Resource System Proposal: Feedback Requested

[Sirisian]

Before I post this anywhere else it would be nice to get PSU's feedback about my proposed resource system. (It includes a redesigned territory system also since it's a large part of the resource system). I've had a few people read it already and give me their stream of thought criticism as they read it. I think I've edited and removed parts to make it generally agreeable, but I need more players to judge its merits. Before commenting I'd ask that you read it in full as some of the components are spread out in the proposal.


Territory and Resource Redesign Proposal (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Territory_and_Resources) (Updated July 14th)

(I'd paste it here, but the formatting would take a while and I only want to update it in one place without multiple separated posts).

I have my own list of issues with it that I'm still trying to solve, but I don't want to direct the conversation so I won't list them yet. (If you think I need an image for something also say that. I tried to make a few to illustrate the basic ideas. I'm not an artist so keep that in mind).

Thanks for anyone that takes the time to read it all. :)

[GeoGnome]

Will read and repost opinion here. (Post reserved)

[Wahooo]

Wow,

impressive work, and I like almost all of it. (which is saying a lot because I personally don't know if i've agreed with anything you've ever posted before).

I like the larger continent size and agree 100% with the reasoning.
I could never quite figure out what the issue was with the current and several iterations of resource gain/territory control that have gone on in this game. I had always thought it was too idealistic. Tying territories to reduced cost vs nerfed gain is a great way to solve this issue of territory either being meaningless or overly gimping the faction that is on the losing end.

I'm not 100% on the dropping from space thing for the modules. We are talking about Nanites from the planet to maybe a way to pull them from the ground, rather than from mystery space?

I love the huge customizable loadout ideas. I do wonder some about how this affects people who die a lot, or die at a sunder right after spawning... repeatedly.

[Malorn]

Wow that's a ton of stuff! And I thought I wrote a lot! :)

Some of the core ideas are similar to my general thinking, such as a single resource currency, no-babysitting, engaging/conflict-promoting resource gathering, localized resource impact, and a steer away from territory ownership determining resource income.

[Rahabib]

a lot of the points are very valid, but the nanite costs per spawn etc. are very much like Dust514 and it has its problems as well.

For one, if your team is pinned, its hard to get resources without farming, and it can be very frustrating, and boring on its own.

Also a lot of the changes you propose, simply wont happen like doubling the size of the continents. Then again, I said a lattice wouldn't happen either, but I am fairly confident this time that doubling the continent size wont happen :).

Next, it shouldn't take a PhD to figure out how much you are getting. I know it may not seem as complicated to you, but I had to read many sections twice and still there are some points I am not sure why they needed to exist in the first place.

That said, its very interesting and worth some discussion. Its not perfect, but it has some good points.

[bpostal]

I'm reading through it now and jotting down some notes as I go.
These thoughts are not on what you're put forward, but on my reading and understanding of these ideas. If I'm dead wrong on a given point, let me know. I promise not to rage (too much).

The idea of spreading out the objectives. This is mostly an issue on Indar, Amerish and Esamir aren't as crowded.
Areas should be created to allow for a natural ebb and flow of battle between areas. Combat should be encouraged between objectives so that the fights can occur organically throughout the entirety of the continent.

The loyalty system is interesting, but IMO players should always be 'rewarded' with at least some resources. No matter their current loyalty level.
As a personal anecdote, when I PL I may be sitting in the middle of the fight, looking at my map for a minute or two. Does this mean that I'm not contributing to the overall fight? Should I have to place a way point every 15 seconds to ensure I get my tick? What if I go to shoot a MAX and someone runs in front of me as I pull the trigger? No resources because my factionmate is a figwitted idiot? That doesn't sound rewarding. If I was having a bad day then it might be enough to send me into full on 'fucktard' mode and TK/spawn camp that greenie player for all of the next 5 minutes of my play session because they ruined my experience (Experience experience, not XP experience). A BR 1 destroys my lib by crashing into by by accident? Fuck him and his family for wasting my resources! /ragequit (but plenty of verbal abuse in the form of harassment /t before I go so he knows that he done fucked up). Also, there is a stock MAX loadout. For the Tr it's a Pounder and a DC. Sure it costs resources currently, but so do MBTs and Galaxies and you're talking about letting people pull those stock without penalty.

Having just one single resource would help players utilize their individual play style to the utmost. Allowing stock vehicles to be pulled without a real resource drain would be nice for those players who favor vehicle combat. At least they're able to pull something instead of the current nothing.
The only exception I can see to that would be AMSes. Spawn points are simply too important in this game (moreso if inter-objective combat is to be encouraged, where every spawn point is player driven) to be held back by resources.
As for having certification upgrades cost resources to pull, I'm not so sure about that change. Tiering the upgrades could help, but with TTK being what it is, and combat being as chaotic as it is (PS2 infantry combat in particular is the NASCAR of FPS. You win as long as you keep going in 'circles') denying resources goes against the certification process and, I think, would lead to resentment (I certed into this, why can't I use it) instead of pondering the tactical implications.

Whether they choose to pull an upgraded rifle or an upgraded tank it creates a deep sense of meaning for resources and unlocked certs.
This is the crux of what I'm trying to get at. It wouldn't create a deep sense of meaning for unlocked certs. Certs are something that the player has earned. When players no longer have access to something they've earned, they're being punished, not rewarded. From what I'm reading, this system would go against your intended philosophy. Unless I'm reading it wrong, a definite possibility.

Players should never have to resort to only a knife (or absolutely nothing in the case of vehicles) just because there's no engineers and the player is out of resources. Ammo should always be free. 15 seconds is enough to die half a dozen times for an Infantry player, what if the players loyalty level is zero? No ammo for 30 seconds? Longer? Should a player have to redeploy back to the warpgate just to grab ammo? Perhaps returning some of the nanites when reloading from a dropped ammo resupply point?

Min-maxing would mean getting the best weapon for a situation and upgrading it with resources so that it functions as well as it can for that purpose This only works if the player knows exactly the kind of situation that is going to occur next. Players are not mind readers and should not be punished for adapting to a given situation (Oops, I grabbed a Battle Rifle but now we're going into close quarters combat. Guess that was a waste of resources). The gameplay is much too fluid and changes much too quickly for this to be implemented without causing a great deal of frustration.

