Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2 - Page 7

ODonnell · 2012-06-22, 05:42 AM

I never saw a problem with the way PS1 resources worked. A lot of the concerns raised by the OP and posters I had been thinking about for a couple weeks now. I won't be able to make judgment until we are actually in the PS2 beta. Until then its just exhaustive theory crafting.

Seagoon · 2012-06-22, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Synapse

Well convoys certainly are a lot more fun than (visible or invisible) pipes, Seagoon.

Yeah I would agree, but the pipes offer a completely different style of attack much closer to PS1. It also has very different implications as to how long and serious an outage a attack on the resources might produce.

The main reason for this is that vehicle transported resources are in bulk and pipeline transported resources are a continuous flow.

With the bulk transportation method, you would have a delayed effect on the opponents resource system from ambushing a convoy. This is because the ballancing of the system would require a stockpile to keep an uninterupted flow of resources to the players, this would mean there would be a delay before the resources became an issue as this stockpile runs out.

The pipes however could be designed to produce a much more immediate effect in that you dont need a stockpile to smooth out the resource system, so as soon as a hex is attacked and it blocks off that part of the maps resource gain, then the effect will be that the opponents resource income would drop straight away. This also has the benifit of never completely starving a player of resource income but still making it so they have to be more careful about producing tanks.

Pillar of Armor · 2012-06-22, 07:28 AM

One solution would be have 1-3 silos scattered through each faction territory. To gain a resource from a facility the silo has to be linked to the facility. The links could be established by some sort of teleportation node for pipelining resources. In order to establish the link, the node has to be driven from the facility to the silo, and then add some sort of mechanic for breaking links at the silo (enemy sappers) or as a result of enemy facility captures.

GuyFawkes · 2012-06-22, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by disky

I honestly think the easiest way to keep it simple and balanced is to just assign resource values to territories, and when your faction controls the territory, everyone on the continent gets the resource at a set time interval, and if they haven't used the resource by the next time interval, they don't get it again. This prevents stockpiling and creates an incentive to capture, because the more territory you have, the larger each player's resource pool becomes and more resources are restored to their personal pool at the time intervals. And obviously, it also diminishes the pool of the opposing players.

With this system the game isn't complicated with transportation and personal storage because each player's personal resources are defined solely by the bases their faction owns. I'm probably one of the few people that actually liked ANT runs, but I feel like this would make it much easier for new players to grasp quickly.

This sounds simple enough, but I think it should be resources gained that you are in direct connection with you should benefit from , not continent wide. If you can scissor a factions area and cut off benefits to either part it brings added tactical play .

All the outbuildings and small outposts should be like a supply line , ways to interrupt resource gathering. Instead of killing an ant , you hack and hold an outpost . Its things like this to draw people away from the main fight , resecuring , denial . Same principle as ps1, just in a more realistic , modern rethink that is required.

Asp · 2012-06-22, 09:34 AM

I was tossing around ideas similar to Noxious, about bases and resource nodes, but slightly different..

Facilities Several types, no resource generation, resource storage for the empire controlling. Transmits it's resources to outfits/players as dividend.. Losing that base, results in a physical loss of resources for the empire/player (enough to be noticed but not crippling due to one base being lost), and obviously a slight decrease of the continuous resource gain for the empire/player (% of resources accrued by the base while in enemy control is removed from empire stockpile; so % of the divdend you've received from that base is removed). Possible gen drop on the facility could also deny resources, or slow acquisition. Players wont like the resource loss, but there's no denial without loss, so...

Non-base capture points Resource generation, transmits to specific bases. Losing these nodes deprives the base connected of the resources generated for the empire controlling the base. Future possibility for engineer certs/equipment to siphon that resource (once you control it) from the enemy without controlling the base?? Gives smaller outfits a role in going after the resources around bases (not just tower drops).

Loss of all resources of {insert type} continent wide results in slow drain of that type of resource for the empire(s) not in control. 5%, 10% drain? Whatever is balanced and appropriate. Now not only are you not receiving resources from a particular continent, but it's also adversely affecting you. Easy to counter, yes, but you don't want it to be something an empire has serious difficulty coming back from.

Loss of {insert base type here} Loss of all (for example) tech plants on a particular continent increases costs of vehicles, or advanced equipment, or anything built with auraxium (example) by 10% (or insert balanced penalty here).. You have benefits for an empire controlling a base, along with deficits for empires that control none of them on a continent.

Those kinds of denial penalties could apply globally or even in a continental sense, depending on balance. Resources penalties would be global.

Any of those ideas can be tweaked or modified. The general idea is, the bases should be worth something, but collectively the non-base capture points should be worth something equally as well. You want resources and benefits? You're going to need to capture bases, and the surrounding territories. You want resource denial, it's the same, but it can also be achieved by going after the resources specifically.

bmfof · 2012-06-22, 10:13 AM

Only read the OP's post, so pardon me if I repeat something already noted.

