Ideas for the "Rich get richer" problem

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Tapman

Limit the maximum amount of resources you can have at once and keep timers on vehicles.

As long as the cost of vehicles and consumables are balanced, population density will prevent any issue with one empire doing so poorly that they can't afford to defend their territory enough to be foothold-locked, short of a severe lack of population. On the whole, I think that if one empire seems to be laying down a larger amount of hurt, the other empires will figure out what resources to target to counter it. The rich won't be able to get too rich, the poor will only be the people who can't figure out how to survive in a real war and end up wasting their resources.

You can't assume that foothold lock will never happen. It will happen. And it will happen more often than you think. The biggest cause of it will be changes in population throughout the day. People will log off, and not necessarily in perfect faction order. Sometimes a faction will have a higher population, but the other two are reasonably close. Battles may only be raging on one continent as opposed to all three, and what happens to the other two? They get captured by a small/medium sized force with light defense because the population mismatch and the fact that people don't want to leave their good fight in the raging battle.

[Ruwyn]

Because of the title of the thread I looked at it strictly from that direction, "how to keep the the Rich in resources from increasing exponentially while crushing a continent."
Taxing/DRing their resources basically slows their rate of gain since when you take a larger force and attack a small area (in this case an area around a non-capturable), you will inevitably lose a lot of hardware through deaths. Similar to how many times you would die while attempting to take a base or recap a tower. Rushing those doors is brutal! So it's possible that in that event you could remain steady or even lose depending on your "participation". However, it wouldn't be enough by itself.

As Malorn as said by looking at it from the opposite view, How do you convince someone to fight in a bad situation? The answer I think lies in the +experience gain. Also from one of the Higby quotes, there was something about fewer people equals a bigger slice of the resource pie. 1000 units split 10 ways vs 10,000 units split 50 ways isn't quite as daunting as "they get 10x more resources", when they would actually be getting only 2x more.

I think it will end up being a combination of things.

I am discouraged by the fact that you only gain resources from the continent you are fighting on. I really think it should be opened up world wide and some kind of faction contribution system put in. (perhaps it already does?) Simply to eliminate afkers from sucking up resources. Could be something as easy as gathering the mean "score" (in PS1 terms: experience) over whatever time period and dishing out the rewards accordingly.

I also foresee a potential problem with the split resources. Outfits are going to jump out of large area fights to start their own (a lot harder to do with only 3 continents) to try to get away from those that will just ride the coattails. Although it seems that coordinated hotdrops behind enemy lines is being discouraged by the adjacency system and since there are no benefits to be denied by doing so. Not liking the "30min hack on something that hasn't been actively defended in 3 hours because the battle line moved". Spec Ops = Heavy coordinated attack now?

[Mackenz]

For the underdog/locked out empire on a continent:

• I am not sure about discounts - you should get a basic kit load out which gets you what you need, but not everything that you are use to. If you are discounting, no transferring to other continents;
• I like the bonus resource system for the underdog getting bonus resources from their kills - that should be very tunable and encourages fighting;
• The population on the continent based factoring is interesting, such that a wholly owned continent does not yield a full resource stream when not really 'manned'.

[Tapman]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You can't assume that foothold lock will never happen. It will happen. And it will happen more often than you think. The biggest cause of it will be changes in population throughout the day. People will log off, and not necessarily in perfect faction order. Sometimes a faction will have a higher population, but the other two are reasonably close. Battles may only be raging on one continent as opposed to all three, and what happens to the other two? They get captured by a small/medium sized force with light defense because the population mismatch and the fact that people don't want to leave their good fight in the raging battle.

I know that locks will happen but honestly I don't think that they can last, especially if they cap the amount of resources players can hold at once. There will be basic incentives in place to influence people to keep the populations as even as possible, perhaps those incentives could be calculated not only by population but also territory controlled.

Population changes at "end of day" log-offs could be also mitigated by not limiting people to their regional server(s). Just saying.

[Chaff]

.
So....we're building a resource-based game....where once you start "winning" and acquiring more territory...you begin to be penalized....whilist inferior Empire(s) are essentially "rewarded" ? Really ?

Maybe, all we need is a "back-up" plan (w/the Devs). Play the game without any drastic changes or Nerfs...and if the "Rich-Get-Richer" model ends up to be a major issue.....then the Devs need a solution "in-pocket"....one they can implement ASAP - pehaps overnight (or almost immediately).