The idea of sharing the resource cost between players is an interesting one, but I already get people trying to TK my AMSes and Galaxies simply because they're locked to squad/platoon and they can't get a ride. Even if preference is indicated for the owners I can still see a lot of angry people who can't gun or ride because they didn't pay. I can also see players spending upwards of 5 minutes arguing over what kind of vehicle customizations to bring, simply because they're both paying for it.

Adding countermeasures to the secondary players in a vehicle is quite an idea and sounds like it would help foster teamwork and communication. I'm all for that, especially in MBTs where the gunner is typically just icing on the cake.

Tying the resource efficiency to the gens sounds solid. Bases get weaker as control over parts of them are lost. This also hinders players from moving out prematurely when a base flips.

MODULES! Awesome! Keep in mind with these generators though that base layout/design favors the attacking forces in almost every instance currently in the game. Base design would have to be fixed before the gens/mods go into place.
Upgrading bases with these resources sounds cool and adds some personalization to the base. Care should be taken to acknowledge that different players could want different upgrades. More than one upgrade should be able to be applied at a time. This stops players destroying friendly upgrades that are "wrong", leading to the waste of resources.

Dynamic resource spawning sounds cool. Instead of having them move slowly perhaps displaying their location on the minimap with a 'ping' would work better? Some of us get into the 5-10 FPS range when we get into those huge, equal popped fights you're talking about.

Players able to place towers? Seems ambitious. Will be used for trolling moreso than for tactical purposes, even with a voting system in place. That or towers will never work out because of conflicting resource placement. I love the idea of it though.
I'm still not a fan of artillery in any form. I've seen too much blind firing into facilities in Planetside. Having AA turrets shoot the shells down is an intriguing concept, I will give you that.

Changing the adjacency hack requirements from 100% to 50% could lead to more widespread fighting, to include some shallow (referring to depth, not complexity) behind the lines combat. Ideally this will give smaller, more tactically minded (tactical used in the actual sense of the word) players more objectives and more pull on the battlespace than the larger, strategically orientated outfits.

If tech plants are going to add 10% nanites to adjacent areas then there needs to be a minimum of three per continent with the current continent setup. When cont locking comes into play this idea will be more sound, in my opinion. Ensuring that materiel costs less when pulled from secured, rear echelon areas is a solid idea. I like that very, very much.

My post seems to have more 'negatives' than I was hoping for but let me assure you that the overall idea is, in my mind, sound. Effecting the purchasing power instead of the earning power is a good idea and vein of thought.
Thanks for putting so much thought into this!

[GeoGnome]

I used a similar loyalty system in my resource proposal.

The criticism I got (No I am not saying that it is something wrong with your system, just saying the response I got, so that you can be aware of it, and have some kind of counter available when and if it comes up) is that a loyalty system would mean punishing "Bad" players. People who were less good at FPS games would get a lower loyalty because they were shooting fewer people, so this system would be preferential to "Good" KDR high players.

Also in my first system, when I brought up infantry draining resources when spawning, the thing I was countered with was that you are going to run the chance of burning through base resources in little to no time with many people's respawn costing resources.

I love your statements up top about tunnels and 16x16 maps.

[adaroe]

It's simply too much. Turning things to nanites I agree with completely, but the loyalty system, increasing the map size, and the rest is just too much.

1. I admire the ambition but think of the man hours that would be involved in doubling the size of indar. Now quadrupling it?

2. what does this loyalty system accomplish? Unless I'm misunderstanding the more active you are for your empire the more nanites you earn, and the less active you are the less nanites you earn. Like an ant-idle measure, we already have those.

3. This ties into two. You made everything (practically down to the boxers my soldier wears) cost nanites. Yet again admirable and for the top performing players this works perfectly. What about the non-beastly players? They run out with their nice scope and nade launcher only to get ohked by a sniper. same thing with drawing an esf or tank. Yes it slows the stem of dumb people in tanks but at what cost?

4. Letting players build things is absolutely brilliant. That being said It's an application of the resources and not part of the resources them selves. ( it doesn't belong there) I love the potential but " there's a time and a place"

5. Man hours. A lot of what you're talking about would take months of designing-testing-feedback-redesigning-testing-and more feedback still.

6. All that stuff above having been said well done. some of the core ideas are really good you just need to redesign it. Cut things down to what is actually needed.

I hope I don't come off seeming to critical, I'm doing my best to be constructive yet realistic. Also I am up to debating any of these points calmly and logically.

[Sirisian]

If you're still reading, don't worry about my replies. I don't mind if people say the same thing more than once. I'm just collecting ideas and changes.


I'm not 100% on the dropping from space thing for the modules. We are talking about Nanites from the planet to maybe a way to pull them from the ground, rather than from mystery space?
Well it's up to the designers. I prefer having stuff crash from space aesthetically. Most of the buildings have jet engines on them already so it's believable. I'd go with a compromise. Due to Auraxis deconstructing objects, in my lore explanation, Nanite Systems would construct the building at high altitude using a rocket of nanites. So a rocket would launch from a Warpgate and into the air and detonate nanites which would quickly form the object as it fell. That is you place your order and NS delivers it via rockets.

I do wonder some about how this affects people who die a lot, or die at a sunder right after spawning... repeatedly.
I'm kind of leaning toward a PS1 system where players spawn in pajamas at least at Sunderers. (Especially for MAX suits). This means if they die they only gain a death.

Regarding Sunderers though. With a vertical upgrade model it makes it easier I think to propose things like shield modules for a Sunderer on top of their AMS capabilities. Allowing overlapping modules is nice in that regard. You equip say cloaking or a shield or 50 extra Nanites to help protect against C4 and give players time to equip their gear at the terminal.


For one, if your team is pinned, its hard to get resources without farming, and it can be very frustrating, and boring on its own.
This is one issue that's hard to solve even in the current system. If players are pinned and pushed back to their Warpgate they have an efficiency bonus like I said which makes it cheaper for them to pull things. If they're pinned at an objective and outmatched the same thing that happens now will happen. Once you're pushed back to the spawnroom you either make a last ditch effort or pull from another base to attack from the outside. I think you might be right though about not having any resources in certain circumstances. bpostal brought this up also so I'll cover it later, but I agree it's an issue.

