Resource System Proposal: Feedback Requested

[WhiteMagic]

It's quite an interesteing read and covers much more then just the resource system itself. First up I'd say that the majority of things you envison will never be implemented due to it either changing the game too drastically for the intended audience or requiring too much development time.

I like the basic premise of your proposed resource system, which is a single type of resource used for everything. The general idea of adding more sinks in order for resources to have an actual meaning is also good. Personlly, I never had a problem with resources to pull vehicles unless the continent I was on was close to being warpgated, thus adding some more meaning to it is certainly good.

As for the loyalty system to replace the fixed resource gain it certainly is something that could work but would also need to be properly balanced such that griefing is accounted for and that the losing side in a conflict doesn't get disadvantaged even more then they already are by losing.

Many of your points are linked to resources but not the resource system itself so I think a shorter version just detailing the resource system is necessary, showing that it can be made work with the game how it currently works, not with an entirely overhauled game as you propose.

Some of the things that I can't see happening are listed below:

Larger maps
It's taking SOE alreadly ages to build new continents, so I don't see them ever going back to the three existing ones and scaling them up. For new continents it certainly is a possibility but with the amount of detail they put into a single map having an area four times that of the existing maps it's not very likely. Another option would to reduce the density of bases but that might end up resulting in much more zerg fighting.

New infantry equipment system
This sounds quite interesting but the change is too drastic and would change the entire system. You will also have people that spent certs / sc on weapons argue quite vocally against such a change. The main reason being that different weapons are advertised as a "different playstyle" and they paid either in time or cash for that and thus many would feel "cheated" by such a drastic change.

Besides the point above I think there are two rather significant problems with the proposed system. The first is how do you deal with the potential to instantly lose large amounts of resources due to rocket pods, team kills, getting run over by a tank etc. Secondly, how is such a system going to balance the fight between someone with stock equipment and somone that spent a large amount of resources on his loadout? The guy that spent the resources obviously expects to have an advantage but the guy with stock weapons expects to be on even footing with the other guy, as player skill is what wins fights is one of the games premises. This last point I think this is the largest issue with your system as it may bring the game more into the realm equipement > skill. Additionally, it could lead to the problem of, you need resources to make resources and thus the winning side gets an ever increasing advantage. This is where balancing could become very tricky. To be fair to some extent some weapons are already clearly superior in some situations but with few exceptions not in every sitation.


A few other random comments on some parts:

• building structures, sounds good and hope we will get it in some form. However, great care has to be taken with designing it in a way that prevents griefing and abuse of it
• harvesting mechanic, interesting and if done properly could create areas for small groups to fight that don't care for large battles
• vehicle purchase changes, allowing groups to pitch in to buy a vehicle is good but many of the other things like vehicle upgrades and negotiation queue sound like too big a change to ever make it into the live game, similar to the infantry system revamp

Overall many of your changes would make the game more "hardcore" and require a more committed and informed player base then what planetside 2 seems to aim for. Though as I said in the beginning the main premise of your resource system, one type of resource for everything, is solid and should make it into the game.

[DviddLeff]

Looks great!

Really like all of it, only thing that I would be sad to see go is different resource types as it could provide differing strategic value for territories, however the current system is broken.

Really like making stock kit free and different stuff more expensive, as well as the concept of resource 'events' occurring in big battles. Also the building fortifications is a solid concept as well.

[Sirisian]

I've added some new explanations and mechanics based on the current feedback. The biggest changes are a minimum 200 resource cap. So players that drop below the cap would begin getting 1 Nanite/second. This should fix any issue where a player drops to only a few resources and feels like they aren't equipped to fight at the minimum.

I've also added some more numbers to help cover other perceptions. I've explained some of them below.

The Warpgate system pausing the loyalty was also added in a section so player that need to go idle can spawn back at the Warpgate for a break and preserve their loyalty value.

One other thing I changed was to explain that players would spawn in stock loadouts and use terminals to equip at every spawn similar to Planetside 1. This solves any issues related to spawning at Sunderers with complex loadouts and losing them instantly. You'd spawn and check out your surroundings then equip. To keep this uniform across the game it would be standard at every spawn.

