Gameplay: Continent Benefits & Differentiation (or Why should I fight on Hossin?)

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 06:46 PM

One thing that has sort of rubbed me the wrong way about not having sanctuaries, broadcast gates, and the old lattice system is the value of continents. We used to go to continents because of how easily they were for us to attack, whether we got a tech plant, how the lattice was situated (i.e. are we likley to get double-teamed?), and what continental benefit was up for grabs. I think this added a lot to the PS metagame.

The challenge I see with PS2 is that a few things seem evident to me...

1) We aren't intended to have a situation where continents are "locked". Its certainly possible but I think the PS2 devs want us to fight in more continents instead of funneling to a few areas. This means that lock benefits, the tangible "yeah we won!" part of winning a continent, and the strategic aspect of going after the next target are all lost. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we definitely lose some gameplay here.

2) Resources are the primary motivation for fighting and replace a lot of the concepts things that we used to have, namely base and continent benefits.

3) The Adjacency system of territory control replaces the lattice system, but still leaves room to diverge from it.

In this thread I will drink multiple pitchers of the Resource & Territory Control Kool-Aid in an attempt to find some answers.

Let me clearly state what I'm after here. I want continent benefits, and I want to have different reasons for fighting on Hossin vs Ceryshen vs any other continent. I want a tangible reward for dominance on a continent and more ways we can hit our enemies where they hurt. More strategy, more tactical options.

Thankfully the resource & territory conquest system of Planetside 2 is sufficiently awesome that we can actually get what we want in a cool and enjoyable way. The ideas are quite simple....

1) Continents have different abundances in resources.

This does several things for us. First, it differentiates the continents. It will create different combat experiences on those continents simply due to the resource abundance differences.

What I'm going for here is how certain geographies in our world are known for being richer in certain resources. The middle-east and some other countries are rich in oil, but not other resources. Bananas come from the jungle areas. Diamonds mostly come from Africa. America is the world's bread-basket, that sort of thing. Regions of our planet and continents have different properties and those properties have shaped warfare and strategic decisions in our world for thousands of years. That same concept can be applied to Planetside to create different combat experiences and also provide unique value to fighting on specific continents.

Maybe Cyssor is rich in Auraxium, and for that reason we end up seeing a lot more tanks on that continent than other continents. So those wishing to build their personal and outfit stockpiles of Auraxium will go fight there.

Outfits specializing in tanks would also find an affinity with Cyssor and might make warfare on that continent more enjoyable for them vs a continent with normal or reduced amounts of tank-ish resources. The mountains of Ceryshen - and for you devs reading this, Ceryshen was the best continent - could be rich in the resources used by a lot of advanced aircraft. Coincidentally its high mountains also make such vehicles highly desirable, so these abundances could coincide with geographical traits of the continent itself.

If we take the battle islands as an example, some continents might be completely absent of some resources, creating play experiences like the battle islands, where you might not have high-tech vehicles, or certain weapons. Well, to be precise - you could have those things, but since the continent wouldn't be providing you that resource you'd be consuming it out of your own pocket and your outfit's pocket. You only have what you brought with you. This could be a great way to introduce specific resource sinks.

Note: I am by no means advocating that certain continents are "tank" continents and only tank warfare is good there. I'm just saying the resources provided mean that generally speaking you will have more tanks or more infantry with heavy weaponry, or more Galaxies, or more aircraft, or a mix than is typically seen on other continents. The actual geography of the continent should be varied and support all styles of gameplay but maybe lean one way or another.

The key takeaway for this point is that resource abundance and type can and should vary among continents to create unique experiences and cater to various styles of gameplay. It also adds strategic elements for the empires who want to build up their supply of various resources.

2) Dominating a continent yields global Empire-wide resource rewards.

I was thinking how we might have the idea of a lock-benefit, or otherwise reward and encourage domination of a continent. One of the more successful game mechanics popped to mind - Dark Age of Camelot's Darkness Falls. Now I'm not advocating any form of PvE, only the mechanic by which DF was unlocked. In DAoC we had a similar behavior as PS where domination of most of the world or an entire fontier is unlikely. Instead they rewarded the faction that had the most territory with access to a rich PvE zone.

