Resources And Vehicle Timers for Upgrade Balance

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by NewSith

I would not want resources to be a deciding factor in the game. Afterall it is MMOFPShooter, not MMOFPStrategy...

You're not the only person to say that. When resources were first mentioned by Higby we had a thread where people complained since the game should be perfectly balanced. Ideally what I suggested wouldn't effect the balance of the game at all. No more so than a person trying to kill a tank with a rifle and saying it's not balanced and that weapons or vehicles shouldn't be the deciding factor in the game. Meaning the added customization for soldiers and vehicles would simply be a choice like using a shotgun or an SMG. So it wouldn't be resources being a deciding factor it would be choosing the right loadouts for battle. The resources would simply be designed to give players an artificial constraint in which to design loadouts allowing the game to introduce rarer utilities or items into the game and to balance vehicles on a level higher than just "we have 10 guys let's just keep pulling 10 tanks".

I could see your point if the resource system was totally unbalanced, but using the model I described for simplicity of getting a constant amount of resources over time sets up a nice system to work from. (For example, 1 Auraxium every 5 seconds from your faction).

I probably shouldn't mention games, but this isn't related to a strategy game unless having resources makes it automatically a strategy game. I can only think of 2 FPS games that really use a resource system for loadouts. An old game called Soldner (game is apparently still alive somehow) and Counter-Strike. Possibly Tribes Ascend, but they only do it for vehicles. (I haven't read much about Dust514 but the trailer had resource numbers. I kind of enjoyed that cost of war aspect).

Speaking of a comparison against strategy games I did bring up RTS mechanics for outfit funds in another thread which is much closer to your fears of resources changing the battlefield and being a deciding factor. That's a separate idea though than merely customization options.

[Malorn]

Higby said a long time ago resources are an important part of the game. He actually said a lot more than that.

Originally Posted by Higby

The importance of resources can't be overstated. These resources are going to add so much to the way people play, and the way that your empire, the way that your outfit, and the way that you manage resources is really going to affect your success or failure on the battlefield.

That was one of the first things he said when PS2 was announced back in July.

Having resources affect your success is the only way to ensure players care about them and fight over them.

If they didn't have that sort of impact then it could simply be ignored and would be worthless. If they're worthless then we're back to facility hopping like PS1 instead of a rich tactical game where you secure territory not only because it helps you take other territory, but also because that territory has tangible value in its own right.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Introduce a "wastage" mechanic? Like Warcraft 3's harvesting?

If you own 80% of the map, you lose some (say 30%) of your income from long supply chains. Long supply chains are bad. Anybody who invaded Russia found that out the hard way.

This way the rich still get richer, but slower than normal.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I'll start with the timer system since it's easier to understand. Timers for vehicles would begin when a vehicle is destroyed. That is if you drive a tank and stay alive for 20 minutes or die after 2 minutes of spawning you would have the same cooldown timer delay applied the instant the vehicle is destroyed. This forces players out of a vehicle after a time decreasing the vehicle congestion if it becomes an issue. If it doesn't become an issue then this concept would not be needed. The difference is merely when the timer begins in order to evenly delay good and bad players for losing a faction's vehicle.

So punish players for playing conservatively and not throwing away their vehicles, got it.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

So punish players for playing conservatively and not throwing away their vehicles, got it.

Players that don't "throw away" their vehicles would have the option to deconstruct them for resources. As mentioned the exact amount back is up for debate, but this rewards players that keep a vehicle alive. It was also completely optional in my explanation, but if there was a timer at all then this is the fairer implementation. The reason for not starting the timer at the beginning was that the idea is to evenly delay player's who lose a factions vehicle. Having the timer start when the player spawns the vehicle would only favor players that have upgraded the vehicle which already favors them for using resources instead of pulling a stock version. You have to take it all in the context of the proposed implementation for resources, which is by far the larger concept.

[sylphaen]

I am concerned that unless the stock items are terrible or unless the resource-based items are much greater, it might be simpler just to go stock and zerg the others down.

However, if there is a significant difference of power for resource-based items, players may feel naked when respawning without enough resources. It increases the problem of "the-rich-get-richer" and while that is solved by a resources cap that will promote spending it away, it does not solve the "poor-gets-poorer" part of the equation. What should happen when one empire gets double-teamed and has no more access to enough resources ? It's not like 33% could stop 66% from forcing them to play with stock items even if they wanted to.

On top of that, facility control might compound the issue. We do not know the rules of PS2 concerning bases but what if the double-teamed empire does not control a tech plant ? (btw, do we know if resources will be shared worldwide or will it be continent only ?)

________________

I am also concerned about cowards who may not push forward anymore for fear of losing their gear.

One great thing is that would definitely promote medics.

[Malorn]

One thing they can do is a bit of a welfare system. The foothold itself could generate resources depending on how much territory an empire has, and how long it has been that way.

For example, suppose if an empire's territory control drops below a certain threshold, like 10%, it starts the welfare-system. For simplicity sake, lets call that threshold "the poverty line"

At first, the welfare system provides very little or nothing. The reason is to see if the empire can get itself out of poverty on its own and to discourage intentional loss of territory or gaming the system (because nobody games it in the real world, amirite? lol)

If the empire stays below the poverty line for a certain period of time the foothold starts producing resources on its own.

The longer the empire stays below the poverty line the more resources it produces. Each increase should carry with it a certain territory requirement. For exmaple, the highest amount of handouts occurs only if the empire has literally zero territories.

As they push out and gain territory the handouts are gradually reduced.


The basic idea is that if an empire gets pushed back and can't recover, they start getting some bonus resources to help them out. If they still can't do it, the game keeps giving them more, until they get on their feet again on the continent at which time the handouts start decreasing and then eventually stop entirely.

Here's some mechanic details for anyone who might care...
* Establish multiple poverty lines based on Territory owned on the continent like 10%, 7%, 4% 1%.
* Each poverty line carries with it a resource bonus, with higher bonuses coming at the lower lines.
* If an empire is below a poverty line for a certain period of time, the bonus is created at the foothold.
* If the empire gains territory and moves above a poverty line then they lose that bonus.


Example poverty lines & rates

10% to 7% territory owned for more than 15 minutes => 50 resources at foothold
7% to 4% territory owned for more than 15 minutes => 100 resources at foothold
4% to 1% territory owned for more than 15 minutes => 200 resources at foothold
1% or less territory owned for more than 15 minutes => 400 resources at foothold.

The resource numbers are purely for example to show the growth rate. If the empire is in dire need, they get the resources. If they are just entering poverty they get a little bit and it gradually increases.

I think this general idea would help for the extreme case where an empire gets completely hosed.

[sylphaen]

I would much prefer a system that disincentivizes double-teaming rather than focus only on resource distribution to the poor.

Assuming skill, goodwill, player populations, balance and common sense is evenly spread out between all 3 empires, the only thing that will get you to a low resource situation is getting gang-banged by the other 2 empires.

More resources to the 33% abused by the 66% would not solve the main problem.

[Brusi]

So you can pay SoE for premium and one of the perks of premium is faster rate of faction loyalty increase?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Brusi

So you can pay SoE for premium and one of the perks of premium is faster rate of faction loyalty increase?

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Prerequisites:
The first prerequisite for this system is that resources cannot be purchased using station cash and can only be aquired via the game. With this there is an assumed resource cap. So everyone has some resource cap to force them to use resources. Basically there is no reason to horde resources and players should never feel that they need to.

So no. Ideally this system is independent of any player's subscription status. It was mentioned though that increasing the cap would be an option. Allowing someone accrue resources faster than another player goes into pay 2 win too much for me and I'm against that.