, as in choosing what we're doing, then yes the metagame is about "why" we fight.


Elaboration on the last paragraph:
Elaboration - you can't make kills AND take points. It's one of two. I mean, if you decide to go for point capture, then all the kills you make are part of the point capture progress. If you choose to zerg, you don't really care about the points you take, just the kills, however captured bases come along as the zerg moves forward.

Hmm, excellent points. Well played.

I don't see 33%x3 (on either the continental or server level) as being an issue from a stalemate point of view, because applying metagame concepts like you've listed comes down to the strategic deployment of troops from Empire A and B and their effectiveness.

Going back to resources, the whole cause of this thread then. Since you're of the opinion that a global resource ticket, instead of the continental design currently available will bring such strategy's into play, the purpose of the metagame then would be denying specific resources to an empire on a global scale? Keep resources tied to a geographical area instead of population in the hopes that players will then care more about the territory regardless of the pop?
I'm just trying to get a sense of where resources tie in as the current implementation seems lackluster and off the mark.

[Figment]

Pretty much what Newsith said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

[Sturmhardt]

@Newsith:
Metagame is everything that is more or "bigger" than the "microgame" which happens between my gun and the opponent. If I want territory or defend it, that is what the metagame is. The way resources are earned and populations on a continent influence where people attack what in which way - which is the metagame in my eyes. But let's not get lost in semantics here.

I totally agree that right now there is pretty much no metagame with this stupid 3on3 stalemate, and all the points you mentioned, but the current resource system that rewards the steamrolling zerg does not help, it makes it worse. My idea of a resource income unattached to territory would enable smaller pops to defend against the big zerg better.

[NewSith]

Going back to resources, the whole cause of this thread then. Since you're of the opinion that a global resource ticket, instead of the continental design currently available will bring such strategy's into play, the purpose of the metagame then would be denying specific resources to an empire on a global scale? Keep resources tied to a geographical area instead of population in the hopes that players will then care more about the territory regardless of the pop?
I'm just trying to get a sense of where resources tie in as the current implementation seems lackluster and off the mark.

I'll respond to this quickly:

The number of people going for another empire once low on resources will be way smaller, then the amount of people using the travel terminal and hitting the "warp" button we have atm.
It's more of a response to your previous post, since the concern is totally valid, because it is really the only concern against global resources in Global Res vs Continental Res argument.

As for your questions - perhaps. The problem with innovative mechanic is that you rarely know how it'll play out, you can only theorize the outcome. In Company of Heroes, however (a game with almost identical resource system, except for it is an RTS), denying resources in multiplayer is one of key strategies.

[NewSith]

@Newsith:
Metagame is everything that is more or "bigger" than the "microgame" which happens between my gun and the opponent. If I want territory or defend it, that is what the metagame is. And that is highly influenced by the way resources are gained. But let's not get lost in semantics here.

I totally agree that right now there is pretty much no metagame with this stupid 3on3 stalemate, and all the points you mentioned, but the current resource system that rewards the steamrolling zerg does not help, it makes it worse. My idea of a resource income unattached to territory would enable smaller pops to defend against the big zerg better.

There's just a problem of current landscape and facility designs that doesn't allow proper defense.

If you ask me - the only part of Indar worth fighting for is the SE (lower right, NC) corner, because terrain offers options, on contra to say, Esamir plain fields of white.

And unless it is adressed no pop, smaller or equal to attacker's will be able to defend properly, hence your solution can be viewed as valid only after the current problem is addressed.

[Mox]

The solution is to get rid of the resource system as it is today. The system just offers the wrong incentives (joining the continent your faction is winning).

If we want to keep a resource system (i am not sure if we should keep it at all!) there are two points to improve it.

1) the resource gain should be global not per continent. This would help regarding the issue of people leave the conts if they are losing. Furthermore it would add a further benefit for locking conts in the future meta game.

2) there should be a resource boost for the resource which is offered by the specific hex you are defending atm. For example if you are staying on a hex that offers +2 air resource you get the global income (see 1) of air resource multiplied by 2 during your stay. That would add an incentive for staying in a certain hex and therefore maybe slow down the molewacking and fostering hex defending behavior.

[Crator]

Although I dislike resources in the first place, I kind of like the OP's suggestion. Sounds like it would also balance empire populations to a degree.

[Miffy]

You gain resources so fast it doesn't have an impact on the game, just a pointless addition. The spawn timers that ruin the fun for me, sometimes you can spawn and die straight away for a vehicle flying into you or something and then it's like a 10 min wait for another one.

There are only two good vehicles in the game, MBTs and ESFs, the rest suck, though there isn't that many.