Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2

[Pillar of Armor]

Originally Posted by Akadios

You showed alpha footage of vehicle costs that he says right in the video are not final at all. IE not fact.

Ok had to quote this because it made me laugh. How could we even discuss things in beta? Everything in beta is subject to change independent of our feedback. Games like this are fluid, even after launch things will change. Discussion helps guide development, brings in new ideas, and it's important at any stage of any project....

[Dov]

You nerds need to stop arguing about a video game and refocus that energy into positive discussion. This thread, if nothing else brings a fresh perspective and can guide what we players are looking for in beta. Threads like these make us better playtesters by priming us to go seek answers (in beta) to questions this topic poses.

[Akadios]

Originally Posted by Dagron

What? You made very little sense here.
I quoted things you said in 2 posts and i didn't add anything to your text, i just commented on them.

[edit] I never said you were responding to anyone other than Pillar of Armor, i don't know what you're talking about. [/edit]

The reason I "made little sense" is because you nerd raged so much that you had to go back and edit your thread to remove what I was talking about. ur cool bro

[Malorn]

Don't let the troll ruin the thread. If he thinks it's pointless he's welcome to ignore it. Resume discussion please.

Right now the resource limit is high compared to the costs, and that could well be because they aren't testing the resource system yet, though they could be taking tons of data on resource consumption and rate to see how many resources are consumed for a battle like the one presented at E3. They could then use that to sort out better rates, then lower the max limit.

If the personal supply limit is very low then I think resource denial can matter if there's different weights and if the accessible territories have a bigger impact when gained/lost.

[Akadios]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Don't let the troll ruin the thread. If he thinks it's pointless he's welcome to ignore it. Resume discussion please.

Right now the resource limit is high compared to the costs, and that could well be because they aren't testing the resource system yet, though they could be taking tons of data on resource consumption and rate to see how many resources are consumed for a battle like the one presented at E3. They could then use that to sort out better rates, then lower the max limit.

If the personal supply limit is very low then I think resource denial can matter if there's different weights and if the accessible territories have a bigger impact when gained/lost.

I resent the accusation, I laid out a point of the OPs complaint being unfounded and thus pointless. My reasons for this are based in the simple logic of no one has used the system on a large scale yet and the real numbers aren't even known. One dude tried to jump on me about it and then another guy came in trying to troll me by going back as soon as I posted a reply and editing his thread to make it look like he didn't.

In fact the first insult/ off-topic trollism was swung by Dragon when he said , "Seems like you spent too much time on internet forums and caught the agressiveness virus it tends to infect people with.
Relax, nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, we're just chatting about something we all like." The next was by Dagron when he said, "You've proved you either have low reading comprehension or don't want to contribute."

Both of which I did not respond to and attempted to keep it on topic by talking about the numbers not being known. So really who is the troll?

[OutlawDr]

Originally Posted by Akadios

I resent the accusation, I laid out a point of the OPs complaint being unfounded and thus pointless. My reasons for this are based in the simple logic of no one has used the system on a large scale yet and the real numbers aren't even known. One dude tried to jump on me about it and then another guy came in trying to troll me by going back as soon as I posted a reply and editing his thread to make it look like he didn't.

Heh no, sorry but you can't turn it around and start acting like the victim. You came in with your first sentence and said "Stupid thread" and calling people idiots for having this discussion. Please tell us what we were suppose to think. You were trolling. This is even after Higby came in and posted his blessings on the whole thread. Opps

[Akadios]

Actually I called the thread stupid and laid out a clear reason why I felt so and defended the statement without resorting to personal attacks like the other people. (Not trolling)

I did however say that threads like this (where people are complaining about something that is not even working yet) wreck games and that the people that do it are idiots. I can back this up with any number of ridiculous changes that are made because of player whining in multiple MMOs (again not trolling).

Simply calling someone a troll doesn't make it so, and doing it to try and back up someone else is just sad.

[Hamma]

Please get the thread back on topic. If you do not like the topic simply leave it and visit another topic on the forum.

[Akadios]

Back on topic (I am trying to contribute by making an opposing point to worry):

The numbers aren't real yet, Higby already said that, he also talked about the points being made were not things to worry about. He also went on to say that he will "chew over" a suggested fix (Which is why it alarmed me).

While I agree that if things were broken this would be a legitimate concern however I have not seen anything in the thread (which I did read all the way through) that was anything more than speculation about potential unbalances or issues with the current system for which the specifics are unknown.

It seems to me that it would be best to wait for beta and see if it works before talking about potential changes that should be made.

[OutlawDr]

That would have been a better first post, Akadios. Without needing to call the thread stupid and accusing people who have these discussions as idiots.

