Resources And Vehicle Timers for Upgrade Balance

Sirisian · 2012-03-12, 06:39 PM

I was going to make a thread like this a while back, but I wanted to wait until we had more information about resources and timers. It seems like that information isn't going to be clear for a while so I'd like the community's criticism on the following resource and timer model. Some of the ideas are taken from others opinions in previous threads, but I'm attempting to merge the better concepts into one system. I've broken this down into prerequisites for the system, then some assumptions that people would need to agree with, and finally the implementation and use cases. I've ignored specific numbers for modifiers so that people don't fixate on estimated numbers, and instead focus on the core idea.

Prerequisites:
The first prerequisite for this system is that resources cannot be purchased using station cash and can only be aquired via the game. With this there is an assumed resource cap. So everyone has some resource cap to force them to use resources. Basically there is no reason to horde resources and players should never feel that they need to.

The second prerequisite is similar to the first. All vehicle timers are independent of a player's account status and it's not possible to use station cash to decrease the timer cooldown.

Assumption:
Upgrades aren't evil. Weapons and vehicles that are the same type do not have to be identically balanced. (The reason for this is explained below). Allowing someone to upgrade a gun with more damage or lower accuracy with no penalty does not inherently hurt the game. Upgrading a vehicle with more armor or more fire power or special modules does not have to harm another person's gameplay experience if the other players are given the same choice. (Sidegrades still exist as explained below).

Implementation:
I'll start with the timer system since it's easier to understand. Timers for vehicles would begin when a vehicle is destroyed. That is if you drive a tank and stay alive for 20 minutes or die after 2 minutes of spawning you would have the same cooldown timer delay applied the instant the vehicle is destroyed. This forces players out of a vehicle after a time decreasing the vehicle congestion if it becomes an issue. If it doesn't become an issue then this concept would not be needed. The difference is merely when the timer begins in order to evenly delay good and bad players for losing a faction's vehicle.

Resources would be used to acquire almost everything in the game. Weapons and their upgrades, vehicles and their upgrades, extra med kits/med tool ammo, ammo dispensers, deployables, etc. This could also include shield modifiers and implants at spawn time. The resource costs for a lot of things would be low increasing with their usefulness or to promote rarity.

For soldiers, as an example, special grenades might be 20 Auraxium while a cheap stock grenade might be 10. Same goes for weapon attachments. A grenade attachment for short range shots might be 5, but the more powerful variant might be 10 that's able to launch far distances. Players could configure loadouts and the amount of resources would be displayed next to them. Stock pistols and rifles would be free from the factions so there isn't really a situation where a player is defenseless. For more examples players could use resources to buy special AV ammo that's harder hitting for their AV weapons or request more rare utility items like the controversial healing grenades or revival grenades for medics. For engineers specifically it might allow them to upgrade their deployables past the stock variants with stronger mines or a better repair utility. Sidegrades for weapons would still exist. Basically things that are positive would cost more resources than an item that did both positive and negative things.

For drivers, this would mean a stock vehicle actually costing resources like 200 Auraxium then each upgrade and module costing more on top of that. For instance, a top mounted AI gun might be 20 Auraxium, and added armor plates might be 10 to 100 Auraxium more with an upgraded main cannon costing 20 more. Then you'd have modules or abilities, like smoke grenades or a momentary shield costing more on top of that. Some of these choices might be mutually exclusive for balance reasons.

For pilots they'd see a similar system for creating their loadout with extra flares, upgraded rockets or main cannons. This could also allow for say an ejection seat being say 10 Auraxium extra. Basically it would be like buying insurance that some pilots might not care about, but a player purposely buying a stock aircraft for a quick transport might want as a loadout.

Basically what this would allow is for players to have meaningful game changing upgrades for soldiers, vehicles, and aircraft and deep customization within classes to promote hundreds of choices. The difference between seeing one engineer launch a rocket launcher and damage a tank versus watching them EMP a tank destroying its shield with special ammo.