Aiming straight for a solution to the questions:

How to maintain value of resources?

Taking away resource control from individual players will only cause frustration, so I don't think limiting resources through limiting their operators is the smartest idea. Last thing I want from this game is to be dependant on my outfit/empire leadership for access to basic gameplay abilities. I know that might not go well with some of the hardcore types, but you have to keep in mind that if population is the one thing that can keep things interesting, the game has to be designed in a way that doesn't discourage or frustrate individuals for the benefit of coordinated play, especially if there are solutions that don't sacrifice player freedom and control.

As for a solution to resource distribution that doesn't devaluate resources, a risk like system seems appropriate enough. The following steps should be taken:
- Players should have access to a set limit of resources per owned frontline territory IF there are 2 or more adjecent;
- Resource generation should be somewhat dependant on frontline owned territory IF there are 2 or more adjecent (except for footholds);
- Resource generation should be heavily dependant on the number of owned territory in general;
- Individual pieces of territory (with no adjecent territory under your control) should be subject to resource degeneration 30 minutes after they are taken.

The logic is simple: the more battle your empire is engaged in, the more resources it should have access to as it expands. The more your empire presses onwards and dominates, the harder it becomes to maintain all that territory, thus the actual decrease of the individual resources limit as frontlines decrease. Finally, the requirement of 2 or more adjecent territories to be controlled in order to generate resources from the frontline creates the sought after supply line simulation that is suppose to bring tactical depth to the game, e. g. - even with limited resources you can sneak in a few coordinated teams to cut of a territory from the frontline, thus sapping the resource generation and from it. That's where the resource degeneration to individual pieces of territory also comes into play - if you have owned a frontline territory for more than 30 minutes, the moment it's cut of from the rest of your empire, it actually starts losing you resources, halting your drive in this way.

Basically, no matter what you resource generation is, if you ever come to a point where you've cornered your opponent, your resources will be limited, thus making you an easier target for the time being. The more you yourself are pressured, the more buying ability you get as the number of frontlines increase.

Ideally, with the above system, resource generation - even with an insane amount of territory under your control - should never be faster than spending (or outflow, w/e).

Of course, there are probably flaws with the above.

Kalbuth · 2012-06-22, 10:28 AM

Not to sound trollish, but please, KISS : Keep It Simple Stupid.
Rules should be straightforward and everyone should be able to assess at any time, quickly, what resources he's gonna have, and why

Nemises · 2012-06-22, 01:35 PM

I initially spawn with 5000 "resources".
I buy a Tank (cost 3000 resources)
I kit up in my uber HA (cost 1500 resources)
I now have 500 resources left

My empire owns 8 territories (out of a possible 24) currently
Each territory generates 10 "resources" per tick
Each tick is..I dunno, 2 minutes?

I drive my Tank out, get in a massive fight and am dead within 10 minutes

In that time I have received 400 resources (80 * 5) passively
I also managed to kill 5 people in that 10 minutes, for which I get 50 "resources" per kill...

So,
I now respawn, and have 500 + 400 + 250 = 1150 resources...

If I want to get my cool tank again (3000 resources) I must wait 11.5 minutes, or go kill a bunch of dudes..
If I want to get my cool HA kit (1500 resources) , I must wait 2.5 minutes

if my empire captures more territories, I get 10 more resources per tick per territory
I kill a bunch of dudes , I make a ton of cash.

Simple system..I expect this is more or less what SOE are planning

**Malorn** · 2012-06-22, 02:17 PM

Sirisian, you have a lot of complexity in your post and I don't quite know what to make of it.

To me the entire purpose of the resource system is denial. If the absence of the ability to have something is meaningful then that will motivate to go after resources, which makes territories valuable, spreads out the combat, and gets the diverse gameplay they are after in the first place. Without meaningful denial there is no reason to go after territories for their resource value and the game missed a lot of tactical potential.

PS1 had these denial elements. They were really simple, and tied in well with the lattice system. It was quite elegant. PS2 has different goals. Here are those goals as far as I understand them. This goes all the way back to last July when PS2 was revealed at fan faire.

1) Stop the base back-and-forth

PS1 revolved around facilities and the pathways between them, which left a lot of territory on the map unused. They want to increase the use of non-facility space. If you think of resources as replacements for facility benefits of PS1, they are moving the benefits away from the facilities and to the other territory. A great idea to lessen the value of the facilities. Makes sense.

2) Fight over every inch of territory

Between resources and the influence system, territories gain value. The influence system makes them must-capture in order to more easily capture other things, and the resources give you a reason to go after specific territories as strategic targets. Since they are only shipping with 3 continents, they also need people to fight over every inch to help the game feel massive and to make the most out of the content.

