new lattice tweet from higby - Page 14

DviddLeff · 2013-03-04, 04:55 PM

Going to ponder the resource issue and get back to you Malorn, but I definitely think that the lattice system by restricting targets more than the hex system is the way forward to focus fights and make them last longer.

Now what do we want from the resource system?

1. Be a straightforward system.
2. Provide alternative goals for players.
3. Restrict the amount of tanks/aircraft/MAXs a player can use.
4. Not make it impossible for an empire with 0 territory to fight.

At the moment the system succeeds in 1, 3 and 4 but has minimal impact on strategic goals that players make which is a shame.

I would also like to see it impact on cut off territories more, making it impossible to carry on a defence without some sort of resupply, either through being reconnected or player brought (eg by the old ANT).

Personally I feel I have too many resources - I rarely fly and usually keep my ground vehicles for 15+ minutes so those resources never impact me, and the only reason infantry ones do is because I insist on keeping my character fully stocked on C4, grenades and both AI and AV mines and even then I rarely pull MAX armour.

I really like the idea of using the pipelines as a part of the resource system, potentially with sabotage being a part of it. I also wonder about getting the players to set up resource generators in certain locations, which again can be destroyed/disabled. However with any of this behind the lines stuff the risk is it becomes as annoying as back hacking and gen holds of the original game.

Tatwi · 2013-03-04, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Rahabib

I am not excited about this. I think that defining resources would funnel action just as effectively if not better and bring more meta game elements than just funneled territory control.

That is exactly how I feel.

The proposed system seems like an effort to force people to "play the game properly", without realizing that the players already can "play the game properly" and they simply don't want to (as is abundantly clear from beta until now).

The primary failure of conquest in Planetside 2 is the piss poor communication and community building systems the game shipped with. The secondary failure of conquest in Plqnetside 2 is player will, they simply refuse to or don't care enough to coordinate a proper conquest, because "defending outposts is boring". And the final failure of conquest in Planetside 2 is low population coupled with a lack of regional population caps. Players want to fight epic battles, but the population only supports two or three of these at most. Add to that the fact that people can just keep piling in together, the population shortage compounds the conquest problem and makes it logistically impossible for one side to lock Indarside.

Fix those issues and the hex system will function as intended. Communication, community building, and population control can be fixed by SOE, but it is entirely up to the players to play the game properly. If players can't be bothered to do so, then the concept of a free form MMOFPS is simply a flight of fancy and we may as well go back to round based fps games, because At least they perform better and are easier to balance.

basti · 2013-03-04, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Lord Mondando

Its not just that mate, without an extra layer of strategy which gives small units something to do, bar be a tentacle of the zerg. You have to admit there are serious grounds for concern. I'm sure there's magical stuff going on behind the curtain and all, but I can only go on what I've seen. What I've seen, screams "zergfest or go home" to me. For large outfits and causal players, that's great. Kills the game if you fancy doing something a bit more strategic as my lot kinda do.

Resource revamp

Basic idea and its not entirely my own. We all stand the on shoulders of giants etc. Call it the DL Plan if it must be called anything.

All bases to some extent generate 'Raw' resources, which go towards warpgate (or whatever) in raw format, through pipelines, several points these come above the ground (there are several all ready so makes the job easier in terms of mapping) that can be destroyed/repaired depending on who you are (i.e in your own territory, you can't destroy them, too open to abuse), every tick so many resources go through them. Importantly there should be several 'nodes' throughout the map where these converge, getting more convergent and thus more important the closer you get to WG, thus taking one out deeper in enemy territory = greater effect. Hell why not have existing AMP stations as convergence points.

What comes out of WG (or have a refinery at the WG, whatever) - comes out 'ready to use' nannite format, as the raw material for all vehicles and importantly, player spawns. Have to be transported in something like ANTs (player or AI controlled), to bases in order for them to be able to actively spawn vehicles and units. Make these a single resource or split them up into player, vehicle and air. Undecided.