What would this mean for a player though? Would they be able spawn and pull out their favorite loadout they just min-maxed for 450 Auraxium? That might be possible. Though for one player it might mean min-maxing their shotgun as they defend a doorway and for another it might mean min-maxing their sniper rifle. A dedicated cloaker might min-max their cloak and pistol. However, would they be able to get 450 Auraxium every spawn? Ideally the system would deliberately keep that from happening. A less than dedicated tank player might for instance pull two decently armored tanks while fighting so they still have resources when they push into the courtyard as a soldier.

This also nicely allows players to work together in vehicles without worrying about if pulling two vehicles would better. Suddenly it's a concern of cost. So a player pulling a tank for 250 Auraxium with an upgraded weapon system for the gunner and extra armor would make sense since pulling two stock tanks would be 400 resources.

Another random comment before I go on: weapons and vehicles can be deconstructed for the resources back (minus any damage or missing ammo). This means if a player drives their awesome tank to a base and suddenly needs a liberator to get to another base they don't lose their resources.

Vehicle Terminal Negotiation System:
But wait, wouldn't this mean the driver would be stuck with the bill for a vehicle that a gunner would possibly benefit from? There is a very elegant solution. When a player goes up to a terminal to pull a vehicle they can build a custom loadout or choose from a loadout they've configured previously. Now at that point there are two buttons. One to purchase by oneself and another to enter how much the player is willing to chip in for such a vehicle with radio buttons for who is allowed to see the offer (outfit, squad, or public). If the player selects to purchase the vehicle by themselves it is spawned immediately and the player is placed in the driver's seat. If they choose the second option they are placed in a queue. If they set it as a public offer then anyone can select the vehicle from the queue and view the upgrades and choose to pay the difference. At that point the driver would get a message to accept the offer and the vehicle would spawn. The driver could not choose to kick that player or deny them access to the gunner position vehicle at that point. (Same for if they get out and another player gets in. They can force the player out since they are part owner). As mentioned the driver could also choose to squad or outfit lock the offer so that only a squad or outfit mate would see it in the terminal queue. Useful if you are pulling tanks with the same gunner and want to share the costs of expensive upgrades.

What this is:
A system for players in the game to customize in a fair way the loadouts and options of their player and vehicles without breaking the concept of a free to play game model.

What this isn't:
A way for using station cash to buy power.

Conclusion:
I've left off some examples since I didn't want this to be too long or corner it in, but the basic idea is there. I feel this will promote a much better gameplay experience for players in the long run and give the developers more room to work with to promote teamwork and balance. Any criticisms about this system or concerns? Any other ideas?

WiteBeam · 2012-03-12, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

.

Assumption:
Upgrades aren't evil. Weapons and vehicles that are the same type do not have to be identically balanced. (The reason for this is explained below). Allowing someone to upgrade a gun with more damage or lower accuracy with no penalty does not inherently hurt the game. Upgrading a vehicle with more armor or more fire power or special modules does not have to harm another person's gameplay experience if the other players are given the same choice. (Sidegrades still exist as explained below).

Side grades
I'm looking forward to seeing how they do this. Higby talked about it a lot at GDC.
A well thought out post.

Knocky · 2012-03-12, 06:55 PM

Sorry....but there are side grades to make vehicle acquisition time faster. And there was a stack of 5 of em all withe the same symbol. Now some of those 5 icons might have been just placeholders, but the first one definitely is for faster spawning.

*edit*
Acquire Timer 1 certificate.

This of course implies that there are more.

WiteBeam · 2012-03-12, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

Sorry....but there are side grades to make vehicle acquisition time faster. And there was a stack of 5 of em all withe the same symbol. Now some of those 5 icons might have been just placeholders, but the first one definitely is for faster spawning.

Then that isn't a true side grade. Unless you have an equal and opposite trade off.

Skitrel · 2012-03-13, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by Knocky

Sorry....but there are side grades to make vehicle acquisition time faster. And there was a stack of 5 of em all withe the same symbol. Now some of those 5 icons might have been just placeholders, but the first one definitely is for faster spawning.

*edit*
Acquire Timer 1 certificate.

This of course implies that there are more.