If they're not completely pinned and can still pull vehicles I have some suggestions on my site for that like this (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Vehicles-Nanite_Systems_Pod_Launcher_New_) for getting players out of a base and destroying Sunderers.


Next, it shouldn't take a PhD to figure out how much you are getting.
It's in the image under loyalty. You see immediately how much you're getting and when you'll get your next amount. A big thing is making the UI work with the system.


The loyalty system is interesting, but IMO players should always be 'rewarded' with at least some resources. No matter their current loyalty level.
When defining the proportional resource gain for loyalty I was trying to figure out if someone should be rewarded for time played. That is going idle at the Warpgate or at a base being captured. Ideally players should have no downtime or feel they need to wait so rewarding them for it wouldn't be constructive. It leads to people going idle waiting for timers and for resources to tick up. If players want resources to upgrade all they'd have to do is heal or repair or do damage to the enemy in anyway. This keeps players generally active. That said, I completely agree with your assessment. How would you feel about a minimum cap of say 200 Nanites. If you drop below that number you would automatically get 1 Nanite a second. Trying to think of a system that wouldn't feel cheap, but would help players sitting at a warpgate trying to push out. Go idle for a minute and you're fully equipped to kill a Sunderer for instance assuming you have 0% loyalty. You'd also need minor changes to other mechanisms. Like over X Nanites to build a tower for Y Nanites. So over 500 Nanites to spend 200 Nanites to place a tower on the map kind of thing. Simple restrictions to help make things sane.

You mentioned it already though and I'll cover it now since it's one of the most controversial parts of what I proposed. Charging people to use the certs they've unlocked.
Certs are something that the player has earned. When players no longer have access to something they've earned, they're being punished, not rewarded.
You can look at it two ways. In the current system players are restricted with exclusive certs. This is most readily seen with suit modules. You can unlock all of them for a class, but you have a restriction on which you can use at any one time. Same for C4 and Mines for an Engineer. For a player that is a grunt and doesn't fly they'd have extra resources and could really specialize with the system I proposed. A light assault with both Flak Armor and Ammunition Belt for instance with 3 C4s and 2 Grenades. So players are already punished for getting exclusive certs. This system isn't necessarily a punishment as it's a way to specialize more and remove pointless exclusive restrictions while placing a more sensible limitation.

As a personal anecdote, when I PL I may be sitting in the middle of the fight, looking at my map for a minute or two. Does this mean that I'm not contributing to the overall fight?
Well are you? If you're out of combat for extended periods your loyalty will begin to tick down. In my example my numbers were that loyalty would drop 1% every 5 seconds. So if you were at 60% loyalty and did nothing for 5 minutes. Didn't resupply, heal, or shoot anything you'd drop to 0%. I mentioned just getting an assist might be 10% which alone takes 50 seconds to go away. It would require testing, but the goal is to keep people in the battle. However, you might be right again. This was brought up before that players going to the Warpgate to jump in a Galaxy would suddenly see their loyalty drop as they plan for a few minutes. How would you feel if you didn't lose loyalty at the Warpgate but didn't get resources while being there? (Other than up to your minimum cap).

On that though this could extend to not getting resources while dead also and having the loyalty lock. The issue there is some players might want their loyalty to drop to gain resources as they wait to pull an awesome loadout. Which brings me back to the idea that it might be preferable to have players not spawn with a loadout so they have more incentive to just spawn and then look at their loadout at a terminal. (Removing it from the main menu). That is the death or spawn screen would only be for spawning essentially and you'd sit at if only if you want to go grab some food and preserve your current loyalty percentage. Getting into a bit of a more complicated redesign though at that point which I've tried to avoid. More special rules makes it more confusing.

Also, there is a stock MAX loadout. For the Tr it's a Pounder and a DC. Sure it costs resources currently, but so do MBTs and Galaxies and you're talking about letting people pull those stock without penalty.
I think I see where the confusion is. "No resource system should cut off a player's ability to purchase certain vehicles." What I meant by that is things like losing the tech plant which block players on the map from pulling MBTs.

MAX units and vehicles would cost resources. Vehicles would have a stock cost like in my Liberator image. It's just that their stock weapons wouldn't cost anything extra over the base cost. The idea of "stock" items refers to certifications that designers determine would be free to use after certification.


This only works if the player knows exactly the kind of situation that is going to occur next. Players are not mind readers and should not be punished for adapting to a given situation (Oops, I grabbed a Battle Rifle but now we're going into close quarters combat. Guess that was a waste of resources). The gameplay is much too fluid and changes much too quickly for this to be implemented without causing a great deal of frustration.
It's not too much difference than the current design. "Oh no I pulled proxy mines and suddenly there's a Sunderer next to me. I wish I had C4." It has one huge advantage though where players are only charged for what they use. On that note because of how the resource system removes restrictions this also means they don't have to be mind readers. If someone is a specialized grunt then they can have multiple C4, Mines, and other deployables on hand if they have the resources. Sure they'd lose them if they die, but they can be ready for any situation if they choose to specialize that way.



Keep in mind with these generators though that base layout/design favors the attacking forces in almost every instance currently in the game. Base design would have to be fixed before the gens/mods go into place.
I mentioned having jump pads to them. It would be a different map. The idea being with larger maps that players would be coming from Sunderers and Galaxies mostly to attack. It would also be up to factions to build their defenses if they want to hold them. Could even have modules to increase the generator delay at a node you don't want to defend well.

This stops players destroying friendly upgrades that are "wrong", leading to the waste of resources.
They're not tangible and each are completely separate. You could have a base with 30 modules installed if it came to that. The only way to destroy them is to take the base. As I mentioned though unfunded modules would have their resources go back to the players so there's no risk defending a base by investing in modules during the last stand.


Players able to place towers? Seems ambitious.
That's added in because of complaints that there aren't enough resource sinks. That and people in other resource threads were talking about base building. I figured a nice compromise is crowd sourced defense. Also to waste that many resources to troll people you would really be hurting your own fun. Well multiple people would be investing a lot.