It also works if you switch them around, raw resources only by trucks, nannites by pipeline. Whatever. But it makes it more dynamic if you in some sense have to engage with both. Gotta defend the pipelines and defend/drive the trucks. A second level of stuff to attack/defend across the entire map. A logistic network. And the more effort and better defended your side manages to keep your logistics network, measurably easier to play the normal pew-pew take the point part of the game. Likewise, the better you attack your enemies, the weaker they get on the battlefield.

Especially if fights for bases are going to reduce to zergs whamming into each other, little subtle changes as a result of smaller battles behind the lines, will effect these battles.

Also for all those pilots complaining, hunt/defend the trucks and bomb/fly CAP around the logistics nodes, becomes the new fun thing to do away from all that nasty AA.

Very small stock trickle in both directions as default. Successfully defending pipelines and nannite transport vehicles to and from bases, drastically more efficient.

Furthermore incentivise this with plenty of certs/murdercash/learninpoints and you'll find people happily guarding nodes and driving/defending the trucks.

Tada. Metagame.

More to come, but that's the barebones of it.

Congratz

You triggered my brain.

The ANT! YAY!

Thats one of the many aspects of PS1 that is missing. Stuff to do that is useful and could really decide a battle, but isnt extremly annoying to do and not nessecary to do 24/7.

I really like your basic idea of connecting ressources and the ant together, especially the pipe stuff, as they give small squads somethign else to do that would impact the battle at the frontlines.

But it shouldnt become annoying or absolutly mandatory that someone does this stuff.

Anyway, my stuff:

As you already posted, raw resources would be generated, and pumped to the warpgate via pipelines. Cut a pipeline connection (by taking out a pipe node / destroying a generator), and bang whatever resources that would have to go through that node would just not come through, means less resources for the enemy. You could propably add some kind of cooldown, means after a node is down for some time, the resources try to find another way to get back to he warpgate. If there isnt any then they are lost for sure. But if there is one, well then they take that route.

At the warpgate, resources would be refined into useable stuff. Then ANTS would need to pick the refined stuff up and bring it forward to bases.

Thats pretty much in line with your ideas. Heres what i think should be rather different:

There would be still Aero, Mecha and Infantary resources, BUT only Infantary resources remain to be something a player themself has. Aero and Mecha would become resources a base/Outpost has! In addition to that, a new resource: Nanites. Nanites are auto generated at the gate, there is always enough of them so the gate could never run out.

Whenever someone spawns a vehicle at a base, he uses nanites and the resource needed for that vehicle (ground = mecha, air = aero, usual stuff, nothing new here). But said resources would come from the pool of resources that the base has. That means in order to allow your faction to spawn enough tanks and air at a certain base, people would have to drive ants from the gate to that base, to fill up that base and keep the supply high. If a base runs out of a certain resource, you wouldnt be able to spawn vehicles of that type at that base.

If a base runs out of nanites alltogether, then the base would power down, means no spawning of players or vehicles at that base at all. After a certain time, the base would become neutral, allowing whoever wants to grab that base. This is pretty much the same way power worked in PS1.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-03-04, 05:33 PM

how does the nanite get transported then using ANTs too or by a grid of bases connected using the new lattice? so if a base get cut off it slowly looses nanites? maybe make it so ANT can also fill nanites ?

unAimed · 2013-03-04, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

That is exactly how I feel.

The proposed system seems like an effort to force people to "play the game properly", without realizing that the players already can "play the game properly" and they simply don't want to (as is abundantly clear from beta until now).

That's correct. And if a game isn't played properly then the rules of the game need to change - simple as that.

Implemenenting a Lattice system is a step in the right direction.
And remember - we already have a lattice system - the only real difference would be the reduction of available options to advance. And I wholeheartedly believe that there's some middleground between the 5-6 options we have now and only giving you 1-2. For some Places 5 will work and for others 3. The only problem is to figure out where the sweet spot is exactly.
We haven't reached it yet in my opinion.

So for these reasons I am 100% for implementing and then finetuning this new system!

Tatwi · 2013-03-04, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by unAimed

That's correct. And if a game isn't played properly then the rules of the game need to change - simple as that.