WHAT would that be ? DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY....just short of being a Sanctuary.

When an Empire gets under 10%/10% (or somewhere 'round there) POP/RESOURCES.....it gains the ability to construct certain DEFENSIVE capabilities....where if facing overwheliming odds it would still have a decent chance of holding the last 5 or 10 sq km of it's meager Global territory.

What's to prevent the other two Empires from Double-Teaming an EMpire on the verge of extinction ?

Well, ONE....if it's real estate was very very small.....2 Empires just couldn't squeeze all their toons to 3 or 4 backdoors......especially, if the almost-defeated EMpire had bonus DEFENDER (Elimination) capabilities....fox holes, ROF, additional walls & cover...just very very "defensable" positions....perhaps depoloyable EvP ones......turrets that auto-return fire....and are very very hearty. THese EvP turrets turn their kills into resource flow....which over time helps the Empire fighting for survival to begin to slowly regain offensive capability.

The Empire in Super-DEFENSE mode gains nothing lasting....just the temporary ability to stave off Total Elimination, exit the near End Game licking its wounds, and perhaps do so with some DEFENSE-accumulated resources to give it a decent chance to fight back towards becoming a Global force/presence.

For NC with 70% of the POP (and 70% of the resources)...to finish off the TR with 10%/10%....might take weeks and weeks...with NC dieing 5-15 X faster than they could manage kills......meanwhile...the VS (with 20%/20%)...would be free to backhack and capture NC resources pretty much anywhere they choose.

Once NC move 20% to stop the VS....the NC will be doomed to "lose" their 50% VS 10% battle vs the TR....in the sense that TR DEFENSE Capabilities will allow them to push the front forward enough to begin acquiring resources that eventually allow them to begin Offenive manuevers again.

Not quite an End Game.....but enough of a "We rubbed-your-face-in-it" for the Dominate Empire to feel victorious.

Not a complete End-Game KO....but a moral victory via TKO.
.
.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Chaff

.
So....we're building a resource-based game....where once you start "winning" and acquiring more territory...you begin to be penalized....whilist inferior Empire(s) are essentially "rewarded" ? Really ?

Maybe, all we need is a "back-up" plan (w/the Devs). Play the game without any drastic changes or Nerfs...and if the "Rich-Get-Richer" model ends up to be a major issue.....then the Devs need a solution "in-pocket"....one they can implement ASAP - pehaps overnight (or almost immediately).

WHAT would that be ? DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY....just short of being a Sanctuary.

When an Empire gets under 10%/10% (or somewhere 'round there) POP/RESOURCES.....it gains the ability to construct certain DEFENSIVE capabilities....where if facing overwheliming odds it would still have a decent chance of holding the last 5 or 10 sq km of it's meager Global territory.

What's to prevent the other two Empires from Double-Teaming an EMpire on the verge of extinction ?

Well, ONE....if it's real estate was very very small.....2 Empires just couldn't squeeze all their toons to 3 or 4 backdoors......especially, if the almost-defeated EMpire had bonus DEFENDER (Elimination) capabilities....fox holes, ROF, additional walls & cover...just very very "defensable" positions....perhaps depoloyable EvP ones......turrets that auto-return fire....and are very very hearty. THese EvP turrets turn their kills into resource flow....which over time helps the Empire fighting for survival to begin to slowly regain offensive capability.

The Empire in Super-DEFENSE mode gains nothing lasting....just the temporary ability to stave off Total Elimination, exit the near End Game licking its wounds, and perhaps do so with some DEFENSE-accumulated resources to give it a decent chance to fight back towards becoming a Global force/presence.

For NC with 70% of the POP (and 70% of the resources)...to finish off the TR with 10%/10%....might take weeks and weeks...with NC dieing 5-15 X faster than they could manage kills......meanwhile...the VS (with 20%/20%)...would be free to backhack and capture NC resources pretty much anywhere they choose.

Once NC move 20% to stop the VS....the NC will be doomed to "lose" their 50% VS 10% battle vs the TR....in the sense that TR DEFENSE Capabilities will allow them to push the front forward enough to begin acquiring resources that eventually allow them to begin Offenive manuevers again.