However if waited for beta to have these discussions, we would never discuss anything. Plus someone earlier said it best...these types of threads prime us for beta testing. Its gives us things to think about and look for once we start testing. Obviously we won't know until we start beta testing, and I doubt anyone is seriously thinking we are going to decide this issue now in this thread...so relax. The end of this discussion will happen in the beta forums....well actually it will probably continue well past post launch...

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Akadios

Back on topic (I am trying to contribute by making an opposing point to worry):

The numbers aren't real yet, Higby already said that, he also talked about the points being made were not things to worry about. He also went on to say that he will "chew over" a suggested fix (Which is why it alarmed me).

While I agree that if things were broken this would be a legitimate concern however I have not seen anything in the thread (which I did read all the way through) that was anything more than speculation about potential unbalances or issues with the current system for which the specifics are unknown.

It seems to me that it would be best to wait for beta and see if it works before talking about potential changes that should be made.

We know a lot more than you think. This thread was an accumulation of knowledge over the last year of what we know of the resource system, which is a lot more than is readily apparent in the E3 content. There are some components we know about from many other sources. Intelligent people are capable of putting things together and sketching a reasonably accurate picture of the model formed from the components we know exist.

This thread was also made with lots of first-hand experience of how people actually play in an MMOFPS (PlanetSide), and knowledge of how they strategically manipulated resource mechanics in the past. It doesn't take too much talent to compare the two models of what we know and bring up potential problems and gaps. Perhaps they've thought about the gaps and the problems and have a solution. Maybe it's a new perspective for them to consider.

In either case it certainly isn't a "stupid thread" to discuss these elements, give feedback on mechanics we like or dislike, and bring up concerns with things we see. The devs like and want us to give feedback on what we see of the game. The only stupid thing here is dismissing the topic outright without understanding it.

[Akadios]

double post.

[Akadios]

@outlaw I understand that it is something to talk about I don't really see the issue even if resources can't be "cut off" there are so many ways to win a battle.

I don't remember resource cut off being a major factor in the taking of continents in PS1. I mean ya it was nice if you had tech and they didn't but the battles on maps flowed more based on path from base to base and less on what needed to be taken to knock them down. In addition every time you went to a new continent they had all their "resources" again which won't be true in PS2.

In fact a bigger concern for this topic I would think wouldn't be what if people have to much but will be what if we have nothing and are locked down on all the continents.


@Malorn I feel like I do understand it I just disagree with you. I also played PS1 for 4 years and have the experience you are talking about coming together in this thread.

As I said in response to outlaw I simply don't agree, I don't think the system is a problem, I never experienced PS1 battles being focused on resource cutting more than just a techplant gen kill (I felt they followed terrain features).

You also did not address the fact that in PS1 as soon as you jump a to a new continent you have all your resources instantly back but in PS2 that won't be the case.

Anyways it isn't that I don't understand it is that I disagree it is easy to say that I was being stupid dismissing what you wrote about. However you shouldn't dismiss what I am saying.

[Malorn]

Great, your voice has been heard. Now for those that do think there's something worth discussing, how do you think the Influence system can best be tied into having resource-related objectives in territories while still preserving player resource pools?

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Great, your voice has been heard. Now for those that do think there's something worth discussing, how do you think the Influence system can best be tied into having resource-related objectives in territories while still preserving player resource pools?

I'm still a fan of having separate bonuses, such as regional control bonuses that are similar to the continental lock benefits from the first game.

I think of the Planetside 2 resource system as a more complex version of the tech plant from the first game. It's a more advanced way to control what you have available to fight with. But I don't think that the resource system inherently negates or replaces all of the benefits of a bonus system.

Once the devs balance out the resource nodes, with some being worth more than others, I think we'll see them start to function a lot more like tech plants from the first game. While it may be impractical to remove all of a resource from an enemy empire, we may be able to remove a significant chunk through a strategic back hack.

But the problem in my mind is that if resource gain is tied to a continent, the same way that tech plant use was tied to a continent, then empires with no resources or territory on one continent will have more reasons not to push back into it than they will have to push into it.

But if there were small bonuses that your empire gained globally for controlling regions on continents (specific clusters of hex areas), then there would be inherent reasons to always want to maintain at least some land on every continent. Once you have the drive to hold at least a little land on a continent, then you immediately have a drive to hold more land and resources, to secure your position on the continent.



As long as some resource nodes are worth more than others, I think the resource system will work out pretty well as is. The maximum amount of resources that you can carry should be reasonably low, and the resource gain should be well balanced where an empire with an average income of resources can pull vehicles at a reasonable rate, an empire with a dominant amount of resources can spam vehicles faster than the vehicle spawn timer can keep up with, and an empire with no resources at all can still grind for 10 or 20 minutes in a battle to pull a tank.

So as long as resources are well balanced and distributed, I'm liking what I'm hearing so far.

That one sticking point is cross continental bonuses, and incentives to fight on continents where you have no resources. So I am really thinking that something like a globally affecting regional bonus idea is the one thing currently missing.