Implemenenting a Lattice system is a step in the right direction.
And remember - we already have a lattice system - the only real difference would be the reduction of available options to advance. And I wholeheartedly believe that there's some middleground between the 5-6 options we have now and only giving you 1-2. For some Places 5 will work and for others 3. The only problem is to figure out where the sweet spot is exactly.
We haven't reached it yet in my opinion.

So for these reasons I am 100% for implementing and then finetuning this new system!

These changes arent going to magically change the way people play. We're still going to see 40 tanks, 3libs, and 10 ESFs slamming away at outpost spawn rooms. In fact the proposed system will most likely just make this problem much worse.

The problem is not the system, it's the players intense desire to take the easy way out at all times. Feel free to quote me on that a few years from now.

As an example, two of us were defending Regent Rock last night when a squad of about 5 VS tried to take it. After handing their asses to them a couple of times, what did they do? They pulled MAXes and a Magrider lol... We heald them off for another couple minutes when our six or so helpers arrived. Now that the fight was fair, what did they do? They ran away under the bridge and gave up entirely when we took out their sunderer. Why? Was too hard for them I guess, which sums up a lot of how people are choosing to play this game.

Originally Posted by Kail

Because they lost their spawn point? I mean, isn't that kinda the point of blowing up an enemy AMS? And it sounds like you guys were better than them; They tried to take a base, you stopped them cold so they had to try elsewhere - isn't that victory?

Replying here in the interest of not cluttering the thread with useless nit picking.

We killed them in the base, we killed them coming back from their sunderer, we blew up their sunderer. I waited 15 minutes, alone after no more than 3 minutes, and they never came back. They had 15 or so minutes to pull up another sundy while we were fighting and another 15 minutes after to come back in some form, but instead I guess they just went somewhere else, because fighting a few random people was too hard.

The point being: No matter what the exact scenario is, folks in PS2 always seem to take the cheesy/easy way to "win", which is almost always the exact opposite of creating a fun and hard fought battle, and no amount of changes to the Hex System will "fix" this human behavior.

Redshift · 2013-03-04, 06:29 PM

The resource system is entirely flawed, put vehicle and infantry resources onto a uniform charge time, so that they just limit availablitiy without actually influencing anything major.

Make the bases have useful benefits with defendable generators that control the benefits, then maybe we'll see gen holds from smaller outfits.

Personally i'd put some of the generators deeper inside the bases and move them back to require damage to pop, so we actually have secondary targets for smaller outfits

basti · 2013-03-04, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

how does the nanite get transported then using ANTs too or by a grid of bases connected using the new lattice? so if a base get cut off it slowly looses nanites? maybe make it so ANT can also fill nanites ?

To put it simple:

Raw resources via pipelines from bases to warpgate.

Refined resources / Nanites via ANTs from Warpgate to bases.

The idea is that small squads have two new options:

They can cut the pipeline at some point, to lower the resource income for the enemy faction, and have some effect in the future. They may not completly deny the enemy of a certain vehicle type right now, but they may lower the maximum amout of vehicles the enemy could spawn at EVERY point on the continent, depending how they supply stuff to their bases.

On the other hand, Small squads could roam within enemy territory, seaching and destroying enemy ants that would bring refined resources / nanites to bases that need them, directly affecting the combat at the frontlines. Kill a vital ANT that is bringing mecha ressources to a base that is almost out of them, and bang the enemy wont spawn any tanks at that base because they just used all of their supply.

In both cases, you would trigger a counter reaction. If your pipeline is being sabotaged, you need to secure it to get more raw resources and more potential supply that could be transported to the frontline.

If your ants get killed on the way to the frontlines, you need to protect them. You could go different routes here, for example trying to protect a single ant with Skyguards, Air and Tanks. Or you could just get all of your folks into Ants, driving one big convoy, hoping that some of you manage to make it through. Or you grab other squads and outfits to get one big convoy with defence going.