You are assuming that shop items in the GDC demo are definitely going to be in the game. Nothing is solid at all yet. In fact Higby has stated that absolutely everything in the shop was a place holder. Don't make any assumptions until beta.

I'd be more worried about the fact that other factions guns were in the shop in the GDC demo, available for purchase by anyone.... If I didn't know that everything was just a placeholder to show the system.

People want a downside to using a faster vehicle acquisition timer? The downside is not using the upgrade slot to do something that makes you more powerful, or gives you better armour, or whatever. The downside is not having a bonus, other than shorter spawns. This will put you at a disadvantage against those that aren't impatient about vehicle spawns, or are just better at keeping their tank rolling.

Originally Posted by Whitebeam

The amount of resources gained as the empires gain territory needs to be very small. Otherwise, underdog fights will never have a chance against a force that just keeps gaining momentum towards the end of a fight. Nor a chance against a larger force. Unless the same system from PS is implemented that gave the lesser pop a larger XP gain and health.

Resources earned from controlling an area in the game aren't solid, they change. The hex you own today that's high value might be low value tomorrow. I think it's safe to assume that these values may also be in control of the GMs, so when they need to rebalance the game they'll change resource values for various areas. After some testing they'll learn exactly how players behave surrounding these values and be able to use them to control player behaviour very quickly.

Biohazard · 2012-03-12, 07:05 PM

I think it might be better with a few more "Free"/"Supplied" things so that a new player has access to more items than just the basic ES rifle/pistol. On-top of what OP proposed Maxes and Heavy assault should cost resources.

WiteBeam · 2012-03-12, 07:13 PM

The amount of resources gained as the empires gain territory needs to be very small. Otherwise, underdog fights will never have a chance against a force that just keeps gaining momentum towards the end of a fight. Nor a chance against a larger force. Unless the same system from PS is implemented that gave the lesser pop a larger XP gain and health.

Sirisian · 2012-03-12, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

Side grades
I'm looking forward to seeing how they do this. Higby talked about it a lot at GDC.

Same. The system I described keeps them in theory. Obviously if you have an upgrade for +5 accuracy for 50 Auraxium vs a 20 Auraxium +3 accuracy -1 damage upgrade that falls into the sidegrade category of giving up something. The proposed resource system just makes it more flexible for the developers and players.

Originally Posted by Knocky

Sorry....but there are side grades to make vehicle acquisition time faster.

I'm well aware. This was a from the ground up design, not an addition onto their current system.

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

The amount of resources gained as the empires gain territory needs to be very small. Otherwise, underdog fights will never have a chance against a force that just keeps gaining momentum towards the end of a fight. Nor a chance against a larger force. Unless the same system from PS is implemented that gave the lesser pop a larger XP gain and health.

Precisely why I didn't bring that up. I'm sure the developers have designed something to prevent that. The cap on resources in my original post was to prevent exploitation of that.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-13, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

The amount of resources gained as the empires gain territory needs to be very small. Otherwise, underdog fights will never have a chance against a force that just keeps gaining momentum towards the end of a fight. Nor a chance against a larger force. Unless the same system from PS is implemented that gave the lesser pop a larger XP gain and health.

exactly. By punishing the winners it makes it even more spectacular when they cap the whole continent.

Rather than just: ok, we have reached the critical 66% mark, time to snowball this thing and in 6 hours we will have the whole cont.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-13, 12:54 AM

They said resources get paid out to players like dividends and that population mattered.

Probably doing something very simple that scales, like....

P = C * R / N

Where
P = Player Payout
R = Resource Amount Controlled (as listed on map)
N = Total number of same-faction players on the continent or population ratio
C = Some constant (a weight)

There's probably some minimum & maximum factored in to handle extreme cases but I omitted for simplicity, particularly for P and/or N.

So payout is inversely proportional to population and directly proportional to resources controlled. So if you have 2x the resources of another empire but also 2x the population, then both empires get the same payout.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-12, 09:47 PM

Good topic Sirisian!

Resource Cap
I absolutely agree on our Pre-requisites, especially the cap on resources. It needs to be a fairly low cap too. I also think that increasing the cap is something that would be good subscription perk, but not a huge increase (like 20-30% increase).

