Yet Another Unorthodox Idea On Resources

[NewSith]

Okay, somebody on these forums once said that infantry resources are fine and awesome, it's the Vehicle and Air Resource that is the bane of the system.


Then I had a discussion with some other guy, and I told him that some anti-imbalance solutions for vehicles can be found in RL parallels. And then it struck me.


Vehicle Fuel. Costing Resources.

The bigger the vehicle is, the faster it eats away fuel. No need to complicate things by running engine eating fuel, just movement in a vehicle = fuel drain = resource drain upon refueling. If fuel is out vehicle just... stops.


Thoughts?

PS VS will have "energy" on their ES vehicles...


-----------------
This would be incredibly awesome, but hard to balance, I think.Not at all... The devs have the means to calculate the average vehicle lifespan of MBTs and Liberators and make that life span fuel cost equal to the purchase cost.

Then they will just need to give more fuel (less fuel consumption) to ATVs, ESFs and Lightnings, and less (more fuel consumption) to Sunderers and Galaxies.

P.S.
Funny, Sunderers and Galaxies in reality stand still much more often than the rest of the vehicles so this also balances itself out...


For successful implementation it also requires 3 things:

Intercontinental Vehicular Travel
Worldwide Resource Gain or better THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uganPzKvlIg) Idea
Vehicle Refitting. Since it will be twice as annoying with this kind of system to not be able to switch vehicle gear. You can refuel vehicle in the same window as refitting that way, btw.

[BlaxicanX]

This would be incredibly awesome, but hard to balance, I think.

[NewSith]

This would be incredibly awesome, but hard to balance, I think.

Not at all... The devs have the means to calculate the average vehicle lifespan of MBTs and Liberators and make that life span fuel cost equal to the purchase cost.

Then they will just need to give more fuel (less fuel consumption) to ATVs, ESFs and Lightnings, and less (more fuel consumption) to Sunderers and Galaxies.

P.S.
Funny, Sunderers and Galaxies in reality stand still much more often than the rest of the vehicles so this also balances itself out...

[thegreekboy]

I like both the idea in the video and the idea you presented, sith.

[Brusi]

Nice idea. I like the idea of dropping a Galaxy, full of fuel on the heads of the defenders at the crown too ;)

[NewSith]

As much as I LOVE positive feedback - can I see some negative, please?

[ShadetheDruid]

As much as I LOVE positive feedback - can I see some negative, please?

You smell funny.

:p

[NewSith]

You smell funny.

:p

More on the point, I mean :D

[Canaris]

for myself I think adding in fuel for vehicles is a bit unnecessary for a game as big as PS2

[Babyfark McGeez]

for myself I think adding in fuel for vehicles is a bit unnecessary for a game as big as PS2

Agreed. Dev resources are better spent elsewhere.

It's not a completely horrible idea, it just seems like a unnecessary complicated solution to the problems with resource mechanics. Increasing the base costs would achieve a similar effect without introducing a completely new mechanic.

Also it indirectly supports camping with vehicles (less fuel consumption), and players would sometimes have to get their calculator out to see if they can reach a certain area with the resources they have
("ok, i want to get to allatum but only have 100 resources left. I think i can get to dahaka with that, then i have to wait for five minutes untill i have enough resources to buy the fuel needed for the rest of the way" - doesn't sound like fun to me).

[Gatekeeper]

Agreed. Dev resources are better spent elsewhere.

It's not a completely horrible idea, it just seems like a unnecessary complicated solution to the problems with resource mechanics. Increasing the base costs would achieve a similar effect without introducing a completely new mechanic.

Also it indirectly supports camping with vehicles (less fuel consumption), and players would sometimes have to get their calculator out to see if they can reach a certain area with the resources they have
("ok, i want to get to allatum but only have 100 resources left. I think i can get to dahaka with that, then i have to wait for five minutes untill i have enough resources to buy the fuel needed for the rest of the way" - doesn't sound like fun to me).

I agree, it seems like it might actually discourage helpful vehicle behaviours (gal pilots and sundy drivers giving people lifts) and encourage bad behaviours (camping). And yeah, it does seem like it would make things pretty complicated.

How about making vehicle ammo cost resources instead? That rewards accuracy, penalises spamming and means people who are helping out with support vehicles pay less than front-line combatants.