The very basic idea behind this is to trigger something Aion, Guild wars and other MMOs have, but Planetside 2 currently lacks: the need to work together not just with your friends/Squad/outfit, but with your entire faction.
Planetside had that need. Planetside 2 needs it to be interresting in the long term.

Kail · 2013-03-04, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Now that the fight was fair, what did they do? They ran away under the bridge and gave up entirely when we took out their sunderer. Why?

Because they lost their spawn point? I mean, isn't that kinda the point of blowing up an enemy AMS? And it sounds like you guys were better than them; They tried to take a base, you stopped them cold so they had to try elsewhere - isn't that victory?

Edit: In regards to ANTs

Anything ANT-like would need to be used actively, like a Sunderer; Needing to drive an ANT-type vehicle back and forth to areas where this is no fighting going on would be no different than ghost capping was when there was no adjacency rules. Which is why I don't think tying it to resources or "maintenance" of based really makes sense - something more along the lines of bringing an ANT to base's ANT-Pad instantly repairs all generators / SCUs, etc; things that have immediate effects on active fights.

Personally I'm inclined to just have more support vehicles / modules instead of a ANTs - Like a "turret" for a Lightning that projects an umbrella-like shield in an area around itself (as in hard-shields, no letting friendly fire through either), or a similar one for an arcing frontal shield. Something that allows players to set up mini bases, change how an enemy has to attack somewhere, etc.

But anyway, that's just about the ANT vehicle / truck concept itself; no comment about raw / refined resources at the moment

Mordelicius · 2013-03-04, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Sturmhardt

I also disagree with this, if you add more path ways again we could basically just keep the current hex system. Real testing should determine how it works out in the end.

.sent via phone.

I'm not suggesting multiple branches. In this map, one could add a single branch and it will make a whole world of difference.

My criticism is not much of the predictability but more of the nature of repetitiveness of these paths. It's one thing to be predictable. It's another to be predictable AND repetitive. It's the difference between chess and tic-tac-toe.

In chess, possible movements can still be predicted and each game is not repetitive. In tic-tac-toe, anyone can figure out all the possible combinations in several minutes. So much so that each match will end up in a draw every single time.

Looking at this portion of the map. They could add a segment between The Stronghold and Arroyo tower ( I understand there could be mountains there picturing it from memory; so jumppads?). Instead of just:

Copper - Arroyo - Red Ridge
Feldspar - Stronghold - Blackshard

a single line segment can alleviate the repetitiveness of the pathways by making these new combinations exist:

Feldspar - Stronghold - Arroyo
Blackshard - Stronghold - Arroyo
Stronghold - Arroyo - Redridge
Stronghold - Arroyo - Copper

In this small portion of the map, that's all that's really needed. One single extra branch. That will add much needed variety to strategic meta of these new paths. They could apply the same principle to the rest of the map. The enemy movements can still be predicted. There would still be major chokepoints but it won't be the same old, same old combinations every single time in between.

Palerion · 2013-03-04, 08:38 PM

I didn't play PS1, but rest assured, this looks much more entertaining than our current system.

I don't like having to either constantly search for good combat or waltz into a meat grinder. Having these defined lines of attack seems like it could allow for more frequent, and even smaller (which I would kind of appreciate) engagements that don't turn out to be meat grinders, but brief battles along certain roads and bases. I really like it.

Mietz · 2013-03-04, 09:19 PM

So, why isn't PS2s strategic element modeled after an RTS?

Even if you want to say, PS1 bad, PS2 good, new game, no solution from PS1, ugh ugh aaa aaa!

I mean if you wanted strategy to play any role, shouldn't a look at the most popular RTS games to figure out how they do it?
BF3 or CoD will not show you any solutions for strategy. If you want, use them to build your FPS shooty mechanics and your pew pew balancing, w/e i don't care, use actual RTS games as a model for your strategic side.

I'm not a fan of Starcraft but at least it has some solutions that seem to be relatively universal for strategy games. You know this whole resource shit and stuff with the numbers and the units and the bleepety blop.

Call me crazy but thats what I would do.

