Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2 - Page 3

SKYeXile · 2012-06-21, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Something similar, at least. I just don't think of any other logical way for it to work...
of course I've had one idea and that's all of it.

are you liking my posts because of the pony picture? :P

**Malorn** · 2012-06-21, 04:58 AM

Thanks Sky and Nox, the descriptions helped and the blog gave a good rundown. They also have the old DAoC Relic concept, which is one thing I had recommended in other threads as another objective that could be taken to facilities since we don't have continent locks.

The basic concepts are:

1) 3 types of structures, designed for different guild/group sizes, large, medium, and small so everyone can contribute. Good concept. Sort of like how Facilities in PS2 have multiple control points and might take a lot of forces to consistently capture while towers and other outpost territories might take less.

2) The small structures generate resources over time, which are transported periodically to the larger structures which generally consume them.

3) The medium and large structures have supply depots

The direct planetside analogy really would be NTU silos and ANTs. I like this design because it does give a role to groups large and small and could potentially open up more of the continent to smaller scale action while the major action occurs along border territories.

Though I still don't like the ANT part. I think the transport of the resources isn't as interesting as the generation and distribution mechanics. You can take the transportation part out and it still works if it just "magically" transports periodically. Although you could add in physical transport I don't like the idea of introducing NPCs into PlanetSide, and manually doing ANT runs was always boring as shit. The idea of intercepting resources is neat though I think that might be too much complexity. Perhaps there is a way using personal resources to steal resources from depots in enemy territories.

I'll have to think on this a bit. Not seeing a good way to blend individual resource supply with territory-based resources & depots, unless the depots distribute the resources from them to players in the area. I'm assuming that the individual resources is an important part of their design and it can't really be axed.

Needs to be a flow from resource generation in a territory -> players, and a way to make players more dependent on those resources in the territories. FLow of resources from territory to territory could be a way for localized denial to occur, even though the empire might have tons of resources elsewhere. I'm seeing some potential here, though the complexity is worrisome. There might be a way to simplify it all down into a few core concepts that are simple. I'm going to sleep on it and see what comes to mind tomorrow.

Synapse · 2012-06-21, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

its been like that in every video we have seen, 5k though, may aswell be a piece of string until resource prices and generation are finalised.

A piece of string? I know just who can help us.

SKYeXile · 2012-06-21, 05:04 AM

Im not sure we want to deny people of tech(empire specific vehicles) totally though, do you really think its a good idea?

**Malorn** · 2012-06-21, 05:13 AM

I don't think a vehicle should be outright denied like PS1 unless the player is completely reckless with resource management.

Denial is how you can gain an edge and help move the battle lines. As long as you gain resources by fighting I don't think anything can be outright denied to you for very long.

The idea should be to shift focus of the battle around, and resources should be a strong reason for attacking or defending a territory. They aren't going to be a strong reason unless there are advantages and consequences to capturing and losing them.

That sounded like what Higby was getting at when the resource and territory control system was first discussed. And he also indicated that how players manage resources is important, or at least intended to be.

Synapse · 2012-06-21, 05:29 AM

Well you guys are the ones saying what you had in PS1 was good.

To me it sounds like a recipe for making sure an empire that's losing, keeps losing.

Dougnifico · 2012-06-21, 05:44 AM

I just had an interesting thought about what SOE could do when it comes to resources. They could create resource spikes when they want to encourage combat in an area. This could be coupled with a resource shortage in an area that has been getting a lot of action and is getting stale. These spikes could help move the fight but also create more opportunities for resource denial.

Atmosfear · 2012-06-21, 06:41 AM

Lots of intelligent discussion going on in this thread. I'll try not to up-end it.

I think a simple solution would be this: any time an enemy captures a territory of any kind, any adjacent territory your empire owns fails to provide any resources for 60 seconds (consider it a "stun" if you will). This would make capturing a contested base a little more decisive, as the enemy will suffer a temporary set back in resources before being able to regain them from other territories. Perhaps vehicle/rebirth spawn points could similarly be disrupted as well, allowing for a few minutes reprieve for the recent victors. Time to regroup/rearm and plan... and not an instant retaliation. At least... from one empire.

This would also make "back-dooring" something to take more seriously. It's known that capturing territories that are deep in enemy-held territory takes additional time, but if you could "stun/disrupt" the supply from all of the adjacent resource-producing territories with a successful capture, it becomes worth it. One territory to deny resources for 60 seconds from 3-6 adjacent territories with connected hexes would make a nice temporary dent to all fighting on a continent. Especially if that territory is adjacent to an enemy base... gives your Empire a foothold... distracts an enemy Empire.

This mechanic would be very easy to code (a lot of the code exists already in regards to the adjacency), adds some strategy, allows smaller outfits not involved in base warfare to significantly contribute, and takes some heat off of the main bases. It does lack immediacy, but that can be balanced via vehicle cost etc. Perhaps.

What does everyone else think?