If tech plants are going to add 10% nanites to adjacent areas then there needs to be a minimum of three per continent with the current continent setup.
The 16x16 km maps assume a rework of bases. I mean you'd be looking at new generators and map designs around their placements. It's not a small change, but is designed as one that could slowly be implemented possibly.


3. This ties into two. You made everything (practically down to the boxers my soldier wears) cost nanites. Yet again admirable and for the top performing players this works perfectly. What about the non-beastly players? They run out with their nice scope and nade launcher only to get ohked by a sniper. same thing with drawing an esf or tank. Yes it slows the stem of dumb people in tanks but at what cost?
I'm thinking about this with the 200 minimum cap. It's important that the average loyalty will be balanced around the average player. So 80% loyalty should be the average. 90-100% would be the top players. I should include an explanation on that.


5. Man hours. A lot of what you're talking about would take months of designing-testing-feedback-redesigning-testing-and more feedback still.

Yeah, most of it has been on my site since last October or in random threads. It's how I initially envisioned PS2 releasing. Compared to the current system it is a huge list of changes, but I think it builds the framework for Planetside 2 to really evolve for the next few years. Especially map and cert wise. Currently their system for certs really limits them to release things that are sidegrades. It's noble, but a resource focused system where everything costs resources allows thousands of more certs to be created and lets player customize for situations. Ammo types are always my favorite example. Having a sniper round that drops a person's shield and blocks it from recharging for 20 seconds as an example. You can easily add a system like that a few years from now by charging players 4 Nanites per round. Suddenly you have players that are specialized snipers draining all their resources on special ammunition. Then you have the resource system built into base building. Tons of ideas there for outfits to customize a base how they want. Things like dropping down their own jump pads to better defend an area or placing tank traps to slow down enemy tanks.

Lot of awesome feedback. I'll be incorporating a lot of this, so thank you and keep it coming. Kind of wanted the devs not to read this yet since it's still just a WIP that might leave bad first impressions of the final goal.

[Dougnifico]

Wow. Ok, my opinion.

1. Size increase of continents is a win. More open ground with a feel closer to PS1 would be amazing. I support this 100%. Some roads can stay, but not everything should be connected. Another advantage is that by spacing out players, many would probably see an increase in performance. Increase in scale with an increase in performance? Yes. This should be an idea SOE considers heavily. Current continents can be updated at a later time and terrain can be inserted to "stretch" the maps.

2. United resource pool is what seems to be what everyone is going towards. I can get behind this. I haven't been the biggest advocate, but I am certainly not a detractor.

3. The loyalty system is a pretty good idea. It will require some balancing so that I can take a bio-break without any major penalty, but it will really encourage team play and support roles. I'm in.

4. One thing I will disagree with you on is your proposal for weapons upgrades. Vehicles are more understandable. I do not believe that weapon attachments should cost resources. Some people die quite a bit and would be forced to play with stock options. This would also make frequent infantry death inhibit a player's ability to pull vehicles and specialized gear. I do not support this.

5. Generator nodes and modules that players can collectively buy into to increase efficiency is a great idea. It will be difficult to balance this against the zerg, but its another this that encourages teamwork and a sense of community.

6. Random events would be a great idea, but at the current time I don't think that is a valid option simply because of the technical strain. Many computers are struggling to run the game as is. A couple years down the road with increase optimization and this will be a winning idea.

Overall a win. I only have the one detraction. Otherwise, this is amazing.

[Ragnafrak]

Holy crud, that was a good read. I really enjoy a lot of the ideas you've put forward!

I'm not sure how much fun it would be to have to constantly micromanage my resources for every different loadout change, but I like the idea of spending resources on spawn. I just wouldn't want to be 5 nanites short of being able to equip my usual gun.

[Shogun]

Territory and Resource Redesign Proposal (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Territory_and_Resources)



ok, i admit TL:DR
but i scrolled through and ended up at your analysis of TTK.
and i have to say, that´s a very detailed and exact analysis of the problem!

for me this is the biggest problem planetside 2 has.
the low ttk that takes away any tactical options once the enemy is near.
who shoots first wins. no matter what weapon you are using.

in small map arena games a low ttk is no problem because you are back to what you were doing before you died in seconds. but in a game where it takes a long time to get to the fight and where you have to wait for ressourcegain before you can pull your vehicle or max again, a fast death always sucks.

and 99% of my deaths feel like being one hit instagibbed.

i would say increase all hitpoints by at least 100-200%
then do another balance pass and you have enough range to balance the weapons properly and maybe the faction perks would finally work.

[Dougnifico]

^NO! As in NO we are not bringing this subject back up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEMimY0HyUk

This will take us to a very very dark place. Lets stick to resources... lol

[bpostal]

When defining the proportional resource gain for loyalty I was trying to figure out if someone should be rewarded for time played. That is going idle at the Warpgate or at a base being captured. Ideally players should have no downtime or feel they need to wait so rewarding them for it wouldn't be constructive. It leads to people going idle waiting for timers and for resources to tick up. If players want resources to upgrade all they'd have to do is heal or repair or do damage to the enemy in anyway. This keeps players generally active. That said, I completely agree with your assessment. How would you feel about a minimum cap of say 200 Nanites. If you drop below that number you would automatically get 1 Nanite a second. Trying to think of a system that wouldn't feel cheap, but would help players sitting at a warpgate trying to push out. Go idle for a minute and you're fully equipped to kill a Sunderer for instance assuming you have 0% loyalty. You'd also need minor changes to other mechanisms. Like over X Nanites to build a tower for Y Nanites. So over 500 Nanites to spend 200 Nanites to place a tower on the map kind of thing. Simple restrictions to help make things sane.

You mentioned it already though and I'll cover it now since it's one of the most controversial parts of what I proposed. Charging people to use the certs they've unlocked.
Adding a minimum nanite level would help so that players don't feel overly constrained. A delicate balance must be struck to ensure that this minimum level doesn't eradicate the purpose of the system entirely whilst still allowing for misfortune and the random act of idiocy. Dialing the cost back at the warpgate is a good compromise. Players shouldn't feel the need to always recall back to the warpgate in order to pull their gear but if they do then there is a cost associated with it, typically the time investment of recalling and then going all the way back to the fight.