Anyone?

p0intman · 2013-03-04, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

So, why isn't PS2s strategic element modeled after an RTS?

Even if you want to say, PS1 bad, PS2 good, new game, no solution from PS1, ugh ugh aaa aaa!

I mean if you wanted strategy to play any role, shouldn't a look at the most popular RTS games to figure out how they do it?
BF3 or CoD will not show you any solutions for strategy. If you want, use them to build your FPS shooty mechanics and your pew pew balancing, w/e i don't care, use actual RTS games as a model for your strategic side.

I'm not a fan of Starcraft but at least it has some solutions that seem to be relatively universal for strategy games. You know this whole resource shit and stuff with the numbers and the units and the bleepety blop.

Call me crazy but thats what I would do.

Anyone?

little tidbit of info: most of the strategic 'greats' from ps1 didn't think of the game like an fps. many of us looked at it from an RTS strategy standpoint. Flanks, chokepoints, fortifications, armor columns, fast response, defense of key points, holding of vital points from our enemies... it all played a role.

ps1 strategy can infact be modeled with rts thinking.

artifice · 2013-03-04, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

Why not have the outposts feed the nearest facility with raw resources if they are connected and the facilities outputs refined resources to the parts of the continent they are connected to? Then let the warpgate send the refined resources it collects from all the facilities to all three continents. If the warpgate gets cut off from the facilities, the other two continents are cut off from the resources provided from the facilities.

Tatwi · 2013-03-05, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by artifice

Why not have the outposts feed the nearest facility with raw resources if they are connected and the facilities outputs refined resources to the parts of the continent they are connected to? Then let the warpgate send the refined resources it collects from all the facilities to all three continents. If the warpgate gets cut off from the facilities, the other two continents are cut off from the resources provided from the facilities.

Honestly, SOE should do this,

1. This game needs a "crafting system", because it "gives people something to do" that is personal, yet community driven, thus creating a significant amount of enjoyable emergent game play.

IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK....

2. Give each outpost (not facility, just outposts) a unique type of "resource" that can only be acquired by owning the outposts. No matter where a player is when when she is online, so long as her empire holds the outpost, she will gain X amount every X minutes. Players would get a bonus of X amount of a specific resource for capturing or defending the associated outpost.

3. Much like Guild Wars 2's automatic crafting component inventory system, the "resources" (which could actually be called parts or components or whatever they like) would automatically accumulate in the players inventory over time.

4. Every cert and weapon unlock could alternately be obtained by using combinations of the various "resources". Players would know what resources they need to acquire simply by mousing over the cert/item. Each combination would use 4 to 16 different resources, requiring various quantities of each (SOE could make all these using an automated script, which would only take a few minutes of "developer time"). A player can hold up to X amount of each resource in his inventory (with members perhaps getting a bonus).

5. Vehicles and infantry consumables no longer use resources - a lock out timer for each is sufficient to accomplish the same result.

6. Facilities will continue to grant other benefits.

This "resource system" gives people the "meta game" of each outpost in the world having potential meaning to them, depending on the items they wish to unlock. Sure people could use Station Cash or Cert Points to unlock these things, but they could also play the resource game to get these "bonus unlocks", so to speak. Furthermore, because each outpost in the game would supply a unique resource, some of which would be common in many really good certs/unlocks, not having access to some of these resources may well be incentive for people to fight over gaining (and maintaining) access to them.

This concept also has the bonus of being both dead simple to understand, while also complex enough to have a lot of replay value. Players will simply look at their certs/unlocks, see what resources they need with a mouse over, and with a simple click a pop up will tell them where on Auraxis they will need to capture and hold in order to acquire these resources.

Why muddy the system with convoluted delivery routes that don't accomplish anything that can't be accomplished by simply capturing and holding land? "Complex, not complicated" is good game design.

Note: I suggested this months ago and in doing so I am standing on the backs of the giants who designed the Chu Gon Dar Cube / Reverse Engineering / Collections / Beast Master / and other systems of Star Wars Galaxies. Credit where credit is due.