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

Some people die quite a bit and would be forced to play with stock options. This would also make frequent infantry death inhibit a player's ability to pull vehicles and specialized gear. I do not support this.

I think this point is from a misunderstanding. I added a new section to help cover this. Essentially if you check the API you'll find that the average death per hour is 12.75. With a goal of 70% (rather than my previous 80%) average loyalty and with the new 200 minimum resource cap players would be at around 250 Nanites per spawn. Yes, if a player really sucks they might be at the lower end, but the idea is to give players a goal to strive for personally. The minimum cap should help to add a handicap.

Originally Posted by Ragnafrak

I'm not sure how much fun it would be to have to constantly micromanage my resources for every different loadout change, but I like the idea of spending resources on spawn. I just wouldn't want to be 5 nanites short of being able to equip my usual gun.

Under this model the developers would be selling extra loadouts so having say 10 loadouts for dedicated players from a default 3. Players would be expected to have loadouts covering different nanite costs. A big part of this is because of the objective efficiency fluctuations. A very detailed loadout of 200 Nanites with an objective with a 30% efficiency drop would be 260 Nanites instead. This creates a huge complexity in the metagame, but it causes a resource denial mechanism.

One way to combat this is subtle changes to the UI. I tried to show some of them, but on top of this is temporary changes to a loadout. You explained being 5 nanites short on a loadout. The subtle difference in the UI is that you must save a loadout when you make changes. So you'd make changes then select the save loadout button. Now imagine you spawn in the middle of a large battle but don't need a scope temporarily or need a cheaper one you'd simply select the attachment. Rather than going to another menu you'd do everything within the loadout menu. I think this is where the developers are going already. The idea being that any temporary change would be a at most 2 clicks to make and data can be easily seen when hovering over items. I've updated the images to reflect this.

Originally Posted by bpostal

More specialization is always a plus but again, care must be taken so that the power balance between a BR 1 and a BR 100 isn't insurmountable. This may also require a look into the certification system as well to address pricing. As you've said, it's controversial to be sure.

There would be a power difference for a BR1 and BR100 for this system. I actually like that. Player that just beginning would use their certs to specialize on one class with one weapon to begin with. As they get further they would have more loadouts with more weapons. They could also specialize in a single vehicle. The idea is nearly identical to the current system in that a BR100 has a lot more choices to spend their resources on.

Originally Posted by bpostal

If you remove the loadout options from the respawn screen, what would happen to those who squad deploy or drop on a beacon? Would they be stuck in PJs or their previous loadout?

I think squad deploying is going away. I don't like to go into this, but I've been against beacons from the beginning. I suggested implementing pod launchers instead with no deploy Sunderer zones a few times. This goes hand in hand with the larger maps and building fronts for battles. Moving infantry rather than dropping them directly into the center of the base. I haven't shot down a drop pod in like 3 weeks probably because the mechanic is so flawed. I digress but the way this would work is you'd spawn at a Sunderer then equip then go to the pod launcher.

Originally Posted by bpostal

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. As an aside, would you support an initial increased cost (perhaps not just for MAX suits?) at AMSes?

Like I said Sunderers are tied into the lattice system. If someone destroys a generator at your forward base the cost will go up at the Sunderer. There's no need to increase the cost.

A suggestion I have seen before was to spend extra resources to spawn faster at objectives and bases. This ties into the Planetside 1 spawn mechanism. Normally if you die frequently at a spawn your spawn time should go up at that location, but that currently doesn't happen. This forces players to spawn at a different location if they die frequently rather than trying to zerg at a location. This allows fights that are stagnating to slowly die down and come to a close as players are forced to wait for a long spawn time or go to a new spawn location. This works with Sunderers also since their spawn time would be tied to the objective they are connected to in the lattice. I've appended this to the end of the page since I think it would help a lot with the flow of the battles and generate another resource sink. (A big thing is it would create an incentive to not spawn and die at an objective).

Originally Posted by bpostal

What about the addition of (yet) another gen, or tying the mods to a current gen (perhaps the SCU?) so that mods can be temporarily disabled? Especially since you refer to a redesign of the bases, which I assume to mean the addition of better flow and defensibility correct?