Again, not advocating any form of PvE - the "Darkness Falls" for Planetside 2 could be a continental benefit. For example, owning 51% of of a continent gives you that continent's benefit, which could be different for each continent. This gives additional value to the continents apart from just harvesting the resources you want or the gameplay you like - you can give your empire something Tangible and valuable by fighting and winning there.

What sort of benefits? On the light-side of benefits, each continent could provide a bonus to resource harvesting on all the other continents for a certain type of resource. So using the Ceryshen example from above, the empire that owns 51% of Ceryshen could get a 20% bonus all over the world on gaining some of the resources required for advanced aircraft. Winning on Cery means you can help your entire empire out.

It also gives you yet another way of doing resource denial. The Cyssor example w/ Auraxium. If the VS require a lot of Auraxium, the NC could fight on Cyssor to break the VS 51% control and therefore deny them the bonus to Auraxium on all fronts.

These bonuses could of course be tweaked so each continent has something good to offer, but in different ways. The Cyssor Auraxium bonus might only be 10% for example, but some other continent might offer a bigger bonus of a different resource. Or a continent might offer small bonuses in multiple resources. Cery might offer 5% bonus to Auraxium + 10% in something else. That sort of thing.

A 3-way on a continent would also not be preferred since it is the easiest way to break 51% and deny the benefit.

It doesn't have to be 51% either - it could simply be the empire that owns the most territory on a continent. That would be more true to the Darkness Falls analogy also (it was whichever faction had the most keeps, not 51%). So there's different directions we could go here. The most-territory holdwer would mean an empire would always have a lock benefit on every continent, while the 51% would be more uncommon. As a result you could make teh lock benefits stronger w/ 51% since it would be really easy for the other two empires to team up and deny it from you if your empire was getting too resource-rich and powerful.

Additionally, there are other options for resource bonuses. Instead of a global bonus to resource inflow it could be a flat over-time bonus of a little of that resource to everyone & the empire. Maybe for example if you have Ceryshen some virtual miners go out there and mine jet fuel and distribute it to the rest of the empire whenever you own most of it. So there's other things that can be done here and I'm not locked into any one benefit.

I also think whatever benefits a continent gives to resources should coincide with the abundance differences I described above. For example, if Cyssor provides tank-making supplies, dominating Cyssor gives tank-making supply bonuses to your entire empire. This is important to also reward outfit specialization by giving them not only niches where their trade can frequently be employed, but also ways that their specialization can benefit their entire empire.

The key point I'm getting at is that domination of a continent has a benefit that transcends the continent and can benefit the entire empire and impact global strategic thinking among all empires.

---

I think this can preserve a lot of strategic things and cont-lock satisfaction without having to have a continent-lock and kick folks out of a continent or restrict which continents the enemy can fight on. You can always go to whatever continent you want and I think that is a great beneift of the PS2 system.

Also, there are no bananas on Ceryshen.

Soothsayer · 2011-07-17, 07:59 PM

Some thoughts on what you have said

1) Continental resource variety...

Battle islands could continue their role as a relatively powerful territory to own by being resource rich territory where large amounts of resources can be extracted. I think they would work well as a wild card where the resource in abundance changes from day to day.

To make the battle islands even more advantageous, within the context of personal/outfit resource accumulation happening only on the continent they are currently on, a reduced amount could continue to go into personal/outfit coffers regardless of where someone who assisted in the capture of the territory is in the world. This enhances the strategic value of the battle islands which will add to them being highly contested based on who needs what and resource denial.

Similar to how threatening dominance on the battle islands can be used as a strategic maneuver to pull people out of a massive fight elsewhere in the world, the battle islands could function as a highly strategic territory.