You can look at it two ways. In the current system players are restricted with exclusive certs. This is most readily seen with suit modules. You can unlock all of them for a class, but you have a restriction on which you can use at any one time. Same for C4 and Mines for an Engineer. For a player that is a grunt and doesn't fly they'd have extra resources and could really specialize with the system I proposed. A light assault with both Flak Armor and Ammunition Belt for instance with 3 C4s and 2 Grenades. So players are already punished for getting exclusive certs. This system isn't necessarily a punishment as it's a way to specialize more and remove pointless exclusive restrictions while placing a more sensible limitation.
More specialization is always a plus but again, care must be taken so that the power balance between a BR 1 and a BR 100 isn't insurmountable. This may also require a look into the certification system as well to address pricing. As you've said, it's controversial to be sure.

Well are you? If you're out of combat for extended periods your loyalty will begin to tick down. In my example my numbers were that loyalty would drop 1% every 5 seconds. So if you were at 60% loyalty and did nothing for 5 minutes. Didn't resupply, heal, or shoot anything you'd drop to 0%. I mentioned just getting an assist might be 10% which alone takes 50 seconds to go away. It would require testing, but the goal is to keep people in the battle. However, you might be right again. This was brought up before that players going to the Warpgate to jump in a Galaxy would suddenly see their loyalty drop as they plan for a few minutes. How would you feel if you didn't lose loyalty at the Warpgate but didn't get resources while being there? (Other than up to your minimum cap).

On that though this could extend to not getting resources while dead also and having the loyalty lock. The issue there is some players might want their loyalty to drop to gain resources as they wait to pull an awesome loadout. Which brings me back to the idea that it might be preferable to have players not spawn with a loadout so they have more incentive to just spawn and then look at their loadout at a terminal. (Removing it from the main menu). That is the death or spawn screen would only be for spawning essentially and you'd sit at if only if you want to go grab some food and preserve your current loyalty percentage. Getting into a bit of a more complicated redesign though at that point which I've tried to avoid. More special rules makes it more confusing.
Having the loyalty drop at such a rate would still allow for PLs to focus on leading instead of having to engage in combat solely for the purpose of ensuring loyalty. Due to the pacing of combat in larger facilities there may still be an issue, say when the SCU goes down and there is no combat to be had but still several minutes on the cap. 'Locking' loyalty in when a player is at the warpgate is a good idea and would discourage camping. Personally I think a severely reduced resource gain instead of none would be preferable though.
If you remove the loadout options from the respawn screen, what would happen to those who squad deploy or drop on a beacon? Would they be stuck in PJs or their previous loadout?

I think I see where the confusion is. "No resource system should cut off a player's ability to purchase certain vehicles." What I meant by that is things like losing the tech plant which block players on the map from pulling MBTs.

MAX units and vehicles would cost resources. Vehicles would have a stock cost like in my Liberator image. It's just that their stock weapons wouldn't cost anything extra over the base cost. The idea of "stock" items refers to certifications that designers determine would be free to use after certification.
Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. As an aside, would you support an initial increased cost (perhaps not just for MAX suits?) at AMSes?

It's not too much difference than the current design. "Oh no I pulled proxy mines and suddenly there's a Sunderer next to me. I wish I had C4." It has one huge advantage though where players are only charged for what they use. On that note because of how the resource system removes restrictions this also means they don't have to be mind readers. If someone is a specialized grunt then they can have multiple C4, Mines, and other deployables on hand if they have the resources. Sure they'd lose them if they die, but they can be ready for any situation if they choose to specialize that way.
I suppose I can see that. It's a higher risk/reward and encourages specialization. I still wouldn't charge full cost for gear that gets switched out if that would fit in with your design philosophy.

They're not tangible and each are completely separate. You could have a base with 30 modules installed if it came to that. The only way to destroy them is to take the base. As I mentioned though unfunded modules would have their resources go back to the players so there's no risk defending a base by investing in modules during the last stand.
Alright. I was envisioning a Planetside style control console where a hacker could only put on one virus at a time. This is much more like the module system (hence the name I suppose). What about the addition of (yet) another gen, or tying the mods to a current gen (perhaps the SCU?) so that mods can be temporarily disabled? Especially since you refer to a redesign of the bases, which I assume to mean the addition of better flow and defensibility correct?

[Hamma]

Some very cool ideas!

[WhiteMagic]

It's quite an interesteing read and covers much more then just the resource system itself. First up I'd say that the majority of things you envison will never be implemented due to it either changing the game too drastically for the intended audience or requiring too much development time.

I like the basic premise of your proposed resource system, which is a single type of resource used for everything. The general idea of adding more sinks in order for resources to have an actual meaning is also good. Personlly, I never had a problem with resources to pull vehicles unless the continent I was on was close to being warpgated, thus adding some more meaning to it is certainly good.

As for the loyalty system to replace the fixed resource gain it certainly is something that could work but would also need to be properly balanced such that griefing is accounted for and that the losing side in a conflict doesn't get disadvantaged even more then they already are by losing.

Many of your points are linked to resources but not the resource system itself so I think a shorter version just detailing the resource system is necessary, showing that it can be made work with the game how it currently works, not with an entirely overhauled game as you propose.

Some of the things that I can't see happening are listed below:

Larger maps
It's taking SOE alreadly ages to build new continents, so I don't see them ever going back to the three existing ones and scaling them up. For new continents it certainly is a possibility but with the amount of detail they put into a single map having an area four times that of the existing maps it's not very likely. Another option would to reduce the density of bases but that might end up resulting in much more zerg fighting.

New infantry equipment system
This sounds quite interesting but the change is too drastic and would change the entire system. You will also have people that spent certs / sc on weapons argue quite vocally against such a change. The main reason being that different weapons are advertised as a "different playstyle" and they paid either in time or cash for that and thus many would feel "cheated" by such a drastic change.