Yeah one way to do this is to allow the server room to be disabled like a generator. I would do it a different way. So by disconnecting it from the base. I'll add that to the design with a console that players can initiate a restart. This would take 1 minute to begin and then the system would automatically restart after 2 minutes disabling modules for 2 minutes. So it wouldn't be permanent. There would be no XP gain for the action.

Originally Posted by WhiteMagic

First up I'd say that the majority of things you envison will never be implemented due to it either changing the game too drastically for the intended audience or requiring too much development time.

The development time thing is a given. Everything takes development time. The intended audience though I'm not following. Customizing loadouts is already a core part of the game with the certs. It's not a stretch to add resources into the system. That is if someone can grasp that they're using certs to upgrade then the idea that the customization costs resources should be easy to grasp as long as it's intuitive.

Redoing the UI to make it intuitive is the goal.

Originally Posted by WhiteMagic

Personlly, I never had a problem with resources to pull vehicles unless the continent I was on was close to being warpgated, thus adding some more meaning to it is certainly good.

This is more than just vehicles. It's about adding a meaningful resource system to every aspect of the game and game mechanics. The whole proposal is based on local denials so under this system you'd be able to create denials everywhere on the map, just not when you've taken most of the map.

Originally Posted by WhiteMagic

It's taking SOE alreadly ages to build new continents, so I don't see them ever going back to the three existing ones and scaling them up.

That's why I suggested for them to begin investing in better technologies for map making. They knew they needed to make overhangs and complicated vertical landscapes with Forgelight yet underdeveloped the map system completely. It should have never happened and needs to be fixed as soon as possible. With it they can go forward making complex maps and go backwards later with the old continents. I agree with your assessment though that the changes required might be too large. Base building for that reason can be optional since I don't see what I described working in the small objective dense maps.

Originally Posted by WhiteMagic

The first is how do you deal with the potential to instantly lose large amounts of resources due to rocket pods, team kills, getting run over by a tank etc.

You have to deal with it. It's just like it is now. You pull a Liberator and a friendly Galaxy clips your wing. You move on and lose some resources. Sure it's frustrating, but it's part of the game. I think this will make medics really valuable in that regard for grunts. If anyone can think of a system that would work that would be nice. I can't think of a way to determine who is at fault for an accident with grief or a way that can't be exploited if refunds are given when a player is team killed.

You did give me a cool idea though. Imagine if it showed the number of resources you destroyed when you killed a player or vehicle. That would be a fun statistic to see.

Originally Posted by WhiteMagic

Secondly, how is such a system going to balance the fight between someone with stock equipment and somone that spent a large amount of resources on his loadout? [...] This last point I think this is the largest issue with your system as it may bring the game more into the realm equipement > skill. Additionally, it could lead to the problem of, you need resources to make resources and thus the winning side gets an ever increasing advantage. This is where balancing could become very tricky. To be fair to some extent some weapons are already clearly superior in some situations but with few exceptions not in every sitation.

I'd probably argue that equipment > skill already for many situations. Ever taken a pump shotgun to a BR1 or had a scope, compensator, and forward grip on a battle rifle versus the default? Huge difference. Incorporating the resource system won't change this. In fact depending on the certs used it could mean a BR100 can't use all the certs they had planned to during a spawn so they're actually more balanced versus a BR1 equipment wise. I think what you want is to remove the cert system, but that's not an option. Using the resource system as a compromise to place a constraint on cert choices I think is a good choice.

For BR1 players though they'd probably have a surplus of resources. They can purchase artillery for instance and fund fortifications or pull stock vehicles more often than people that heavily cert theirs and pull them less often. You are correct though that they would be at a disadvantage, but it's not anymore of a disadvantage than a stock Reaver vs a dog-fighting Reaver.

Trying to think of how to make the cert system less of an impact for BR1 players with only the initial certs. I might come back to this if possible.

Originally Posted by WhiteMagic

building structures, sounds good and hope we will get it in some form. However, great care has to be taken with designing it in a way that prevents griefing and abuse of it

I specifically designed it to be very difficult to grief with. It would require whole outfits to misplace fortifications and fully fund them to mess with other players. Definitely possible, but with the fortification degradation they would also have to fund them for the upkeep or pay for a generator. I can't think of any other measures that would make this harder without being annoying. If you tried to misplace a structure in a really bad place it would probably just be destroyed by AP rounds or artillery. They're mostly defensive and accent the PVP combat rather than being standalone. If other people don't agree with that decision they probably wouldn't defend it or use it.