CuddlyChud · 2012-06-21, 07:00 AM

I don't think there's anyway to gain immediacy when everyone has their own personal stores. As long as you can store resources, there will always be a buffer. But one idea I had was what if resource gained from territory grew exponentially? So if an empire has 5 territories that produce alloys and you take one, they lose more than 1/5 of their alloy income. I dunno, haven't really thought too much on the subject but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Dart · 2012-06-21, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by StealSky

Lots of intelligent discussion going on in this thread. I'll try not to up-end it.

I think a simple solution would be this: any time an enemy captures a territory of any kind, any adjacent territory your empire owns fails to provide any resources for 60 seconds (consider it a "stun" if you will). This would make capturing a contested base a little more decisive, as the enemy will suffer a temporary set back in resources before being able to regain them from other territories. Perhaps vehicle/rebirth spawn points could similarly be disrupted as well, allowing for a few minutes reprieve for the recent victors. Time to regroup/rearm and plan... and not an instant retaliation. At least... from one empire.

This would also make "back-dooring" something to take more seriously. It's known that capturing territories that are deep in enemy-held territory takes additional time, but if you could "stun/disrupt" the supply from all of the adjacent resource-producing territories with a successful capture, it becomes worth it. One territory to deny resources for 60 seconds from 3-6 adjacent territories with connected hexes would make a nice temporary dent to all fighting on a continent. Especially if that territory is adjacent to an enemy base... gives your Empire a foothold... distracts an enemy Empire.

This mechanic would be very easy to code (a lot of the code exists already in regards to the adjacency), adds some strategy, allows smaller outfits not involved in base warfare to significantly contribute, and takes some heat off of the main bases. It does lack immediacy, but that can be balanced via vehicle cost etc. Perhaps.

What does everyone else think?

60 seconds wouldn't scratch the surface and, as Malorn noted in his second post, thus kind of solution does not account for personal resource production.

Atmosfear · 2012-06-21, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I don't think there's anyway to gain immediacy when everyone has their own personal stores. As long as you can store resources, there will always be a buffer. But one idea I had was what if resource gained from territory grew exponentially? So if an empire has 5 territories that produce alloys and you take one, they lose more than 1/5 of their alloy income. I dunno, haven't really thought too much on the subject but I thought I'd throw it out there.

I'm not sure exponential resources is such a good idea. One Empire gets a leg up and starts spamming out tanks and planes like there's no tomorrow... that sort of thing leads to imbalance. Whatever the solution is, it needs to be self-limiting and not something that can cause total dominance.

Atmosfear · 2012-06-21, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Dart

60 seconds wouldn't scratch the surface and, as Malorn noted in his second post, thus kind of solution does not account for personal resource production.

60 seconds is an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air; the concept is what's important. A one-time % loss of personal resources (as was already suggested) could also easily be incorporated.

Dart · 2012-06-21, 07:08 AM

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-06-21, 08:06 AM

Two problems with the resource train idea. 1, watches. 2, land mines.

Firstly, what the heck am I listening to right now? Second, I've got some ways to encourage backline work and to deal with person resource accounts.

A territory produces less resources when there is an enemy territory touching it. Amount reduced is fixed and does not stack if more than one enemy territory is touching it. This way the front line isn't producing much in the way of dividends. This is counter acted by the fact that you get resources for fighting the majority of which will be along the front lines.
Now, this makes taking back territories much more important as you're cutting the resource production off all the surrounding territories. If you couldn't take a territory due to what was in it but wanted to cut the resources from it you could take a near-by hex instead. Thought would also go into which territory touched the most hexs and thus would deny the most resources when taken.

Bases should produce NO RESOURCES. They should instead GREATLY REDUCE the cost of vehicles purchased at the base. Any resources they might have given is made up from the resources saved from buying there. This makes bases more than just differentiated hex capture mechanics and actually valuable points of interest.

Thanks for creating this thread, this issue has been itching in the back of my mind for a while. And as a quick reminder, PS1's facility benefits weren't in at start. It took quite a while before any base attached to the lattice link of a tech plant could pull MBTs too. So the finer aspects that promote play diversity probably won't be in at start in the way we will come to think of them as later.

disky · 2012-06-21, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dart

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!

That might work if recapturing the base (or another base which provided the necessary resource) immediately lowered the timer back to acceptable levels. Otherwise, people would be locked out of using their chosen vehicles for extended periods of time when they should under normal circumstances be able to, and that just isn't fun.

Here's how I think it should work, and please tell me if it's a terrible idea (and explain why): Bases are assigned a set resource value. When your faction controls the base, all members of your faction fighting on the continent are provided with this resource value at a regular time interval. If you have been provided with the resource and have not used it by the next time interval, you are not provided with extra resources, so either you use it or lose it.

This still provides incentive to capture as the more bases your faction has access to, the more opportunites for resources you have, and it doesn't require any complex transport or storage systems. At the beginning of a struggle for a continent, resources are scarce, but as your faction captures more territory, more bases are providing more resources and so each player's overall pool is larger. It's a very board game-style mechanic, but I think that's what makes it work. It doesn't take much for people to figure out.

*EDIT* I just remembered that Auraxium is used to permanently purchase things in the game. The system could be adapted so that Auraxium is stored by the user, just as it is now.