2) While I like the idea of an empire wide bonus in the general way described, I would like to see a focal point for that bonus, something that encapsulates that bonus, something that can be destroyed by the other factions. A big bulls eye on the empire that has it. During the dev panels they pointed out that the towers had orbital landing gear. If an empire reached a point where they had earned a bonus, it would be pretty cool if a tower set down from orbit somewhere in friendly territory that would provide the global bonus to the empire that earned it. This tower would have an objective (or series of objectives) that would destroy it if undefended. Tower can't be capped, only destroyed. No class restriction to destroying it. Going a little further, the existence of the tower could be announced, but the enemy has to actually find it and perform some action for it's location to be broadcasted to the rest of the enemy faction.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 08:41 PM

Btw, the battle island comment was just one example of where this could go, it isn't a core part of the idea.

As for the bonus...the way other empires get rid of it is by capturing more territory. They just keep doing what they're doing. They don't need to do anything other than take territory away from the empire that's currently dominating the continent.

Soothsayer · 2011-07-17, 08:48 PM

Yes, I get that, I like the idea behind the Battle Islands and want to see them in some form again in PS2. I think that the draw behind them should be more than just varied combat rules, but a definite strategic benefit as well as concentrated and unique scenarios.

The reason I would have an object that could be destroyed is to provide a means to slow down a juggernaut empire. They'll already be top for resources on that continent, having an objective that can be defended (conversely, an objective for others to attack) allows an underdog empire to come in and make an impact if they're getting steamrolled.

Would allow greater depth and give meaningful things for people to do who aren't into battle on the front lines.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 09:34 PM

I share the desire to stop the juggernaut empire, I had a separate discussion about how they can make it progressively more difficult to hold territory (and progressively easier to take it from the juggernaut) in this thread:

Rich-Get-Richer & Double-Team Problem Discussion

In this specific instance however I don't think an object is needed. In fact it can be detrimental because a juggernaut empire is a global scope, not a continental scope. At the continent level normal mechanics are needed while something at the macro level can watch for and apply handicaps as needed as global territory gets gobbled up more and more by one empire.

In the above thread I recommend using the global territory held by an empire, not the continental to determine how easy it is to take territory from them.

This way an empire could dominate a single continent even though it might be the only one they have! You dont' want to make it easier for them to lose their only benefit. Instead the juggernaut problem is best detected at the global level and handicaps applied to all continents.

I too like the idea of having some continents that can provide a unique benefit if captured but operate under some resource constraints. Its all about tradeoffs. Maybe there's a very rugged continent whose only resources are for infantry & maybe galaxies, and its benefit is large bonuses to the resource that galaxies primarily consume. Capturing that small continent could give the empire that captured it a tangible galaxy benefit while also providing some great infantry combat.

There's tons of possibilities with this resource system!

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 09:49 PM

This was just moved to the Idea Vault

Tool · 2011-07-18, 01:35 PM

Good post Malorn.

Abundance of specific resources on conts is a good idea. Your suggestions listed in your first note on the correlation of vehicles, conts, and resources is something I agree with as well.

On your second note, I think there would need to be a good balance between continential control and benefits. Regardless of resources, the basic concept is to capture as much territory as possible. With your referance to your other post (Rich get richer), I think these issues tie together.

As you mentioned, there could or should be some way to keep empires from steam-rolling entire continents and gaining a large benefit allowing giving them a better chance to do the same to other continents.

In my opinion, with this new territory control and influence system, two things can be done:

First is something I've touched on before in other threads, which is resources need to be a worthy goal all the time. If they are simply abundant or easy to accumulate, they'll simply feel like an afterthought to most players, a nuisance to get their favorite loadouts.

If players need to consistantly make a calculated choice on spending resources, you've essentially created much more drive to aquire those resources.

Second, when one empire controls large portions of a continent two things should happen there. They should gain resources at a much faster rate, perhaps not a global increase but something to reflect their effort in capturing the territories. But with all supply lines, the more you spread out the harder it is to maintain over large areas. So other empires should be able to capture frontline territories faster.

This wouldn't have to be the case all the time, could only come into effect when that one empire controls a % of territories and they recieve a notification that their empire is spreading out and effort must be made to keep those territories or continue to drive the other empires back for even more proportional benefits/penalties.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-18, 04:13 PM

Thanks Tool,

The mission system can definitely key in here. In fact when an empire gains a continental benefit by conquest the "Empire" mission system could automatically assign a mission to the other two empires to break that continental lock.