Besides the point above I think there are two rather significant problems with the proposed system. The first is how do you deal with the potential to instantly lose large amounts of resources due to rocket pods, team kills, getting run over by a tank etc. Secondly, how is such a system going to balance the fight between someone with stock equipment and somone that spent a large amount of resources on his loadout? The guy that spent the resources obviously expects to have an advantage but the guy with stock weapons expects to be on even footing with the other guy, as player skill is what wins fights is one of the games premises. This last point I think this is the largest issue with your system as it may bring the game more into the realm equipement > skill. Additionally, it could lead to the problem of, you need resources to make resources and thus the winning side gets an ever increasing advantage. This is where balancing could become very tricky. To be fair to some extent some weapons are already clearly superior in some situations but with few exceptions not in every sitation.


A few other random comments on some parts:

building structures, sounds good and hope we will get it in some form. However, great care has to be taken with designing it in a way that prevents griefing and abuse of it
harvesting mechanic, interesting and if done properly could create areas for small groups to fight that don't care for large battles
vehicle purchase changes, allowing groups to pitch in to buy a vehicle is good but many of the other things like vehicle upgrades and negotiation queue sound like too big a change to ever make it into the live game, similar to the infantry system revamp


Overall many of your changes would make the game more "hardcore" and require a more committed and informed player base then what planetside 2 seems to aim for. Though as I said in the beginning the main premise of your resource system, one type of resource for everything, is solid and should make it into the game.

[DviddLeff]

Looks great!

Really like all of it, only thing that I would be sad to see go is different resource types as it could provide differing strategic value for territories, however the current system is broken.

Really like making stock kit free and different stuff more expensive, as well as the concept of resource 'events' occurring in big battles. Also the building fortifications is a solid concept as well.

[Sirisian]

I've added some new explanations and mechanics based on the current feedback. The biggest changes are a minimum 200 resource cap. So players that drop below the cap would begin getting 1 Nanite/second. This should fix any issue where a player drops to only a few resources and feels like they aren't equipped to fight at the minimum.

I've also added some more numbers to help cover other perceptions. I've explained some of them below.

The Warpgate system pausing the loyalty was also added in a section so player that need to go idle can spawn back at the Warpgate for a break and preserve their loyalty value.

One other thing I changed was to explain that players would spawn in stock loadouts and use terminals to equip at every spawn similar to Planetside 1. This solves any issues related to spawning at Sunderers with complex loadouts and losing them instantly. You'd spawn and check out your surroundings then equip. To keep this uniform across the game it would be standard at every spawn.

Some people die quite a bit and would be forced to play with stock options. This would also make frequent infantry death inhibit a player's ability to pull vehicles and specialized gear. I do not support this.
I think this point is from a misunderstanding. I added a new section to help cover this. Essentially if you check the API you'll find that the average death per hour is 12.75. With a goal of 70% (rather than my previous 80%) average loyalty and with the new 200 minimum resource cap players would be at around 250 Nanites per spawn. Yes, if a player really sucks they might be at the lower end, but the idea is to give players a goal to strive for personally. The minimum cap should help to add a handicap.


I'm not sure how much fun it would be to have to constantly micromanage my resources for every different loadout change, but I like the idea of spending resources on spawn. I just wouldn't want to be 5 nanites short of being able to equip my usual gun.
Under this model the developers would be selling extra loadouts so having say 10 loadouts for dedicated players from a default 3. Players would be expected to have loadouts covering different nanite costs. A big part of this is because of the objective efficiency fluctuations. A very detailed loadout of 200 Nanites with an objective with a 30% efficiency drop would be 260 Nanites instead. This creates a huge complexity in the metagame, but it causes a resource denial mechanism.

One way to combat this is subtle changes to the UI. I tried to show some of them, but on top of this is temporary changes to a loadout. You explained being 5 nanites short on a loadout. The subtle difference in the UI is that you must save a loadout when you make changes. So you'd make changes then select the save loadout button. Now imagine you spawn in the middle of a large battle but don't need a scope temporarily or need a cheaper one you'd simply select the attachment. Rather than going to another menu you'd do everything within the loadout menu (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/planetside2loadout1.png). I think this is where the developers are going already. The idea being that any temporary change would be a at most 2 clicks to make and data can be easily seen when hovering over items. I've updated the images to reflect this.


More specialization is always a plus but again, care must be taken so that the power balance between a BR 1 and a BR 100 isn't insurmountable. This may also require a look into the certification system as well to address pricing. As you've said, it's controversial to be sure.
There would be a power difference for a BR1 and BR100 for this system. I actually like that. Player that just beginning would use their certs to specialize on one class with one weapon to begin with. As they get further they would have more loadouts with more weapons. They could also specialize in a single vehicle. The idea is nearly identical to the current system in that a BR100 has a lot more choices to spend their resources on.


If you remove the loadout options from the respawn screen, what would happen to those who squad deploy or drop on a beacon? Would they be stuck in PJs or their previous loadout?
I think squad deploying is going away. I don't like to go into this, but I've been against beacons from the beginning. I suggested implementing pod launchers (http://sirisian.com/planetside2/#Vehicles-Nanite_Systems_Pod_Launcher_New_) instead with no deploy Sunderer zones a few times. This goes hand in hand with the larger maps and building fronts for battles. Moving infantry rather than dropping them directly into the center of the base. I haven't shot down a drop pod in like 3 weeks probably because the mechanic is so flawed. I digress but the way this would work is you'd spawn at a Sunderer then equip then go to the pod launcher.


Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. As an aside, would you support an initial increased cost (perhaps not just for MAX suits?) at AMSes?
Like I said Sunderers are tied into the lattice system. If someone destroys a generator at your forward base the cost will go up at the Sunderer. There's no need to increase the cost.

A suggestion I have seen before was to spend extra resources to spawn faster at objectives and bases. This ties into the Planetside 1 spawn mechanism. Normally if you die frequently at a spawn your spawn time should go up at that location, but that currently doesn't happen. This forces players to spawn at a different location if they die frequently rather than trying to zerg at a location. This allows fights that are stagnating to slowly die down and come to a close as players are forced to wait for a long spawn time or go to a new spawn location. This works with Sunderers also since their spawn time would be tied to the objective they are connected to in the lattice. I've appended this to the end of the page since I think it would help a lot with the flow of the battles and generate another resource sink. (A big thing is it would create an incentive to not spawn and die at an objective).


