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.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Higby said a long time ago resources are an important part of the game.

Interesting. I noticed I got a tweet back earlier. After I made this thread I tweeted Higby and got a reply here.

Originally Posted by Higby

@Sirisian2 Incredible post and great thread. Very close to the system we envision, in fact.

That makes me feel a lot better about their direction with resources.

[Malorn]

Ya I was actually thinking more on the stock vehicle costs and agree with you even. As long as they are some common easily renewable resource, stock costs aren't bad, and they do make people think twice about spamming a vehicle. I still worry about the rich-get-richer problem, but that's a problem they will always have with resources and it's a hard problem to solve.

The moment you introduce something that can affect success and also make it a reward for achieving success, things become problematic.

But you can always make resource gain have diminishing returns beyond a certain point to keep it from getting ridiculous, and if an empire has extremely low resources, well some handouts are probably in order.

It's really just the extreme cases that need to be careful about. Making sure you don't have a snowball effect and making sure you can't completely shut down another empire.

[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]

Good post, some parts (like queue negotiation) are a bit more complex than they need to be. Also Malorns idea of resource trading (while it's exactly what we all want and need) will introduce gold farmers.

I definitely agree that this proposed system would need quite a low resource cap. One that could be completely depleted in maybe less than a day of solid playing, depending on the how powerful the upgrades are, of course.

Regarding higby's tweet, i've speculated for a while that you will be able to buy power, it just won't be obvious or even powerful enough in most cases that it can't be countered. More often that not, players of equal skill will not be able to spree kill each other due only to the proposed "sidegrades" or hidden upgrades.

I think there is nothing wrong with buying power, really. So long as it is not rage inducing to those who have not.

I also think that resources as a reward gives a reason for fighting (which PS2 needs even more than PS needed), so bring on the strategic part of the game. Believe me, for every 10 "i couldn't give a fuck about strategy", Halo players out there you will find at least 5 or 6 willing to work out the best targets to attack, based on resources and flow of the current battle. These will be the ones training leadership ;p

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Brusi

Regarding higby's tweet, i've speculated for a while that you will be able to buy power, it just won't be obvious or even powerful enough in most cases that it can't be countered. More often that not, players of equal skill will not be able to spree kill each other due only to the proposed "sidegrades" or hidden upgrades.

I think you're misusing the term "buy power". In the proposed plan players cannot purchase the resources required to upgrade. So it's not possible to "buy power" in the sense of using real cash. The system just allows players to customize their player's loadout or vehicle loadouts using resources as a simple artificial limit. (The exact way player get resources was speculated on, but is outside the bounds of this discussion).

The design is actually not intended to cause players to be better than others. While it may do that through good choices of items in certain situations and knowing how to use the, the goal is to balance vehicles that might have more players in them as discussed in the OP.

[Brusi]

Sorry for confusion Siri,

I was actually talking about the current system that is proposed by higgles and the crew in this paragraph. I think that, if they don't stuff up too many sidegrades/upgrades, and manage to balance the OP ones during beta, the cash shop sidegrades/upgrades might be ok.

How do they make money in your proposed system? Premuim for a higher cap isn't a bad solution, but not sure it would be enough.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Brusi

How do they make money in your proposed system? Premuim for a higher cap isn't a bad solution, but not sure it would be enough.

Wasn't covered really. The most balanced solution is 1 Resource Unit per 5 seconds causing a linear growth. I didn't want to go into detail into a proposed solution since it's easy to poke holes into it. However, I'll explain how I'd want it to go:

You have a buffer bar that indicates faction loyalty of your player. This bar goes from 0 to 100% where 100% represents complete loyalty and support. Now a player can go above 100% easily by just playing the game. This caps out at 1000%. Completing missions, getting kills, or support experience for healing friendlies makes this bar go up percentage points. Over time the bar decreases. Just playing normally and having fun will keep it over 100% most of the time. Killing friendlies would drop percentage marks. (Not having someone hit you with a vehicle. Actually shooting and hurting a friendly would drop it).

Say the neutral resources are called "Nanites" that can't be bought or sold or anything. At 0% faction loyalty you get no Nanites. At 25% you'd get 1 every 10 seconds. At 50% you'd get 1 every 8 seconds. At 75% you'd get 1 every 6 seconds and at 100% you'd get 1 every 5 seconds. Give or take. The numbers are just examples.

This means that players actually helping their faction would be getting resources to have fun with and upgrade and acquire vehicles with. Someone just sitting in a base AFK would notice their loyalty drops to 0% after say an hour of doing nothing cutting off their funds. This type of resource is completely individual. They aren't linked to outfit or faction resources. That's why you noticed I said there is no trading earlier. Players that want to get a vehicle together that's costly invest in it together. Their Nanite resource in this example is solely gotten by what they accomplish in the game.

Also this promotes a linear growth rate such that even losing factions are usually at 100% of their empire's loyalty even for just defending and getting things as simple as kills. And most of all it punishes people that go AFK. Feel free to poke holes in the design. Maybe the developers have something similar in mind.

[Brusi]

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