Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by Synapse

What if resources were represented by actual automated haulers driving back to your warpgate? Then supply lines could be literally blocked and raided, instead of having a lattice to simulate it.

That also opens up the ability for players to bring extra resources to bases that are cut off or just front line to boost fighting there.

I've thought about this too, in this and other games. Sounds like a good idea if done right, but it would have to be tweaked just right so it's not the center of the game

[AlManiak]

automated haulers

Guess we have a reason to have the ANT back if it would be something like that .
It'd be a pretty cool sight tho, seeing convoys moving back and forth from warp gate to territory.

[Synapse]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Simple Solution:
Resources are physically "held" in a territory. If you lose that territory, you also lose access to the resources stored there. To hold on to more of it, you have to cart it off to a base (in something like an ANT). However, a base can only hold so many resources. In addition to this, bases with a hex-link to a territory automatically have access to the resources held in that territory, so you don't need to constantly be carting resources. However, if the link is cut, then those resources are no longer available even if your empire owns those territories.

As far as an individual player is concerned, they shouldn't be able to hold very many resources by themselves. They should have to rely mostly on their total Empire's resources.

This is better than my idea. Allows roughly the same dynamics without adding lots of automated trucks.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Synapse

What if resources were represented by actual automated haulers driving back to your warpgate? Then supply lines could be literally blocked and raided, instead of having a lattice to simulate it.

That also opens up the ability for players to bring extra resources to bases that are cut off or just front line to boost fighting there.

I was thinking more oil pipes or power lines that could be blown up at particular points, but that would be rather annoying to repair and maintain and confusing to intercept. something like a train could work, provided it couldnt be damaged by mines and would need multiple AV aircraft, tank or infantry to takedown, i think it could work....though maps would need some fair redesign...so prob not gonna happen.

[noxious]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The whole idea of territories and resources was to move away from facility-based combat. If we go back to facility benefits then they will once again become the focal points of the game. They will likely be focal points anyway due to their size and visibility, but tactically they wanted to spread things out and make all territory valuable. That's an important part of what they're trying to do with PS2 so I don't think moving back to a facility-based model will help.

Splitting resource generating territories from facility bonuses would address that concern.

This is sort of how it works in Guild Wars 2, which SKYeXile brought up, and it works brilliantly. You still get the zerg focusing only on the castle in the eternal battlegrounds, but in the borderlands the game gets much more interesting (because there is no absurdly difficult to capture castle). In the borderlands, the supply division between resource producing territories and production-capable territories forces each faction to fight across the entire map. This concept could be applied to PlanetSide 2 and work very well.

[Malorn]

I'm not familiar with the GW2 territory control system and can't seem to find any good info with search. Anyone have good links describing how it works?

[AThreatToYou]

Tbh, I'm pretty sure my "idea" is how the game already works/is planned to work.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'm not familiar with the GW2 territory control system and can't seem to find any good info with search. Anyone have good links describing how it works?

ill explain it the best i can, but i dont think its exact implementation would work in PS2, because of its pve elements, but there could be potential work around.

theres multiple sorts of defensive structures in GW2, keeps towers, forts, whatever. then there is supply camps these are worth very little in actual points generation to determine the winner of the realm, but supply is needed to defend and attack forts.


the supply is stored infinity at supply camps, players who's faction own that supply camp can grab and hold onto 10 supply.

So supply is used to make: rams, ballista, and all other sorts of siege weapons, these can be deployed anywhere and are used as offence or defence, each player can carry 10 supply, but it takes upwards of 20 to make a seige weapon. they're also used to repair keep/tower doors and walls. so supply is very important for offence and defence.

Also, every so soften a supply camp will sendout 2 dolyaks(cow type thing, each carrying about 80 supply) these goto the nearest keep or tower and top-up its supply, ofcourse these dolyaks can be intercepted by the enemy and killed, so while you may have the supply camp its pointless unless you protect the dolyaks and keep these lines clear.

each keep or tower has its own supply pool thats topped up by the dolyaks, players can top their personal supply at the keeps, but it takes away from the keeps supply, the keeps supply can also be used to add defensive fortifications to the keep and upgrade walls etc.

i think thats about it, problem is though this system is open to exploits from empire griefing and draining. its a potential problem in GW2 too, but since PS2 is F2P, its more prone to this.

[Synapse]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

ill explain it the best i can, but i dont think its exact implementation would work in PS2, because of its pve elements, but there could be potential work arounds.

*long post incoming* just so so 2 people dont post up long ass replies*

*long ass reply here*

[noxious]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'm not familiar with the GW2 territory control system and can't seem to find any good info with search. Anyone have good links describing how it works?

Here is a dev blog that explains it quite well.

http://www.arena.net/blog/mike-fergu...world-vs-world

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Tbh, I'm pretty sure my "idea" is how the game already works/is planned to work.

I like how your idea moves the resources back to being location-based, but as there is no ANT, and players currently have 5000 max resources, I do not believe your idea is how it works or intended to work.

There's a large pool of personal resources, and we haven't heard of any structures or vehicles designed around resource storage or transport.

I dont' much like the idea of using an ant to move around resources. It seems tedious and unnecessary. The key part of your idea is that the resources are actually "held" in territories, which means if the territories are lost the resource supply is lost with it.

That kind of relates to my idea about having captures affect players' personal resource supply.

There must be some deities laughing somewhere....last week Higby tweeted about the beauty of simplicity, and here we have an instance where PS1 had a simple yet effective design. Yet here we are trying to come up with all these extra complexities in an effort to make the PS2 system essentially do what the PS1 system did with much less effort.

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I was thinking more oil pipes or power lines that could be blown up at particular points, but that would be rather annoying to repair and maintain and confusing to intercept. something like a train could work, provided it couldnt be damaged by mines and would need multiple AV aircraft, tank or infantry to takedown, i think it could work....though maps would need some fair redesign...so prob not gonna happen.

Trains could move fast enough so only fastish tanks could catch and it has defences so that people can stand on it and use turrets.

This could be awesome to see.

[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.

[Synapse]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I like how your idea moves the resources back to being location-based, but as there is no ANT, and players currently have 5000 max resources, I do not believe your idea is how it works or intended to work.

There's a large pool of personal resources, and we haven't heard of any structures or vehicles designed around resource storage or transport.

I dont' much like the idea of using an ant to move around resources. It seems tedious and unnecessary. The key part of your idea is that the resources are actually "held" in territories, which means if the territories are lost the resource supply is lost with it.

That kind of relates to my idea about having captures affect players' personal resource supply.

There must be some deities laughing somewhere....last week Higby tweeted about the beauty of simplicity, and here we have an instance where PS1 had a simple yet effective design. Yet here we are trying to come up with all these extra complexities in an effort to make the PS2 system essentially do what the PS1 system did with much less effort.

Do we actually have any official knowledge that the 5k resources wasn't just to avoid running out during testing with the bases not properly generating resources or something? Could it be just a testing thing?

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Synapse

Do we actually have any official knowledge that the 5k resources wasn't just to avoid running out during testing with the bases not properly generating resources or something? Could it be just a testing thing?

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.