If resources are capped we'll get a "use 'em or lose 'em" situation where people will roughly use resources at the rate they accumulate them, which is a good situation becuase it will keep the demand for resources high. If the demand is high then resources remain meaningful, even the "common" resources if they have different rarities.

So low resource cap is all sorts of goodness and a must-have for the system to really work.

Timers
I disagree on your timer starting on destruction of the vehicle for two reasons.
1) People may want to make piloting a specific vehicle their bread & butter and the only thing they really want to do. Timers on destruction inhibit this playstyle.
2) If the timer starts at acquisition it encourages operators to take care of their vehicles and not do suicide runs/etc. If they manage to survive with the vehicle for the duration of the timer then they are rewarded by being able to immediately pull another vehicle.

Timers are however a great knob the developers can use to control vehicle population. Longer timers means we'll see fewer vehicles. However if its too long that might discourage people from taking risks or using a tank as armor for infantry or discourage them from pushing forward, so generally speaking 5 minutes is probably about right, with deep cert specialization reducing it a little bit more from that for the truly dedicated operators.

Vehicle Resource Costs
I also disagree that stock vehicles cost resources. Stock vehicles should be free, and the reason is because you don't want a rich-getting-richer situation where an empire with a lot of resources and territory is able to dominate the others because they can't get the resources to effectively compete.

Stock vehciles & kits should be free and available so empires can compete, with the resources being used to enhance a role or add additional functionality. I think it's OK if it's purely additive, just as you say. For example, paying resources to add more armor plating on a tank is fine by me, even if it came with no downside, though I do think it should have SOME downside, like slowing it down a little bit. It doesn't need to be sum-zero though and an absolute side-grade. You're investing limited resources so I think it makes sense to get a tangible benefit from spending those resources and not just a side-grade.

However you make a good point where resources could be a deciding factor in making a 2-manned tank more efficeint than a 1-manned tank. That is still the case however if you consider upgrades to the tank. Perhaps with upgrades a tank becomes a lot more survivable and effective, but the cost of equipping two such tanks would be quite literally twice the price, while adding a gunner to a single tank would allow you to save lots of resources while still having a highly effective vehicle.

I do not consider that a substitute for an effective gunner weapon however. Gunner weapons should be significantly worthwhile in their own right. Like a single tank with an AV gunner should have significantly more firepower against other tanks than two single-manned tanks. The resource cost of upgrades further underscores that multi-manned tanks are desired over single-manned tanks becuase you can afford to put more upgrades on them and get more bang-for-your-buck.

Deconstruct-for-resources
I like this idea, but it should have some restrictions...

1) Resource return is proportional to the health of the vehicle. So deconstructing a vehicle that is nearly dead will get you next to nothing. If ou want to decon it for a fair amount of resources, repair it first. This also helps avoid situations where a vehicle is under heavy fire or about to get blown up - the owner deconning it and getting a significant amount of resources back would be quite lame. There might even be a minimum health requirement for decon-for-resources to work, like 50%.

2) There should be some "used" cost, so decon should always be at a loss. I would roughly say that best-case you should get 70-80% of the resources back, assuming a vehicle in perfect condition.

Resource-sharing
I like the idea for resource sharing, but I think a simpler solution would be to allow people to trade resources. So if my gunner wants to chip in for the tank, he can open up a little trade window and just give me resources.

In general this might be a good idea if people want to see things like tricked-out Galaxies but the gal pilot can't afford it. Allow others to chip in.

On that note, I think Outfit Banks and a free "Tax" is a good way to go. By "free tax" I mean that the resources the outfit gets from its members is not taken from the members, it is just a bonus. WoW did this with their tax system. So if I earn 10 Auraxium, my outfit might get 1 Auraxium added to its outfit bank.

Then like any other guild bank system you can set up withdrawl limits for players and what not and allow people to buy vehicles and upgrades with outfit resources. So if my outfit wants to buy a tricked out Galaxy the pilot doesn't have to flip the bill and the whole outfit can cover it, paid for by outfit perks like the "free tax"

Add in a resource trading system between players and you can handle a lot of situations like that without having to create awkward UI at the vehicle terminal.

