| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
| Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2012-10-07, 11:08 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
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. Last edited by sylphaen; 2012-10-07 at 11:27 AM. |
||
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 01:20 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #2 | ||
|
Major
|
Well I don't think resources are a bad mechanic in and of themselves, but I would agree that there implementation is a bit lacking...
...Most players seem to fail to realise their importance only to bemoan their inability to pull a tank. As for the Hex system... I prefer Indar's smaller hexes, as the need to capture them at least slows down large enemy pushes and allows smaller groups to contribute to a Factions' efforts by offensively or defensively capturing. Esamir does have a much better distribution of major Facilities though... In the end, I kind of wish I had some experience with the original Planetside's Lattice system, just to have an idea of how it worked and how it could change the current game play. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 01:50 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #3 | ||
|
Contributor Major
|
Have you read about the upcoming change to resources I think it sounds promising. They are making them simple to understand by breaking them down into, tank resources, infantry consumable resources, and aircraft resources.
__________________
|
||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 01:55 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #4 | |||
|
Major
|
I mean, what am I, someone who can't fly, going to do with "Aircraft" resources? At least with Polymers I can purchase Lightnings and some consumables, same deal with Alloys and Catalyst for their respective Air and Ground Vehicles. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 01:58 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #5 | ||
|
Contributor Major
|
I think it helps new players understand what they need to focus on. If you don't fly you don't need aircraft resources, precisely why it's a simpler approach.
I see where you are coming from though but i like the change. I am mostly excited that C4 won't cost 2/3 as much as 1 tank meaning I can't ever really use both.
__________________
|
||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 02:02 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #6 | |||
|
Major
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 02:42 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | ||
|
Captain
|
I think this post makes some very interesting and well thought points. I agree, the resource system is failing. If the devs wanted you to play the way you want to play (which they have said) then you would be able to pull any vehicle or weapon you want without too many barriers and definitely once unlocked as many times as you want. This further goes to show how the hex system is failing and removing a core aspect that makes planetside fun. Huge battles and the feeling of conquest can only be achieved by the lattice system and sanctuaries. It is boring as hell fighting in the same 1/3 of the map everyday with no clear goals feeling like I'm not doing anything.
|
||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 03:03 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #8 | |||||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Thinking more about it, I have found a way to summarize my post:
In its current state, the resource system does not improve nor serve battle mechanics in PS2. If there was no resource system (and we kept Auraxium or not - auraxium rewards the wrong things but is not the issue imo), I believe the behavior of fights and the game would be the same overall, excepted that vehicle-side would be more lively and outposts would be less contested and captured when an army moves through it. I find that resources bridle players more than they add any strategic depth or interesting gameplay. Interesting gameplay comes from other mechanics, not from the resource system. ______________________________________ Comments:
It's hard to not infer what is meant to be (i.e. players on the losing side can cough out money-equivalent resources for temporary equipment resources to keep a fair fight) and I think it is a wrong direction for the game. Instead of going through intermediary resources (Auraxium -> resources -> temporary equipment), why not just have a timer and allow Auraxium (i.e. money or game time) to act directly on that timer ? Without resources, the current winner would not have an unfair advantage and the money paying (or time paying) customer would not feel like he wastes money into a drain.
If mutual destruction works for troopers, why wouldn't it work for vehicles ? As far as I know, vehicles also shoot at each other and also blow up. Why worry about too many of them on the battle field unless they are parading and not fighting ? ______________________________________ Your opinion: If there was no resource system, how do you imagine PS2 would change ? Last edited by sylphaen; 2012-10-07 at 03:31 PM. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 03:25 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #9 | |||||
|
Major
|
I mean, fighting over the same twenty so Hexes does get a bit old after awhile... ...I do have an idea, but I'm not sure how feasible it would actually be... Playing off my "Auraxis low-orbital Mega Structure" idea, what if the Orbital elevators attaching that structure to the surface were connected to a network of pipelines? These pipelines would transport Resources from various Stations across the surface and funnel them up to different processing Facilities in the low-orbital Grid. "Sanctuaries" would be re-instated, not as land masses, but massive Faction-controlled ships that are in a constant slow orbit around the Planet. They would only ensure a Factions ability to control a small portion of the "Orbital Processing Grid" and the "Resource Pipeline Network" by being able to "Hotdrop" troops directly beneath them. This would not only give us an excuse for a Lattice system, but also make the battle environment itself a constant visual reminder of the lore. What do you guys think? ===========================
Last edited by Whiteagle; 2012-10-07 at 03:29 PM. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 03:49 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #11 | ||
|
Contributor Major
|
As a newcomer to Planetside I'm not in a postition to make comparisons to PS1, but I have to say that I am a bit underwhelmed by the PS2 resource system. Auraxium is what counts; the others - cant even remember what they are or what they are good for - might as well just ignore them.