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Really like all of it, only thing that I would be sad to see go is different resource types as it could provide differing strategic value for territories, however the current system is broken.

If you can think of a resource that would have a mechanic and be useful that would be cool. I have one idea which is a construction credit worth 100 Nanites. This would replace using resources to purchase fortifications. So you could save up a maximum 20 credits (2000 Nanites) to use at another time. Good for players that want to wait until outfit night. I've been reading a lot of other resource ideas. Haven't seen any multiple resource models yet that seem feasible, but I'm open to reading about them.


Thanks for the feedback. I think the goal right now with my proposed system is simplifying things to make them more intuitive. Also redesigning UI elements to make things appear simple is definitely a requirement to help with this. An example might be to turn off the funding mechanic by default on the map and let players turn it on by themselves when they're more familiar with the other systems in the game.

The last system I probably need to write in is refunding resources when changing classes or deconstructing vehicles near vehicle terms to get part or all of the resources back that were unused. Also if the engineer repair tool and medic tool should use ammo that must be purchased beyond some stock amounts. I'm leaning toward yes.

[Dougnifico]

I'm sorry but the point you have about weapon upgrades is likely an unwinable battle. Player earned certs or spent money on these items and making them more restricted than the current system causes player to lose equity. That would lead to an exodus of players.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShok...ier_to_Big.php

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

I'm sorry but the point you have about weapon upgrades is likely an unwinable battle. Player earned certs or spent money on these items and making them more restricted than the current system causes player to lose equity. That would lead to an exodus of players.

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShok...ier_to_Big.php

Players don't seem bothered by these kind of changes. It's already happened when the MAX and vehicle costs were increased. It's an accepted part of the game that the gameplay will be changing when the resource system is changed. If your argument is that people would not accept any modification to the resource system that would restrict gameplay I'm going to have to disagree as there's no evidence for that. That is players purchased certs already for vehicles then had the base cost of vehicles increased and no one complained.

[DirtyBird]

They have just updated the Roadmap - Resources Revamp thread.

We've posted some updated details on the resource revamp coming soon on the Roadmap, what do you think?

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/....83018/page-15

Our primary goal for re-addressing the resource system is to make sure it does a better job making resources drive the combat taking place, make sure they have real strategic value, and generally have more meaning than they have currently.

This is a relatively complicated system - you know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you's. I've done my best to try and distill the essence of a 25 page design document down into something more easily digestible, so these are just the broad strokes of the plan we're currently mulling over.

• Resources are reduced to a single currency and acquisition timers are removed.
• Inventory for infantry items is removed - changed to pay on use
• Individual Bases/Facilities supply Resources for local players
• Bases/Facilities have a power level that is drained by providing resources to local players
  • There is a passive power regen to offset the cost of small skirmishes and to restore full power when no combat is taking place.
  • Full powered bases provide more resources than low powered ones
  • The more players being given resources, the faster the power drain
• Addition of Auraxium Crystals/Mines as a power source
  • These are resource nodes added in between facilities
  • Vehicles fitted with appropriate equipment can load up auraxium at these nodes
  • This auraxium can be transported to a base to manually refill it’s power reserves
• When a base is totally out of power, no resources are provided to the friendly troops in the area. This allows the attacker cut off entrenched defenders from using resources if they can keep supply vehicles from breaking their blockade

There's still a lot of other little nuances and details but I think that gives a decent overall picture. It's a pretty significant departure from the current system - do you think this plan would make resources a more interesting component of the game? Does it go too far? Let us know.

[kubacheski]

So does that mean we're essentially going to NTU Silos and ANT Runs? Yet another PS2 clusterfuck that is solved by a PS1 design? This is quickly becoming laughable.

[Sirisian]

Just saw this linked in the IRC channel also. Their plan is one of the more flawed strategies. That is a supply line system ruled by the lowest denominator of players. It will be interesting to see their solutions to the issues.

