News: Roadmap Resource Revamp & Continental Lattice Updated - Page 2

maradine · 2013-07-20, 01:36 AM

One request: make the home warpgate assignment permanent. I would rather have the worst of the three forever and build a sense of ownership with it than hop around Auraxis once a month.

maradine · 2013-07-20, 01:37 AM

That said - Indar Southwest, please.

DviddLeff · 2013-07-20, 03:20 AM

Looks like a great change, few questions:

1. Once a base is out of power and the troops run out of resources, they simply can't pull resource requiring kit, but they can still spawn there? Would be interesting what happens if the spawns shut down.

2. By removing the inventory I presume you mean the stock of 40 C4, grenades, Mines, etc that we all have? Good change if so as I waste a good amount of time and certs getting things I don't even use simply so I don't 'waste' infantry resources! As you say that insulates us from being cut off for potentially hours of game play.

3. I presume it will be ground vehicles only that can transport resources, rather than aircraft? And just like the good old ANT I presume it will take time to deploy and refill a base, rather than it being instant?

4. Resource nodes - are these just randomly around the landscape or specific points between each base on the lattice? Are they capturable if so? Will there be any kind of defences around them?

5. AMP Stations stink of being a resource pipeline in their very design, will they play a unique part in the new system? Could act as an alternative hub for resources if you have no connection to the warp gate, making them important strategic targets like the tech plant is currently.

That's it for now! Thanks for all the hard work Malorn.

**Malorn** · 2013-07-20, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Looks like a great change, few questions:

1. Once a base is out of power and the troops run out of resources, they simply can't pull resource requiring kit, but they can still spawn there? Would be interesting what happens if the spawns shut down.

2. By removing the inventory I presume you mean the stock of 40 C4, grenades, Mines, etc that we all have? Good change if so as I waste a good amount of time and certs getting things I don't even use simply so I don't 'waste' infantry resources! As you say that insulates us from being cut off for potentially hours of game play.

3. I presume it will be ground vehicles only that can transport resources, rather than aircraft? And just like the good old ANT I presume it will take time to deploy and refill a base, rather than it being instant?

4. Resource nodes - are these just randomly around the landscape or specific points between each base on the lattice? Are they capturable if so? Will there be any kind of defences around them?

5. AMP Stations stink of being a resource pipeline in their very design, will they play a unique part in the new system? Could act as an alternative hub for resources if you have no connection to the warp gate, making them important strategic targets like the tech plant is currently.

That's it for now! Thanks for all the hard work Malorn.

1. The idea of PS1-style neutrality is a possibility, but it isn't essential for the core mechanics. The running thought on this is that we want to see how a pure-resource loss system works. If we are successful in making resources matter then the 100% loss of them should be crippling enough. Neutrality offers other tradeoffs though. It does make for a more extreme consequence and can up the stakes.

2. Yes, inventory refers to the stockpile of infantry consumables which completely insulates players from shortages. The goal is that resources are generally constant and predictable, but they are subject to local acute shortages that are impactful. Inventory hurts that and is also tedious and unnecessary. Removal of it opens more skill of resource management for veterans while making it easier for new players to explore the game and be more spendy (they start with only grenades and vehicles to spend resources on, so they can afford to try out vehicles more...lot better than current 20 minute cooldowns).

3. Mechanic is very ant-like: Deploy, charge up, transport, deploy to dispense. And yes, ground vehicles. Air vehicles would circumvent the geography and detract from the desired gameplay.

4. The resource nodes will be placed, not random. Think of them like charging stations. Drive up, deploy, charge up, leave. Some will charge faster than others as part of a risk/reward tradefoff. They'll be placed in remote parts of the continents to get more interesting gameplay in the more unused areas and make geography more of a factor. The number and placement is TBD, but that's the goal. Oh and every warpgate would have one nearby so you always have a power source even if backed up.

5. I had envisioned AMP stations having a power-related role but that moved to the Warpgate. AMP stations have another important benefit planned.

camycamera · 2013-07-20, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

1. The idea of PS1-style neutrality is a possibility, but it isn't essential for the core mechanics. The running thought on this is that we want to see how a pure-resource loss system works. If we are successful in making resources matter then the 100% loss of them should be crippling enough. Neutrality offers other tradeoffs though. It does make for a more extreme consequence and can up the stakes.

2. Yes, inventory refers to the stockpile of infantry consumables which completely insulates players from shortages. The goal is that resources are generally constant and predictable, but they are subject to local acute shortages that are impactful. Inventory hurts that and is also tedious and unnecessary. Removal of it opens more skill of resource management for veterans while making it easier for new players to explore the game and be more spendy (they start with only grenades and vehicles to spend resources on, so they can afford to try out vehicles more...lot better than current 20 minute cooldowns).

3. Mechanic is very ant-like: Deploy, charge up, transport, deploy to dispense. And yes, ground vehicles. Air vehicles would circumvent the geography and detract from the desired gameplay.

4. The resource nodes will be placed, not random. Think of them like charging stations. Drive up, deploy, charge up, leave. Some will charge faster than others as part of a risk/reward tradefoff. They'll be placed in remote parts of the continents to get more interesting gameplay in the more unused areas and make geography more of a factor. The number and placement is TBD, but that's the goal. Oh and every warpgate would have one nearby so you always have a power source even if backed up.