What about the addition of (yet) another gen, or tying the mods to a current gen (perhaps the SCU?) so that mods can be temporarily disabled? Especially since you refer to a redesign of the bases, which I assume to mean the addition of better flow and defensibility correct?
Yeah one way to do this is to allow the server room to be disabled like a generator. I would do it a different way. So by disconnecting it from the base. I'll add that to the design with a console that players can initiate a restart. This would take 1 minute to begin and then the system would automatically restart after 2 minutes disabling modules for 2 minutes. So it wouldn't be permanent. There would be no XP gain for the action.

First up I'd say that the majority of things you envison will never be implemented due to it either changing the game too drastically for the intended audience or requiring too much development time.
The development time thing is a given. Everything takes development time. The intended audience though I'm not following. Customizing loadouts is already a core part of the game with the certs. It's not a stretch to add resources into the system. That is if someone can grasp that they're using certs to upgrade then the idea that the customization costs resources should be easy to grasp as long as it's intuitive.

Redoing the UI to make it intuitive is the goal.

Personlly, I never had a problem with resources to pull vehicles unless the continent I was on was close to being warpgated, thus adding some more meaning to it is certainly good.
This is more than just vehicles. It's about adding a meaningful resource system to every aspect of the game and game mechanics. The whole proposal is based on local denials so under this system you'd be able to create denials everywhere on the map, just not when you've taken most of the map.


It's taking SOE alreadly ages to build new continents, so I don't see them ever going back to the three existing ones and scaling them up.
That's why I suggested for them to begin investing in better technologies for map making. They knew they needed to make overhangs and complicated vertical landscapes with Forgelight yet underdeveloped the map system completely. It should have never happened and needs to be fixed as soon as possible. With it they can go forward making complex maps and go backwards later with the old continents. I agree with your assessment though that the changes required might be too large. Base building for that reason can be optional since I don't see what I described working in the small objective dense maps.

The first is how do you deal with the potential to instantly lose large amounts of resources due to rocket pods, team kills, getting run over by a tank etc.
You have to deal with it. It's just like it is now. You pull a Liberator and a friendly Galaxy clips your wing. You move on and lose some resources. Sure it's frustrating, but it's part of the game. I think this will make medics really valuable in that regard for grunts. If anyone can think of a system that would work that would be nice. I can't think of a way to determine who is at fault for an accident with grief or a way that can't be exploited if refunds are given when a player is team killed.

You did give me a cool idea though. Imagine if it showed the number of resources you destroyed when you killed a player or vehicle. That would be a fun statistic to see.

Secondly, how is such a system going to balance the fight between someone with stock equipment and somone that spent a large amount of resources on his loadout? [...] This last point I think this is the largest issue with your system as it may bring the game more into the realm equipement > skill. Additionally, it could lead to the problem of, you need resources to make resources and thus the winning side gets an ever increasing advantage. This is where balancing could become very tricky. To be fair to some extent some weapons are already clearly superior in some situations but with few exceptions not in every sitation.
I'd probably argue that equipment > skill already for many situations. Ever taken a pump shotgun to a BR1 or had a scope, compensator, and forward grip on a battle rifle versus the default? Huge difference. Incorporating the resource system won't change this. In fact depending on the certs used it could mean a BR100 can't use all the certs they had planned to during a spawn so they're actually more balanced versus a BR1 equipment wise. I think what you want is to remove the cert system, but that's not an option. Using the resource system as a compromise to place a constraint on cert choices I think is a good choice.

For BR1 players though they'd probably have a surplus of resources. They can purchase artillery for instance and fund fortifications or pull stock vehicles more often than people that heavily cert theirs and pull them less often. You are correct though that they would be at a disadvantage, but it's not anymore of a disadvantage than a stock Reaver vs a dog-fighting Reaver.

Trying to think of how to make the cert system less of an impact for BR1 players with only the initial certs. I might come back to this if possible.


building structures, sounds good and hope we will get it in some form. However, great care has to be taken with designing it in a way that prevents griefing and abuse of it

I specifically designed it to be very difficult to grief with. It would require whole outfits to misplace fortifications and fully fund them to mess with other players. Definitely possible, but with the fortification degradation they would also have to fund them for the upkeep or pay for a generator. I can't think of any other measures that would make this harder without being annoying. If you tried to misplace a structure in a really bad place it would probably just be destroyed by AP rounds or artillery. They're mostly defensive and accent the PVP combat rather than being standalone. If other people don't agree with that decision they probably wouldn't defend it or use it.


Really like all of it, only thing that I would be sad to see go is different resource types as it could provide differing strategic value for territories, however the current system is broken.
If you can think of a resource that would have a mechanic and be useful that would be cool. I have one idea which is a construction credit worth 100 Nanites. This would replace using resources to purchase fortifications. So you could save up a maximum 20 credits (2000 Nanites) to use at another time. Good for players that want to wait until outfit night. I've been reading a lot of other resource ideas. Haven't seen any multiple resource models yet that seem feasible, but I'm open to reading about them.


Thanks for the feedback. I think the goal right now with my proposed system is simplifying things to make them more intuitive. Also redesigning UI elements to make things appear simple is definitely a requirement to help with this. An example might be to turn off the funding mechanic by default on the map and let players turn it on by themselves when they're more familiar with the other systems in the game.

The last system I probably need to write in is refunding resources when changing classes or deconstructing vehicles near vehicle terms to get part or all of the resources back that were unused. Also if the engineer repair tool and medic tool should use ammo that must be purchased beyond some stock amounts. I'm leaning toward yes.

[Dougnifico]

I'm sorry but the point you have about weapon upgrades is likely an unwinable battle. Player earned certs or spent money on these items and making them more restricted than the current system causes player to lose equity. That would lead to an exodus of players.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130531/193353/The_Barrier_to_Big.php

[Sirisian]

I'm sorry but the point you have about weapon upgrades is likely an unwinable battle. Player earned certs or spent money on these items and making them more restricted than the current system causes player to lose equity. That would lead to an exodus of players.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130531/193353/The_Barrier_to_Big.php
Players don't seem bothered by these kind of changes. It's already happened when the MAX and vehicle costs were increased. It's an accepted part of the game that the gameplay will be changing when the resource system is changed. If your argument is that people would not accept any modification to the resource system that would restrict gameplay I'm going to have to disagree as there's no evidence for that. That is players purchased certs already for vehicles then had the base cost of vehicles increased and no one complained.