Originally Posted by JGood

Resources are reduced to a single currency and acquisition timers are removed.

Malorn hinted at this before. Seems to be the general plan in most resource systems.

Originally Posted by JGood

Inventory for infantry items is removed - changed to pay on use

Not sure what this means. Do they mean players with 3 proxy mines will be charged when they lay them down or when they spawn with them? Seems odd in the former case as it would say you have say 3 if you only have resources to place 2.

Originally Posted by JGood

Bases/Facilities have a power level that is drained by providing resources to local players

So the zerg will drain the base and skilled players will hate them. Where's the player's responsibility in this model? This has been discussed to death during the metagame Reddit threads with tons of issues.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

....

Not sure what this means. Do they mean players with 3 proxy mines will be charged when they lay them down or when they spawn with them? Seems odd in the former case as it would say you have say 3 if you only have resources to place 2.

So the zerg will drain the base and skilled players will hate them. Where's the player's responsibility in this model? This has been discussed to death during the metagame Reddit threads with tons of issues.

I would imagine that mines slots will be "reserved" with resources it costs. Meaning you will only be able to use the grenades you have resources for, you will no longer be able to store up to max and still have resources to buy more.

And yea, the zerg will drain it fast, but the player's responsibility is to resupply (like ANT runs in PS1). Some people made it their life's work to resupply NTUs. If the EXP is good enough, then this will be the same in PS2.

yea it has tons of issues, but is much simpler to implement than your more complex, but far superior ideas. Good read by the way. I haven't made it through all of it, but I'm enjoying it so far.

[DirtyBird]

I liked the current method of banking your resources for infantry use and cant say that like the idea of this new proposal.

Does it mean I have unlimited access to infantry resource items until the reserve is drained.
Could a group/zerg stand there lobbing nades at nothing chewing up resources and manipulate the power levels.

Does the power level affect the capture of the base/facility, as in its the new capture method or it works in conjunction with current capture/SCU timers.

If the new bases we see on the likes of Esamir are completely walled in with extrememy limited vehicle access (if any), how do we get the auraxium supply vehicles into the base.
I dont think Esamir was redesigned with this change in mind and thats taken months to get where it is.

How the resource bonus will work on the Boosts/Membership.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by DirtyBird

I liked the current method of banking your resources for infantry use and cant say that like the idea of this new proposal.

Does it mean I have unlimited access to infantry resource items until the reserve is drained.
Could a group/zerg stand there lobbing nades at nothing chewing up resources and manipulate the power levels.

Does the power level affect the capture of the base/facility, as in its the new capture method or it works in conjunction with current capture/SCU timers.

If the new bases we see on the likes of Esamir are completely walled in with extrememy limited vehicle access (if any), how do we get the auraxium supply vehicles into the base.
I dont think Esamir was redesigned with this change in mind and thats taken months to get where it is.

How the resource bonus will work on the Boosts/Membership.

A group could affect the power levels some, by lobbing nades, but it only goes so far as each individual is given resources by the base, one group couldn't deplete the entire base, but they do have an affect on it.

The power level is described as how much resources the base has and in turn how much it can give to the people in the base. It doesn't seem to be like in PS1 where you could deplete a base of power and it would go neutral to cut the lattice link, but I can't say for certain that's not a possiblity. It simply is stated that low/no power bases don't provide as much resources to the people at the base.

Think of it this way, you have x power that is split between 12 people defending a base. Say 12 more people come to the base, then the power is split between 24 people, so each person is half as powerful (in terms of how much resources they get), but there are twice as many people. Which strategy is best, having a large group that can spread the power around or a small group that is a bit more powerful? Kinda depends on how long the seige is going to be and how big the opposing force is. And how long it will take you to resupply depending on how fast you're draining the base.

It really brings in the dynamic of seige warfare and supply lines. Cut the supply and you cripple the army.

[Hyncharas]

I wouldn't be surprised if a few of these ideas went into the game. On the whole SOE are the ones developing PS2, and if they can't figure out how to implement the bulk of ideas they have thought of, they are not satisfying the salary they are earning.

I'm not trying to diminish what you've written; a lot of it's really good, perhaps even enough to for them to hire you! Unless they do, however, I doubt we'll see a system exactly like that.