One thing I've been thinking about is the fact that since resources are continent-based, it wont' matter how many other continents an empire has - you wont' be getting any resources for those continents since you only get resources based on the continent you are currently on. That helps the rich-get-richer problem somewhat because it isn't global richness.

The cont lock benefits actually do change that and provide some incentive to push for dominance, so I can see why that would be potentially dangerous. However, if the benefits are small then I still think it could work out well. It shouldn't be game-changing benefits, but rather a reward for success and something that might motivate you to target specific continents. For example we might have a situation where our resouce consumption is not quite keeping up with demand, but we're close to having a lock benefit on another continent that owuld assist us. We can send a squad over there (or a commander can create a mission) to go get that cont lock so we can better sustain our offensive here. I like that thought a lot for adding tactical and strategic depth.

And you are definitely right about consumption being key. We have to consume resources in order for them to continue to have value.

Also not having sanctuaries and instead having permanent un-cappable bases on every continent will help the rich-get-richer problem becuase it will always give the other two empires a foothold on a continent, even if the continent is completely captured. To explain a little better...in PS1 a dominant empire could remain dominant by restricting the lattice. As they captured continents they closed lattice links to other captured continents. As a result the number of vulnerable bases stayed constant...and in some cases it actually decreased. With this model, if an empire were to capture 3-4 complete continents...as they moved to the next continent the number of responders they need to maintain dominance of the conquered continents increases because of those permanent uncap bases. They're basically like having lattice links that can never be secured. This will lead to two possibilities.

1) The empire steadily leaves more and more players on the captured continents to keep them captured...this weakens their offensive and at some point they won' thave an offensive because all of their empire is busy holidng off attacks.

2) The empire ignores incursions on captured territory...this leads to them losing some territories and the other empires to get larger footholds on those continents.

Both result in making it progressively difficult to dominate more and more territory. Unlike PS1 where lattice link vulnerability stayed constant or decreased, in PS2 the vulnerability increases with each continent dominated.

I think realistically in PS2 we will rarely see an empire completely lock continents. Instead we will see small scale fighting on almost every continent and then a few large scale battles. That also depends on how many players are on each server. We need populations large enough to sustain those battles.

Tool · 2011-07-18, 04:30 PM

Yes, I suppose much of this depends on how territory is controlled and the mechanics of battle and population. I think defending territory needs to be equal with gaining territory for resource or resource denial.

And yes, if there isn't really benefits that compare to cont locks in PS2 there may be that lack of strategic accomplishment commanders and empires would get from making that effort to take large chuncks of territory. That difference in a sense of "f*** yeah, we're dominating" to "oh look another 3-way that doesn't matter"

Fighting for the sake of fighting is great for other FPS games but that lack of accomplishment can be more abundant in an MMO, especially an MMOFPS. I hope that PS2 really has ways to keep players feeling like territory is important, resources are important, and what's good for the empire is important. Those things would really help with presistance and longevity in my eyes.

Raymac · 2011-07-18, 05:33 PM

At first, I was a bit wary of this idea because I assumed it would be an arguement to blindly cling onto the old Planetside continent lock system. The more I read what your actual idea was, the more I liked it. I think it's a great idea using what we know so far about the territory and resource mechanics in PS2. This may be something they are already doing as part of the new system, but if not, I think it would be a well recieved addition.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-18, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tool

Yes, I suppose much of this depends on how territory is controlled and the mechanics of battle and population. I think defending territory needs to be equal with gaining territory for resource or resource denial.

And yes, if there isn't really benefits that compare to cont locks in PS2 there may be that lack of strategic accomplishment commanders and empires would get from making that effort to take large chuncks of territory. That difference in a sense of "f*** yeah, we're dominating" to "oh look another 3-way that doesn't matter"

Fighting for the sake of fighting is great for other FPS games but that lack of accomplishment can be more abundant in an MMO, especially an MMOFPS. I hope that PS2 really has ways to keep players feeling like territory is important, resources are important, and what's good for the empire is important. Those things would really help with presistance and longevity in my eyes.