Not quite an End Game.....but enough of a "We rubbed-your-face-in-it" for the Dominate Empire to feel victorious.
.

I am partial to my idea where there's a maximum number of vehicle and infantry spawns per base, which acts like a supply line. That doesn't punish you as you win, it's simply a game mechanic that would prevent rapes in the first place.

[sylphaen]

One solution: PS2 must be tested ASAP.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Tapman

I know that locks will happen but honestly I don't think that they can last, especially if they cap the amount of resources players can hold at once. There will be basic incentives in place to influence people to keep the populations as even as possible, perhaps those incentives could be calculated not only by population but also territory controlled.

Population changes at "end of day" log-offs could be also mitigated by not limiting people to their regional server(s). Just saying.

It will happen regardless because the number of continents is static while the number of players changes drastically.

Resource caps don't matter because you always have things to spend them on. All the resource cap does is make you continually want resources so they remain relevant and important to the individual player. Once you reach that cap you aren't going to stop getting resources. What you will do is spend them on things. Some things in the cash shop can be purchased with resources OR station cash, so that's one sink. You could spend it on implants or better implants than the ones you have. You could spend it on bypassing the cert tree to skill up faster. There will be plenty of sinks.

As to it not lasting - why do you think it wouldn't last? If I were the rich empire I'm sitting on all the resources I could need, so why not milk it for all it is worth? Its the perfect situation for player advancement. 1) sitting on resources, 2) defending is easy, 3) opponent is under-resourced. If I want to maximize resource input and maximize my K (both of which encouraged by PS2), then why wouldn't I sit and farm that for as long as the defenders keep coming?

While it might not seem like it, the above is actually a good thing. The attackers want to stick around and defend their stuff not just take off to the next continent like they would in PS2. ALl that really remains is to give the resourceless empire tools to be able to effectively fight a well-resourced enemy and (such as big discounts on vehicles and some upgrades). And also entice them to fight with bigger resource bonuses for capping. And also make it so defending isn't so easy. Make the rich empire work to keep its resource gravy train.

The important thing is to keep everyone on-continent and keep the battle fun. If it isn't fun people will leave or log-off, and that is no bueno for PS2. There's another issue of spreading out so everyone isn't in one place so the server doesn't get crushed by the lag. That's another reason making it easier to capture the territories behind the front as an empire gets bigger and bigger makes sense. It gives the low-resource empire more targets that are spread out on the continent and forces the high-resource empire to split off and defend them which lowers the concentration of forces around the warpgates.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Chaff

.
So....we're building a resource-based game....where once you start "winning" and acquiring more territory...you begin to be penalized....whilist inferior Empire(s) are essentially "rewarded" ? Really ?

This is why I dislike any sort of diminishing returns on resources. I believe if you conquer a territory, you get the spoils, no matter how many territories you have. Having lots of territory should always net you more resources than having little territory. Otherwise there's no motivation to capture territory.

Maybe, all we need is a "back-up" plan (w/the Devs). Play the game without any drastic changes or Nerfs...and if the "Rich-Get-Richer" model ends up to be a major issue.....then the Devs need a solution "in-pocket"....one they can implement ASAP - pehaps overnight (or almost immediately).

That's what this thread is about. And I don't think nerfs have really been talked about unless you're zeroing in on the diminishing returns on resources ideas, which I agree are not good for the game.

When an Empire gets under 10%/10% (or somewhere 'round there) POP/RESOURCES.....it gains the ability to construct certain DEFENSIVE capabilities....where if facing overwheliming odds it would still have a decent chance of holding the last 5 or 10 sq km of it's meager Global territory.

They could give out bonuses like that but I think it throws the game balance out of whack. The keys are the ability to compete and the motivation to hang in there and keep fighting. That doesn't require nerfs or buffs to an empire due to its holdings. It's all resource and capture-based.

What's to prevent the other two Empires from Double-Teaming an EMpire on the verge of extinction ?

By making the biggest empire the most enticing target - worth more, easier to capture. The only reason to double team a weak empire is because its easier to take their stuff. If you make something else an easier and more lucrative target then that behavior will sort itself out naturally.

[Ait'al]

Leave it all open to the players. All different scenarios are useful/prudent in different situations. Leave it up to players/empires to decide on their on as the time comes. Variations makes variation. It's a good thing.