5. I had envisioned AMP stations having a power-related role but that moved to the Warpgate. AMP stations have another important benefit planned.

fucking hell, i cant wait for those ANTs. imagine it, a whole platoon surrounding the ANT while it is being transported in a large convoy with tanks, harrassers, and some ESF's. defending it and attacking/attempting to steal it would be a blast, and a great new gamemode.

this is just amazing, i am very hyped. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

CodeyP · 2013-07-20, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I posted some clarifications in the resource roadmap thread. Reposting here for your convenience:

Whats with Tank/Vehicle Zergs then? Even now they still appear alot and just yesterday a tank zerg with around 20 tanks captured everything which came in their way. It's near impossible to stop a tank zerg, and with this it probably gets even worse...

EvilNinjadude · 2013-07-20, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by CodeyP

Whats with Tank/Vehicle Zergs then? Even now they still appear alot and just yesterday a tank zerg with around 20 tanks captured everything which came in their way. It's near impossible to stop a tank zerg, and with this it probably gets even worse...

Striker focus fire. It's the only way to be sure.

Jonny · 2013-07-20, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I posted some clarifications in the resource roadmap thread. Reposting here for your convenience:

Very excited to see/hear more about this idea, it really sounds like a step in the right direction and is even better than ideas I was hoping for

Love the solution of players only draining a base through their lack of resources slowly instead of large amounts due to vehicle purchases. I'm still unsure of what repercussions this could have though, but players can't see each others resources so there shouldn't be any trouble (ie "get out your draining the base")

I like the idea of resource mineral veins in interesting but more sparsely used terrain to spread out conflicts and give squads missions to secure them. The Ant could be a powerful hill climber and all terrain vehicle (unlike the sunderer) to give it an advantage at getting to these areas and avoiding tanks.

I have a few questions though:

How do players in enemy territory gain resources? If they don't I can see reasons for that, attackers should have pressure to take a base efficiently, as defenders will have the advantage of supply but have the pressure of the power level draining and the base becoming neutral.
Will warp-gates have a higher resource recharge rate or the same as a fully powered base?
Will different sized bases have different sized power pools?

Good Job Malorn and SOE Devs

Badjuju · 2013-07-22, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I posted some clarifications in the resource roadmap thread. Reposting here for your convenience:

Awesome changes, cant wait until they go live.

Assist · 2013-07-22, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I posted some clarifications in the resource roadmap thread. Reposting here for your convenience:

If you guys refund acquisition certs please make sure you change the cert cap limit, as I'll be way over the limit.

I love the proposed changes, the game has desperately needed resources to be revamped and to drive the game since release. I've been attempting to hammer that home in so many of my posts, it seems like you've been working on it so much thanks to you!

Give the ANT a 10s-deploy, 150m EMP field. Disables any enemy vehicles entering an area. A defenders dream :O

camycamera · 2013-07-20, 02:15 AM

OMMMMGGGGGGGG IT IS PLANETSIDE 1!

Ruffdog · 2013-07-20, 02:29 AM

Both beautiful, beautiful things!

My first thought with regard to resources: offense.
Will extended offensive ops eventually cause the depletion of nanites with no power to regenerate personal allowances? e.g. if you're running off a sundy only? Grenades, C4 and MAXs will zap that quickly and 10 mins with no top up will give defenders quite the boost. Portable power crystals maybe?

I'm also wondering if now is the time to make MAX units hard facility only not Sunderers?

Obstruction · 2013-07-20, 02:35 AM

How players spend their resulting resources does not affect other players.

but where players are recharging does. i think no matter how you do this it's going to cause a certain subset of players to point fingers about not getting enough resource. basically they're going to scream "GTFO" and call names. and teamkill people who stand in the spawn shield area for any particular reason.

also it could be exploitable if an outfit were to make 48 cross faction alts and just go sit in the forward base with empty resource, recharging to lower the collective power. reducing resource flow in this way could be more effective than an equal number of attacking opposition characters.

whatever you end up doing, with changes this broad, you really, really, need to think hard about the dirty ways people will play. i know you guys like to think you're super smart about your design choices, but people are very devious and will exploit anything you leave vulnerable.

Fenrys · 2013-07-20, 03:10 AM

What happens when 2 factions pile into the same warpgate on Hossin via 2 different warpgates on some other continent? For example, what if VS own one warpgate on Indar and NC own the other, and both faction pile though into the same warpgate on Hossin?

Will there be two separate, shielded staging areas with a control point between them? Will the continent warping trip be one way if your faction does not control the gate on the other side?

GeoGnome · 2013-07-20, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Fenrys

What happens when 2 factions pile into the same warpgate on Hossin via 2 different warpgates on some other continent? For example, what if VS own one warpgate on Indar and NC own the other, and both faction pile though into the same warpgate on Hossin?

Will there be two separate, shielded staging areas with a control point between them? Will the continent warping trip be one way if your faction does not control the gate on the other side?

My understanding, is that you will have to Take the warpgate, like take points and seize it. Once you take it, I imagine you'll have the option to warp to the opposing warpgate and take it. Kind of like teleporters in biolabs.