We could have non-resource based lock benefits as well.

Could do something like cert training time augmentations as long as your empire holds the continent (even those offline). Like 25% faster ground vehicle cert training as long as cyssor is held. Or 25% faster support cert training if searhus is held). Stuff like that.

This could be in conjunction with a small resource bonus, like 5-10% resource yeild for certain resources.

The advantage with that approach is that it gives a benefit for dominating a continent but that benefit doesn't make the empire stronger, at least not directly.

I like a mix of benefits though, rather than just one. In that way you can make the benefits smaller but more appealing.

Also, the bigger the continent the bigger the bonus (more territory = more reward, right?).

And they could be diversified so empires have to amke a choice. Could make the big 3 continents like Cyssor, Ishundar, and Esamir all give like a 25% training bonus to Vehicles / Infantry & MAX / Support certs respectively, with Searhus giving 10% to everything. The smaller continents could give resource bonuses of different types. That would make everything useful to some extent.

Can we think of other non-resource-based continent benefits?

Tool · 2011-07-18, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

We could have non-resource based lock benefits as well.

Could do something like cert training time augmentations as long as your empire holds the continent (even those offline). Like 25% faster ground vehicle cert training as long as cyssor is held. Or 25% faster support cert training if searhus is held). Stuff like that.

This could be in conjunction with a small resource bonus, like 5-10% resource yeild for certain resources.

The advantage with that approach is that it gives a benefit for dominating a continent but that benefit doesn't make the empire stronger, at least not directly.

I like a mix of benefits though, rather than just one. In that way you can make the benefits smaller but more appealing.

Also, the bigger the continent the bigger the bonus (more territory = more reward, right?).

And they could be diversified so empires have to amke a choice. Could make the big 3 continents like Cyssor, Ishundar, and Esamir all give like a 25% training bonus to Vehicles / Infantry & MAX / Support certs respectively, with Searhus giving 10% to everything. The smaller continents could give resource bonuses of different types. That would make everything useful to some extent.

Can we think of other non-resource-based continent benefits?

Those are great ideas for benefits. As for your last question, its a little hard to think of more until we know more about what they're doing with gameplay. Could be benefits for special spawning methods or even temporary benefits like decreased capture timers if you capture multiple areas in a short amount of time, like a blitzkrieg effect.

Treerat · 2011-07-19, 05:36 PM

I can agree with just about all of this (even if you're the stinking NC who made Emerald VS miserable with the A.S.S.). Granted people will always favor some continents over others (personally I loathed Ishundar), but having tangible (versus strategic) reasons to fight on each one does help pull those without strong attachments to fight other places besides "where everyone else is".

A few suggestions to add to the mix.

Control of certain continents could allow more efficient usage of resources. For example, if control (ie holding the most territory) of Amerish reduced the cost of Auraximum needed to upgrade each tank by 1 unit and domination (51% of total territory) further reduced the amount of Auraxium needed, that would be incentive for a tank-loving outfit to work to maintain a strong presence for it's empire on Amerish. If the benefit applied globally as well the under-manned side could chose to concentrate it's efforts on holding those locations that would allow them to stretch their existing supplies longer and thus possible outlast the "seige".

Put specific facilities on certain continents that provide specific benefits. In the manner that Lodestars and Galaxies could only be made at dropship centers, these particular facilities could also enhance the amount of a particular type of resource extracted from that continent or further reduce the amount of that material needed or used to carry out upgrades. There could even be "exchange" facilities where those with an abundance of one resource and desperately short of another (say due to the dominate empire making a concerted drive to control all territories producing it) could trade what they had in abundance for a smaller amount of what they needed.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-19, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Treerat

I can agree with just about all of this (even if you're the stinking NC who made Emerald VS miserable with the A.S.S.).