Also, you don't learn strategy unless you have to use it. Automating it or simplifying it goes against the point of a strategy game. It literally ruins it in every sense. It removes both the potential and the means to reach it. Natural strategy is naturally balanced to begin with.

Leave it up to the people/players action and you will get x. Leave it up to the government/controlled situation you will always get y. Always go with X. The widest variation and versatility are always your friend. Leave it to people to choose to simplify it by their own actions. Never hard code it into the game.

Natural strategy. There are always ways to unbalance a resource heavy monster! etc etc.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Ait'al

Leave it all open to the players. All different scenarios are useful/prudent in different situations. Leave it up to players/empires to decide on their on as the time comes. Variations makes variation. It's a good thing.

Also, you don't learn strategy unless you have to use it. Automating it or simplifying it goes against the point of a strategy game. It literally ruins it in every sense. It removes both the potential and the means to reach it. Natural strategy is naturally balanced to begin with.

Leave it up to the people/players action and you will get x. Leave it up to the government/controlled situation you will always get y. Always go with X. The widest variation and versatility are always your friend. Leave it to people to choose to simplify it by their own actions. Never hard code it into the game.

Natural strategy. There are always ways to unbalance a resource heavy monster! etc etc.

What are you talking about?

[Ductape]

First off, I am not a ps1 vet so my ideas are based off of what I have read and seen. Also all times referenced would be realtime, not gametime. My primary inspiration for the idea is the buying of additional territory hexes in Civ 5 where each territory has a "pricetag."

I was thinking of something where there is an immediate resource bonus upon capture of a hex. A "bounty" if you will on territories. Based on what resources the territory produces, this will fluctuate, and increase up to a maximum cap based on how long the territory has been held by a faction. The bounty cap would also decrease based on how many hexes it is from the front, up to 4 or so hexes. This would make rapid expansion very profitable in the short run. A Hex would take 8 hours or so to change status so that a breakthrough results in a high return.

However these new acquisitions would not start generating steady resources until a long timer is completed, say 4 days. During this time they do not provide anything, explained by a rebuilding of infrastructure and forming supply lines. This would help to prevent empires from becoming the dominant empire overnight. The off-peak hours would now be very profitable raiding times but would be harder to hold come peak hours. This would also make ganging up on an empire a prolonged affair, and a major effort would have to be made by the 2 empires to avoid having things become business as usual.

A hex would also begin to drop in status if it has not seen an attack in 24 hours or so. This serves a dual purpose, stopping empire team ups, and making sure battles are fought across the entire front.

It would be the counter measure to empires ganging up against the remaining empire because by the time the newly captured squares become resource generators, the rear uncontested borders would have a large bounty. Because the 2 empires are fighting across half of the territory, their resource incomes would be much smaller than fighting both empires. When the profit of empire cooperation starts to become meagre and its harder to keep up the assault, the plump back borders of the allied empire will start to grow in appeal.

I also believe that the encouraged shifting of battlegrounds will make all areas see combat, keeping the variety and make breakthroughs more common, increasing the tension in game play over all as players rush to defend the weak spots.

All these times are guesses and estimations but I think that the ratio should remain similar. Also it may be a good idea to insert a defense bonus after a hard fought battle where some resources can be earned by holding territory from enemy and harvesting the wreckage.

[Ait'al]

Originally Posted by Malorn

What are you talking about?

If they are talking about build up of materials. I'm saying leave it up to players to undo it. Just add more mechanics(not ones that restrict actions but give more of them) or if there is enough in the environment they will eventually widdle out of it. It gives people something to do. following natural logic and just letting the game simply exist over trying to incentivise or over control will fix the problem. Just letting people openly deal with it will fix it.... It's a part of strategy to begin with. If they made the game well enough there will be ways to undo it. If they can't then they just need to develop more which should add options not restrict them. I guess you could say if you can give more ways to engage the enemy it will resolve itself.... Not sure how to put it.

I'm saying don't worry about it.

[Red Beard]

"It gives people something to do. following natural logic and just letting the game simply exist over trying to incentivise or over control will fix the problem. Just letting people openly deal with it will fix it"

Thumbs up for free-markets!

[Malorn]

This problem has about as much of a chance of sorting itself out naturally as hackers deciding to leave Planetside 2 alone.