New thoughts about combat flow and strategy

[sylphaen]

Hi everyone,

I decided to share this post following the new release of Esamir and the revival of concerns about sanctuary warpgates, number of continents at release, lack of a lattice system, lack of SOI, etc… My purpose is not to declare which is superior between PS1 vs. PS2 or that I’m right and everyone else is wrong , etc… I simply want to share my perception and the understanding I arrived to while thinking about the current state of PS2.

NOTE: Of course, being a PS1 vet, my thought is heavily influenced by my personal experience. If you believe PS1 vets are the horrible bastard child by-product of a sub-par game gone terribad, I suggest you avoid this thread so people (vets or not) who actually like to think and discuss ideas can share in a civilized environment.


EDIT: I wrote my post offline but other interesting posts were made today:

- Important Issues, Life or Death of the Game:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=48403 by The Kush

- Resources really piss me off:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=48411 by EVILoHOMER

___________________________________________


Let me start by asking a generic question:
What if PS2 devs wanted to test for PS2 a warpgate/continent system similar to PS1? What if they were able to do it using placeholders? For example, let’s say they could duplicate Indar/Esamir to test a warpgate system in PS2. How much better would PS2 be?

My feeling is that even with a large server (let’s say 4 continents) and a lot of people (let’s say 3000), the lack of direction or flow in combat would make a game that feels somewhat empty before just as empty after.

Let me explain.


Fundamental difference of dynamics between PS1 and PS2

PS1 had the lattice/bases system which created ACTIVE frontlines.
PS2 has the hex/thousand outposts system which is a glorified influence overlay.

PS1 had a simple and somewhat-linear system that was directly involved in the creation and flow of combat. The rules were hard-coded in facilities and their lines linking bases and continents. Those strict rules were the basis on which strategies were built and from which resulted combat. As PS2 devs admitted, they also limited combat along those lines or facilities since they were the only strategic points which mattered.

In short, continents were a neutral territory and only a small portion of it had strategic significance (i.e. bases). The only relevant parts of the map were the next base on the lattice, their vicinity and the paths leading to those places. From that simple but very restricted gameplay evolved some kind of leadership strategy metagame.


In PS2, the hex system is an illusion of a territory system. If you hide the map color overlay, all you see are bases/outposts dispersed around a map unrelated to each other. Two unrelated rules tie it all together:
a. You can only capture border hexes (PS2 lattice)
b. You want to capture territory because they give out resources (PS2 base benefits)

So essentially, the only interesting thing to gain is resources (indirectly from territory).


Do you see the difference?
In PS1, objective and incentives were strongly tied together and the system was very restrictive. In PS2, there is a separation between capture rules and incentives.


What impact does the resource system have?
No one cares about outlier territories. They are painted a color what appears full of action ("There is a border so it must be a contested territory with a lot of action!") but in reality, they are rarely active. In PS2, there are Auraxium bases and glorified towers.

I feel that the resource system is too complex and too indirect to efficiently create and direct combat flow. It is not obvious for an empire which target should be next. To make empire strategy matter more, devs gave resource quotas per player. What about players who prefer a different play style and will thus favor a specific kind of resource? What if they cannot play that style they like due to lack of said resources?

The only obvious objective everyone agrees on is Auraxium bases because:
- They are the most entertaining , map-wise and capture mechanics-wise
- They are the most interesting, resource-wise

What we currently see in PS2 is that cohesive intense fights are usually at large bases where specific mechanisms are in place to (somewhat) give a flow to the base capture: outpost capture phase, shield generators phase, point control phase.

Guess what? This exciting flow of combat originates from restrictive rules that directly impact tactical combat. The resource system does not matter when choosing which outpost to take first: spawn tubes do! Resources do not matter either when choosing whether to destroy a generator or not.


Do resources matter in adressing combat flow issues ?

So how do resources actually impact strategy? They do not!

In a 33% vs. 33% vs. 33% game, in an even situation (even population, even maps, even skill, balanced playstyles), you would own your 33% of the map and get enough of your 4 resources to play. In such a situation, the need of resources is weak and you could care less about the next objective. In short, boredom is the largest incentive to start-up a fight than resources.

Acknowledging that no world is perfect, let’s assume than an empire has the upper hand, how does the resource system fare? Well, we get the rich gets richer dynamic. With fewer resources available, weaker empires are forced to choose which resource they prefer but does it mean that resources play a strategic significance at this point? Not really, it only means that weakened empires are weaker. Except if they are specifically trying to starve a specific resource of an empire (and only if that kind resource is in a contiguous territory), the winning empire could care less about which zone to attack next. The winners have a good income of resources and personal quotas, the losers are starved.

The only exception is Auraxium. It is the only resource which is truly significant:
- You can never get enough
- It is the only resource that allows your character to progress (unlock new weapons)

Since it is the only resource that matters long-term, it’s the only resource people care about and auraxium bases are the only bases people care about. If people play for resources, it’s the only resource they will play for.

We thus reach this final question:
Is PS2 about fighting a large-scale war over territory or about playing unlock mania?


Conclusions

Surprisingly, I find that the “unlimited” aspects of PS2 are actually the most limiting factors to fun in this game. In PS1, your only limits were certs, timers and the lattice benefits. In PS2, if you want to pull a vehicle, you are limited by timers AND resources. Instead of one unlock system (cert system), there are 2 (cert system + auraxium system). If you lose, you are resource starved and less able to fight for auraxium; if you win, you are favored by the auraxium system which makes the next victory easier.

In the end, if all certs/weapons were unlocked and auraxium was thus a non-factor, would Planetside 2 be a fun game to play? Indirectly, would a paying customer (for whom auraxium is not or less of a factor), keep paying to play PS2?

As a paying customer, I very much preferred PS1 reserves model. With no evident combat flow or direction which I attribute to weak map design (except auraxium bases which are improving), PS2 is dull. In my opinion:
- the resource system is strategically insignificant in its current state and believing that fixing the resource system will fix everything is an illusion.
- PS2 needs rules and base/objectives interactions to structure combat over its maps.
- If resources are to be used, devs should realize they are not a proper way to direct combat flow and should not use them for that purpose. I think only one is needed (auraxium) and should be used to reward active combat, not holding territory.