[DirtyBird]

They have just updated the Roadmap - Resources Revamp thread.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/358408290964750336

We've posted some updated details on the resource revamp coming soon on the Roadmap, what do you think?

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/september-resource-revamp.83018/page-15

Our primary goal for re-addressing the resource system is to make sure it does a better job making resources drive the combat taking place, make sure they have real strategic value, and generally have more meaning than they have currently.

This is a relatively complicated system - you know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. I've done my best to try and distill the essence of a 25 page design document down into something more easily digestible, so these are just the broad strokes of the plan we're currently mulling over.

Resources are reduced to a single currency and acquisition timers are removed.
Inventory for infantry items is removed - changed to pay on use
Individual Bases/Facilities supply Resources for local players
Bases/Facilities have a power level that is drained by providing resources to local players
There is a passive power regen to offset the cost of small skirmishes and to restore full power when no combat is taking place.
Full powered bases provide more resources than low powered ones
The more players being given resources, the faster the power drain

Addition of Auraxium Crystals/Mines as a power source
These are resource nodes added in between facilities
Vehicles fitted with appropriate equipment can load up auraxium at these nodes
This auraxium can be transported to a base to manually refill it’s power reserves

When a base is totally out of power, no resources are provided to the friendly troops in the area. This allows the attacker cut off entrenched defenders from using resources if they can keep supply vehicles from breaking their blockade
There's still a lot of other little nuances and details but I think that gives a decent overall picture. It's a pretty significant departure from the current system - do you think this plan would make resources a more interesting component of the game? Does it go too far? Let us know.

[kubacheski]

So does that mean we're essentially going to NTU Silos and ANT Runs? Yet another PS2 clusterfuck that is solved by a PS1 design? This is quickly becoming laughable.

[Sirisian]

Just saw this linked in the IRC channel also. Their plan is one of the more flawed strategies. That is a supply line system ruled by the lowest denominator of players. It will be interesting to see their solutions to the issues.

Resources are reduced to a single currency and acquisition timers are removed.
Malorn hinted at this before. Seems to be the general plan in most resource systems.

Inventory for infantry items is removed - changed to pay on use
Not sure what this means. Do they mean players with 3 proxy mines will be charged when they lay them down or when they spawn with them? Seems odd in the former case as it would say you have say 3 if you only have resources to place 2.
Bases/Facilities have a power level that is drained by providing resources to local players
So the zerg will drain the base and skilled players will hate them. Where's the player's responsibility in this model? This has been discussed to death during the metagame Reddit threads with tons of issues.

[kubacheski]

....

Not sure what this means. Do they mean players with 3 proxy mines will be charged when they lay them down or when they spawn with them? Seems odd in the former case as it would say you have say 3 if you only have resources to place 2.

So the zerg will drain the base and skilled players will hate them. Where's the player's responsibility in this model? This has been discussed to death during the metagame Reddit threads with tons of issues.

I would imagine that mines slots will be "reserved" with resources it costs. Meaning you will only be able to use the grenades you have resources for, you will no longer be able to store up to max and still have resources to buy more.

And yea, the zerg will drain it fast, but the player's responsibility is to resupply (like ANT runs in PS1). Some people made it their life's work to resupply NTUs. If the EXP is good enough, then this will be the same in PS2.

yea it has tons of issues, but is much simpler to implement than your more complex, but far superior ideas. Good read by the way. I haven't made it through all of it, but I'm enjoying it so far.

[DirtyBird]

I liked the current method of banking your resources for infantry use and cant say that like the idea of this new proposal.

Does it mean I have unlimited access to infantry resource items until the reserve is drained.
Could a group/zerg stand there lobbing nades at nothing chewing up resources and manipulate the power levels.

Does the power level affect the capture of the base/facility, as in its the new capture method or it works in conjunction with current capture/SCU timers.

If the new bases we see on the likes of Esamir are completely walled in with extrememy limited vehicle access (if any), how do we get the auraxium supply vehicles into the base.
I dont think Esamir was redesigned with this change in mind and thats taken months to get where it is.

How the resource bonus will work on the Boosts/Membership.

[kubacheski]

I liked the current method of banking your resources for infantry use and cant say that like the idea of this new proposal.

Does it mean I have unlimited access to infantry resource items until the reserve is drained.
Could a group/zerg stand there lobbing nades at nothing chewing up resources and manipulate the power levels.

Does the power level affect the capture of the base/facility, as in its the new capture method or it works in conjunction with current capture/SCU timers.

If the new bases we see on the likes of Esamir are completely walled in with extrememy limited vehicle access (if any), how do we get the auraxium supply vehicles into the base.
I dont think Esamir was redesigned with this change in mind and thats taken months to get where it is.

How the resource bonus will work on the Boosts/Membership.

A group could affect the power levels some, by lobbing nades, but it only goes so far as each individual is given resources by the base, one group couldn't deplete the entire base, but they do have an affect on it.

The power level is described as how much resources the base has and in turn how much it can give to the people in the base. It doesn't seem to be like in PS1 where you could deplete a base of power and it would go neutral to cut the lattice link, but I can't say for certain that's not a possiblity. It simply is stated that low/no power bases don't provide as much resources to the people at the base.

Think of it this way, you have x power that is split between 12 people defending a base. Say 12 more people come to the base, then the power is split between 24 people, so each person is half as powerful (in terms of how much resources they get), but there are twice as many people. Which strategy is best, having a large group that can spread the power around or a small group that is a bit more powerful? Kinda depends on how long the seige is going to be and how big the opposing force is. And how long it will take you to resupply depending on how fast you're draining the base.

It really brings in the dynamic of seige warfare and supply lines. Cut the supply and you cripple the army.

[Hyncharas]

I wouldn't be surprised if a few of these ideas went into the game. On the whole SOE are the ones developing PS2, and if they can't figure out how to implement the bulk of ideas they have thought of, they are not satisfying the salary they are earning.

I'm not trying to diminish what you've written; a lot of it's really good, perhaps even enough to for them to hire you! Unless they do, however, I doubt we'll see a system exactly like that.