What drives me is either conquering/defending territory (irrespective of resources) or going where the action is. Simple as that. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 04:05 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #12 | |||||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
I think Auraxium could be gained in a different way than rent from controlling a main base. The resource system was meant to be the main strategy driver in PS2. What I say is that its current state is inadequate. Hexes (attackable territory is the currently contiguous territory) and the map configuration (e.g.: the crown) have more of an effect on battles/gameplay than resources (e.g. Indar's northern part). In the end, only Auraxium is sought out. Resources only determine whether you are resource-starved or not. Since being resource starved has for effect to increase the chances of being starved even more, I do not see the gameplay fun that could come from this negative feedback loop.
That would be a solution to fix "always fighting at the same spot" syndrom and allow sanc-locking empires. However, it would not solve the rich gets richer problem coming from the resource system.
Thank you ! That is what I am trying to say: PS2 has no adequate system to structure its action. The resource system which was supposed to play that role only incentivizes players to ghost hack empty outposts and base switch (because of the points mechanic). (sorry for the dramatization and raw simplification but it's to help the point across) Other factors play a larger role. Auraxium could perfectly be kept in the game and not be a resource gained from land-rent. Resources do not play a significant role in structuring action in PS2. More focus should be given to other models. @psijaka: no worries, all constructive feedback is welcome. And anyways, if you played other static objectives based FPS, that is essentially what PS1 gameplay was. On a larger scale and with specific mechanics, of course. My point is that while PS2 appears to have mechanics, it is terribly lacking on that side. Last edited by sylphaen; 2012-10-07 at 04:27 PM. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-07, 04:52 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #13 | |||
|
Major
|
Then there is the Orbital Processing Grid, practically a spread-out continent in its own right that connects the others with Orbital Elevators, which splits a front into Surface and Orbital Grid battles. Even if you pushed to take a large amount of the Surface for Resources, that could leave you open up on the Grid for enemies to ride the elevators down to flank you, or cut you off from the Processing Facilities which provide you with Auraxium and/or access to things like Vehicles and Consumables (Working with the idea that Tech Plants, Amp Stations, and Bio Domes will eventually be responsible for such things). Finally, there is the natural Territory creep that comes with the moving Sanctuaries. Sure, you might be able to extend around and enclose the area beneath one of the other factions ships, but are you still going to be able to project that much force in an hour when the ship has moved West by three Hexes? There would also probably be multiple ships per Faction, orbiting in different ways in order to mix up where different Factions would be interacting... |
|||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-08, 07:26 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #14 | ||
|
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Eagle, your best option would to make a post about your idea on the Idea Vault forum. I see one large flaw in undestructable flying mobile spawn points is that there would always be a bias in hotdropping the way the flying fortress is moving (since it provides a spawn advantage) while the defenders have the same incentive to go on offense. You would get a nice merry-go round to cap resources unless the flying fortresses move towards each other.
The good news is that we might get those flying fortresses in the future (ala BF2142 titans). In any case, I think titans could be a fun addition but it won't solve the problems I'm trying to address. PS2 would still suffer from a irrelevent resource system and no adequate system to structure the game's action. |
||
|
|
|
|
2012-10-08, 09:36 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #15 | ||
|
Corporal
|
I pretty much agree with everyone here in that I ignore the resource system because it literally has no impact on my game play until my empire gets zero-based. Then it only serves to keep me zero-based.
I feel that ALL territories should provide Auraxium and only Auraxium. People would be forced to choose between spamming their favorite vehicle or saving to unlock nifty stuff. Paying customers would probably have less mental angst due to having lots of Auraxium at hand, but would be no more powerful because everything "should" be side-grade rated. They may also still be limited by having to first cert stuff with points earned in game. I wouldn't drop the resource system completely though. Instead I would make each territory grant points towards awarding certain boosts to either aircraft, vehicles, or infantry. These might be hitpoint boosts, timer reductions, top speed boosts, Auraxium cost reductions, etc. The points from each territory grant nothing until a threshold is reached at which point you gain the entire boost (ie. not gradually). For example to gain a 5% infantry hitpoint boost you would need 25 points from research centers or some such. Less than 25 you loose the boost, more than 25 and you still only have 5% boost to hitpoints. To make it interesting there would only be 60 (or so) total points available on the map per type meaning two empires maximum could gain any one boost. Suddenly strategy matters on an empire wide basis, and zero basing doesn't give the winning team any overwhelming advantage. **Auraxium is still a problem when zero-based though. Solve this by making vehicles half price or free when an empire is pushed to their warpgate. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