Great subject, I like the ideas presented here.

Sirisian · 2012-03-12, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I disagree on your timer starting on destruction of the vehicle for two reasons.
1) People may want to make piloting a specific vehicle their bread & butter and the only thing they really want to do. Timers on destruction inhibit this playstyle.
2) If the timer starts at acquisition it encourages operators to take care of their vehicles and not do suicide runs/etc. If they manage to survive with the vehicle for the duration of the timer then they are rewarded by being able to immediately pull another vehicle.

Cheap ill-equipped stock vehicles where a player literally buys nothing to repair themselves and just spawns with the stock rifle for free and jumps in a stock plane should be possible every spawn depending on how resources are given. That would fulfill the first criteria. The whole idea is you couldn't say spawn every time with an awesome loadout on your soldier with an awesome fighter jet every single time. Especially if you die after 4 minutes of flying. (The resource accumulation model over time I explain below gives this basic idea). However, the incentive would be to spend a few resources and upgrade your class a bit and fight on the ground then go back for your vehicle when you have the resources to equip it properly.

The resource system automatically stop quick suicide runs with vehicles. It forces players to play smart with them so they hopefully have enough resources when they die to pull a new one. The timer as I explained in my original post is just to delay all vehicles from the battlefield as players build up resources instead of spawning with a bad jet over and over it gives them logical time to take up the ground forces for a bit. It does break your first statement though of wanting to continuously pulling a vehicle. That's why I said if it's not needed it could be removed also. arg. Part of me understands wanting to pull a vehicle every spawn when I did bomber runs, but the other side of me wants players to use their classes outside of vehicles treating vehicles like Tribes:Ascend where they are rewards. I'm conflicted.

Originally Posted by Malorn

I also disagree that stock vehicles cost resources. Stock vehicles should be free, and the reason is because you don't want a rich-getting-richer situation where an empire with a lot of resources and territory is able to dominate the others because they can't get the resources to effectively compete.

I purposely left out the whole concept of how players get resources for this very reason. I have no idea how they plan to make the game fair in that regard since it's a serious issue that I think plagues their current design. Basically if you aren't already on the winning side you're losing resources to fight effectively as you said. However, if factions get resources based on bases and players only get resources based on like missions, then it could be different. Even the losers might complete missions. Then again I think ideally for this implementation for now it would be wise to just consider a constant resource accumulation model over time played since it's the simplest model that doesn't allow the rich to get richer mentality.

Originally Posted by Malorn

I like the idea for resource sharing, but I think a simpler solution would be to allow people to trade resources. So if my gunner wants to chip in for the tank, he can open up a little trade window and just give me resources.

Thought about that originally, but it doesn't help the zerg. That is random players joining the game casually that don't necessarily know their squad-mates or trust them 100%. "Give me 200 resources and I'll let you get in and gun" doesn't have the guarantee of walking up to a terminal and seeing someone is waiting for a gunner and wants 100 Auraxium and then immediately being placed in the gunner seat with the driver ready to go. That and I don't like the idea of players being able to trade resources.

Even in the system I described where a player can deconstruct their vehicle the resources would still go to all the owners based on their initial input. This also forces players to earn their own resources when equipping themselves which I think is important. The vehicle system is really just to share the cost of upgrades related to the gunner with giving the option for the driver to allow the gunner to pay their share. (I will point out I don't support the whole driver switching instantly to gunner thing so what I just said might sound odd with what we now know).

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-13, 04:47 AM

cool! so I don't have to log in and fight, I still get paid!!!!

Sirisian · 2012-03-13, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

cool! so I don't have to log in and fight, I still get paid!!!!

Are you referring to Malorn's equation? He said population could be the number of players on the continent meaning you would need to be there fighting.

NewSith · 2012-03-13, 10:00 AM

I would not want resources to be a deciding factor in the game. Afterall it is MMOFPShooter, not MMOFPStrategy...