Lol sorry. Amerish was the hardest fight for NC settling in on A.S.S. because before that patch it was a VS home continent (but it was a NC home continent in beta, so there!). Solsar was formerly NC home continent and searhus was pretty natural, so the key was consistently holding Amerish...which required forcibly re-educating the VS that it was no longer theirs. It was tooth and nail on Amerish for about a week and a half.

The A.S.S. strategy is actually an important one to learn from. It was successful because it solidified lattice links and reduced the surface area of attack. That enabled the empire who held it to consistently hold 4-5 continents every day because those continents protected each other. I now have a new appreciation for the uncappable bases on each continent for each empire because those uncappable bases are roughly equivalent to having a lattice link on every continent. This means that A.S.S. can never happen in PS2 because as you gain more territory your surface area of attack increases due to the uncaps.

Additionally the uncappable bases allow you to fight on whatever continent you want so you aren't stuck fighting on say Ishundar every single day. If you want you can go take the fight elsewhere.

Control of certain continents could allow more efficient usage of resources. For example, if control (ie holding the most territory) of Amerish reduced the cost of Auraximum needed to upgrade each tank by 1 unit and domination (51% of total territory) further reduced the amount of Auraxium needed, that would be incentive for a tank-loving outfit to work to maintain a strong presence for it's empire on Amerish. If the benefit applied globally as well the under-manned side could chose to concentrate it's efforts on holding those locations that would allow them to stretch their existing supplies longer and thus possible outlast the "seige".

1) Good idea on the efficiency bonus. The benefits dont' necessarily have to provide raw resources - instead they can make consumption of resources more efficient. That means nobody is awarded resources they don't already have. I like this idea better than awarding raw resources because that enables continents that are resource-starved or with varied abundances intentionally to not get unbalanced due to continent benefits awarding resources that the continent doesn't normally provide.

2) I like the idea of scaling the benefit on the level of dominance. Thinking on this more, the difference between "majority" dominance and 51% dominance depends on how many empires are fighting there. If only 2 empires are fighting over the entire continent then majority dominance and 51% dominance are identical. I think that a simple majority dominance would be sufficient for the vast majority of cases, and 51% dominance might be detrimental in cases where only 2 empires are involved by providing a larger bonus. However, one way to add scaling might be "super dominance" where you have 2x the territory of any other empire on the continent. So for a 3-way that would be at least 51%, possibly 67%. For a 2-way that would be 67%. So the idea then becomes:
* Minor benefit = Majority dominance
* Major benefit = 2x Majority dominance

What qualifies for each depends on the other empires' territory holdings.

That would encourage empires to do more than simply have a majority but rather push for more. It also enables the other empires to revoke some of the benefit without dominating the continent themselves.

Put specific facilities on certain continents that provide specific benefits. In the manner that Lodestars and Galaxies could only be made at dropship centers, these particular facilities could also enhance the amount of a particular type of resource extracted from that continent or further reduce the amount of that material needed or used to carry out upgrades. There could even be "exchange" facilities where those with an abundance of one resource and desperately short of another (say due to the dominate empire making a concerted drive to control all territories producing it) could trade what they had in abundance for a smaller amount of what they needed.

I had some other thoughts on facilities, but giving resource bonuses for specific facilities seems like a good idea. One idea is a "Refinery" facility that might give resource efficiency bonus. I'll save further discussion on that for a thread specific to facility benefits, as this one is more on the continental motivation. Good ideas though.

Drentz · 2011-07-23, 12:52 PM

I really think this is a cool idea with loads of potential. I definitely like the idea of possibly restricting certain types of resources to specific continents to create a much more strategy driven fighting pattern.

One thing I would suggest concerning Malorn's idea about continent benefits would be to scale the benefit with the percentage of continent an empire owns beyond 50%. So, going back to his example, instead of gaining a 20% harvesting bonus when controlling 51% of the continent, maybe you need 55% control to get a 2.5% bonus and with each additional 5% u get a higher bonus. This could prevent hopping off a continent right after gaining over half control as well as provide incentive to keep fighting for more and more territorial control on one cont depending on how much that cont's benefit or resource is desired/needed.