[NewSith]

I agree, it seems like it might actually discourage helpful vehicle behaviours (gal pilots and sundy drivers giving people lifts) and encourage bad behaviours (camping). And yeah, it does seem like it would make things pretty complicated.

How about making vehicle ammo cost resources instead? That rewards accuracy, penalises spamming and means people who are helping out with support vehicles pay less than front-line combatants.

This is propblematic when you copare it to fuel, since by the end of the day 0-based faction will not be able to use vehicles at all. MBTs for instance, get their ammo stash emptied in less then 10 minutes during a dire fight...

Also, as for camping, you, gentlemen, are incorrect - it encourages staying immobile. That's different from camping, since you can camp freely even now, difference is - you don't waste fuel on dodging enemy shots with the latter.

[Itsatrap]

As I see it, there are two problems. The first is that I earn vehicle/aircraft resources faster than my cooldown timers allow me to actually pull them. The second is that I can always hop to a faction-controlled continent and play for 15 minutes to restock on resources (but this is boring).

I wonder what would happen if base defenses were the primary way to get resources?

[bpostal]

Fuel, I dunno. I like the idea, I will say that, but I would think changing the vehicle reloading to something more classic Planetside and then charging for the reload like an ammo/maint tax. For example:

-I pull a A2G Mosquito, fly to Mao and blow up an AMS and maybe a Vanguard. (because NC be creepin)

-Out of Hellfire's I fly back to the WG and land on a pad where a prompt pops up just like in Planetside. (I can't be arsed to find a picture of the interface but I know you know what I'm talking about) For each box of ammo I load up it costs X number of vehicle resources.

Ideally this would allow for a bit more customization for your load out, As well as meaning that we'd get our trunks back, so we can put shit in them. (but that may be outside the scope of what you're suggesting anyway)

[Chewy]

Fuel, I dunno. I like the idea, I will say that, but I would think changing the vehicle reloading to something more classic Planetside and then charging for the reload like an ammo/maint tax. For example:

-I pull a A2G Mosquito, fly to Mao and blow up an AMS and maybe a Vanguard. (because NC be creepin)

-Out of Hellfire's I fly back to the WG and land on a pad where a prompt pops up just like in Planetside. (I can't be arsed to find a picture of the interface but I know you know what I'm talking about) For each box of ammo I load up it costs X number of vehicle resources.

Ideally this would allow for a bit more customization for your load out, As well as meaning that we'd get our trunks back, so we can put shit in them. (but that may be outside the scope of what you're suggesting anyway)

How would ammo sundies work then? Have the driver pay a lump sum for a mass stock of ammo? Or maybe give its resupplies a limit, like any weapon, and then pay to refill it at a reduced cost?

[bpostal]

How would ammo sundies work then? Have the driver pay a lump sum for a mass stock of ammo? Or maybe give its resupplies a limit, like any weapon, and then pay to refill it at a reduced cost?

Hmm, hadn't thought of Ammo buses. I suppose make them work the same as the air pads/ammo towers would then. Same UI popup to reload ammo. I don't think charging extra resources to pull an ammo bus would be the answer but I could see having a resupply limit to stress the temporary nature of the resupply point. Perhaps make the supplies recharge over time instead of making the bus drive back to a base or tower.

If anyone were to ask about the XP gained from deploying ammo, you could write it off as a bonus for pulling, maintaining and positioning an Ammo Bus.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Nice idea. I like the idea of dropping a Galaxy, full of fuel on the heads of the defenders at the crown too ;)

Like a MOAB only with bacon bits.

I think handing out resources to everyone who is basically AFK every 5 minutes is bad. Fighting for resources is good. If you're just on prox chat, singing songs in the warpgate you get 0 resources. If you're neck deep in the blood of vanquished enemies in an outpost that pays resources, you get global resource share (like we do now) +% bonus for that base, based on their income value. Outposts pay +2% or 5%, middle sized bases pay their +10% and the big proper bases pay +30%.

base defences pay +20% on top.

So defending a big base that pays green resources will get you a much larger boost to your green resources than attacking a red resource base. You still get green resources but just the "normal" amount.

[Rockit]

I wonder if the notion of having resources dynamically shift around regions is still on the table? That would certainly shake up some dynamic.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I think they're cheating by moving the warpgates. I also thought that the dynamic resources would be great, especially if their locations were partially non-random so that if there's a zone that hasn't had much action for a few (days? hours?) then a big fat node of auraxium would spawn there.