3) Use resources as currency for motivation and another layer of skill

Having personal currency helps make the acquisition of resources more personal for players. Helping your empire get a benefit - not everyone will care about that. But they will care if they personally benefit from resource acquisition. Additionally, individual resource management is another layer of skill and adds depth to the game.

All great goals, and they make sense. It does not seem like the design they have doesn't fit those goals very well.

Fighting over all territories does not seem meaningful beyond building influence, because of the number of resource producers combined with the resources from fighting. There's no obvious way to significantly impact the resource production of the other team. So why bother? And if there's no way to significantly impact resource production then the personal motivation to attack or defend on the basis of resources is minimal. With the influence system fighting over rear territories ins't practical, so we aren't really fighting over every inch most of the time and there's a large amount of territory that will see little action (like the ones near the warpgates). In the absence of fighting over every inch of territory for resources what will players do? They'll go for the big obvious objectives that signify clear achievement - facilities. So without effective resource denial all three goals fail.

And this is why I made this post. Resource denial is a very important thing and at the heart of what they are trying to do in replacing the lattice.

Were resources clearly deniable and have a significant effect on all players, then they would be motivated to fight over them and move away from the facilities. If you could impact resources without capturing territory (like classic PS1 gen drops) then you could spread the fight out a little bit and get fighting over more places. You won't see huge groups behind lines doing this but it does give something useful and interesting for smaller outfits to do who do not want to be in a giant zerg meatgrinder. And such a thing is a natural counter to an empire getting too big.

Originally Posted by Nemises

I initially spawn with 5000 "resources".
I buy a Tank (cost 3000 resources)
I kit up in my uber HA (cost 1500 resources)
I now have 500 resources left

My empire owns 8 territories (out of a possible 24) currently
Each territory generates 10 "resources" per tick
Each tick is..I dunno, 2 minutes?

I drive my Tank out, get in a massive fight and am dead within 10 minutes

In that time I have received 400 resources (80 * 5) passively
I also managed to kill 5 people in that 10 minutes, for which I get 50 "resources" per kill...

So,
I now respawn, and have 500 + 400 + 250 = 1150 resources...

If I want to get my cool tank again (3000 resources) I must wait 11.5 minutes, or go kill a bunch of dudes..
If I want to get my cool HA kit (1500 resources) , I must wait 2.5 minutes

if my empire captures more territories, I get 10 more resources per tick per territory
I kill a bunch of dudes , I make a ton of cash.

Simple system..I expect this is more or less what SOE are planning

And this is precisely the problem. In the above example your primary motivation is kills, not territories. You can play the game and not give two shits about territory. And if you lose one, so what? It doesn't affect you immediately and you can overcome it by going back to kills. Your example illustrates why the system is bad, especially this bit...

"I kill a bunch of dudes, I make a ton of cash" <-- epic fail, there is no motivation to do anything but go out and zerg. There is nothing that would motivate you to go do anything other that kill in the most efficient way possible. Support activities - they are a liability. Going after territory - why? Helping others - that's a risk to self.

This is exactly what the system should not be. The more I think about it the more I really dislike the idea of getting resources for kills. It is an uncontrollable source of resource income and allows players to ignore a fundamental part of the game. If they wanted some minimal income to ensure players dont' get completely screwed, then have a minimal base resource income for all players. The kills bit only discourages certain playstyles, namely support.

OutlawDr · 2012-06-22, 02:27 PM

I agree that we should keep is as simple as possible, but at the same time lets not shy away from more complex solutions that are clearly better. I think the resource metagame in general is simple enough for the average player to figure out. For example, a player will see that a tank costs X res. The player will simply look to see whether or not he has the res to buy it...and it ends there.
Most players don't care or need to know the exact mechanics determining how much res they have. Its not a requirement to play the game properly. Maybe at the highest strategic level, but the players involved in that are going to be hardcore vets and outfit officers. They can be expected to put in the homework to figure out the exact mechanics. PhDs shouldn't be required, but a 5-15 minute read on some PS2 wiki is perfectly reasonable imho.

Above all, there should be a reasonable player resource pool cap. Low enough so that a player can not stockpile enough to trivialize any subsequent territorial loss. Also low enough so that resource regen via territories is something you don't want to lose, so that loss of a territory has a noticeable impact on vehicle acquisition. In other words, losing a tank should sting. It won't put you completely out, but losing 3 tanks in a 10 minute time span is something a player should NOT be able to recover from in less than 10 minutes..for example. This is where beta will come in to figure out exact values, and Im' saying this is for sure going to be enough. But definitely start here.

Nemises · 2012-06-22, 03:00 PM