News: Roadmap Resource Revamp & Continental Lattice Updated - Page 3

Shogun · 2013-07-20, 04:28 AM

finally a gameplay element that seems to deliver some depth!

i like the concept and am curious to see the first testings!

my only concern about the ressource system: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the ANTs enjoyable to drive! they need to have good handling! if we don´t get an ANT vehicle, but only an ANT module for existing vehicles, the harasser is the only vehicle that qualifies! because all the other vehicles handle like a pile of poo and when ANTers are going to see action, but will not be able to shoot, they should at least be able to dodge and outrun efficiently! otherwise it will be no fun and nobody will do it.

oh, and i hope you didn´t forget about XP for ANTers?

my comment on the cont/bi layout:
it may be a temporary solution!

but why no sancuaries? the symmetry of this system will not work any more, when we get additional continents. and i hope we will get them!

use the layout you showed, but instead of the single foothold warpgate, reintroduce sanctuaries and let them have only one warpgate link.
you can give that warpgate link a time-shedule for rotating to the next continent, instead of rotating empires manually at each game update. or you could introduce a new commander cert that enables the player to take part in a voting system that determines to which cont the sancuary will connect at the next cycle. or make it instantly change link to whatever continent has the highest actual votecount!
that system would be able to cause more dynamic situations like all 3 factions have a sanc-link to the same continent. and a faction with coordinating high command could use the instant link-changing for nifty surprise assaults.

also this would allow real cont locking with exactly the same benefits like in ps1.
(if the sanctuary has a hart, it would be disabled on locked continents, leaving a warplink as the only route of attack.

and thanks malorn, for trying to save ps2! just when i lost hope for the game you come up with something that will put a little planetside into call of battleside 2! please keep it up!

typhaon · 2013-07-20, 04:41 AM

* Transition between continents/warpgates: So we're not getting Normandy-style beach landings... yet?

1. If you control a TWG (triangle warpgate) and its connected TWG, then transition is just a simple process of going to the terminal or vehicle transporter and clicking.

2. However, for invasions of contested/connected TWGs... let's go back to something similar to a process found in PS1. This will be fun!

Each TWG will be encircled by several (2 or 3) Landing Zones. The LZs are capturable territory (I'm imagining mostly ruins) - but tied to the Lattice slightly differently. The territories can be captured if A) you control the adjacent TWG, B) control adjacent "normal" territory, or C) control the appropriate TWG on another continent. Armies moving across a continent would be able to capture them as part of the normal progression, but could not "skip" across the continent and simply capture the LZs and start attacking the TWG.

Attacking from these territories leads only "in" to the TWG. It's a one-way street. An invading army (as described below) cannot simply land and start moving out across the continent, while ignoring the TWG next door.

Also - control of these LZs could cause Lattice disruptions, though I think this would only come in to play on Hossin. Resource management would function the same as it does at other small outposts.

3. How do these invading armies arrive? Each TWG now has a Heavy Lift Operations section (T_Ray and crew could have some fun with the art). The rockets/craft - leave according some process/schedule for the designated LZs. Players/vehicles/aircraft would load up in these things... again, limits on players/vehicles headed to any single LZ per launch to be determined... countdown hits 0:00... Blastoff! Then, the invasion force (including vehicles and aircraft) drops in from space.

^Sure.. you could get rid of all that and just have players teleport to a sub-base and advance on the TWG using vehicle/air/infantry terminals... but that seems rather dull in comparison

I also think the effort put into the HLO would remain useful, even as we add more continents (planets?), or get water connections.

* I think balancing the Mining Vehicle is going to be a challenging task. One of the things we see now is that with the current state of infantry-based AV weapons - the larger the battle... the shorter life inside any kind of slow-moving ground vehicle. It's also in these battles that this whole process might be the most compelling... but could be reduced to 5 guys on a hill constantly insta-gibbing a mega-Sunderer with (pick your ES-AV weapon).

My suggestion would be some kind of (for whatever techno-reason) armor that is very resistant to infantry AV... least resistant to MBT main cannons and Liberators... and somewhere in the middle for the assorted Harrasser/Lightning/Sunderer/ESF weaponry. 3 or 4 default-type guns on the Mining Vehicle would also be nice.

* Can you explain how the resource process works for Attackers? Do they have any capability to regen resources while inside a territory they do not own?

* A lot of kinks to be worked out as this all comes together, but it does sound like steps in the right direction towards making a deeper and more interesting game.

Shogun · 2013-07-20, 04:53 AM

attackers do not need any ressourcegain on territory they don´t own!

it´s the defence that is broken in this game, and this might balance it out a little bit.

attackers don´t pull vehicles or aircrafts at enemy bases, so they would not even need their ressources. only for maxes, nades, mines and c4. forcing attackers to actually think about using those things wisely would be an improvement.

Shamrock · 2013-07-20, 05:08 AM

Fulmir · 2013-07-20, 05:08 AM

Malorn, question that I haven't seen answered anywhere yet.

Where do offensive AMS units get their resources from? If I pull a loadout with, say, C4 from an AMS does it pull from the nearest base, from the warpgate, or from a seperate pool all-together?

If it's nearest base what if there are two bases connected to this one by Lattice? Split the drain between the two or nearest by direct distance at that point?

Jonny · 2013-07-20, 05:17 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

Stomps · 2013-07-20, 05:43 AM

definitely worried about the TK aspect of this, not just as a 'you took my resource' but also simply people killing others vehicles as a griefing tool when levels are low.

and then what about these (many) sub BR10 accounts who switch over from another faction just to destabilise the other side, kill their active sunderers etc. Its annoying enough to be personally TKed by these obvious fktartds but this sounds like handing them power on a plate.

ringring · 2013-07-20, 05:52 AM

re: removal of inventory.

Does this mean that someone can simply spam grenades or mines - will a trip back to a terminal to resupply be required?

lovepack · 2013-07-20, 05:59 AM

Thanks for the clarification Malorn. Will we still be getting resources via XP? I rarely spend my time in the SOI of Friendly territory as I prefer to go behind enemy lines and hunt down enemy reinforcement sundees and armor. Will these changes have an affect on play styles that are not centered around being in the bases? There has been times I have not set foot in friendly territory for 2-3 hours so in those situations would I be getting no resources? Thank you!

typhaon · 2013-07-20, 06:08 AM

RE: Resources, let me try an example and see if this is correct. If so, I think it might clear up some confusion.

* If you're defending Mao Tech Plant and the power level is @ 100%, then you gain 75 resources per minute.

* As the power level drops... the rate at which you get resources drops. When the power level hits 50%, you'll only get 37.5 resources per minute.

* The rate at which the power level declines depends on the # of defenders. If there are <12 defenders, maybe the rate stays constant. If there are 12+, maybe it declines at 5% per 15 mins... If there are 24+, maybe it's 10% per 10 mins... and so forth.

* Nothing you do (other than being present, or not) as an individual makes the power level drop faster than anyone else. You choose what to do with the resources you get, but your choices don't affect the overall power level or what anyone else chooses to do with their resources.

I think that's what is being described.

I'd assume individual players will still have a capacity for carrying certain gear - ie. you won't just be able to spam all your resources on C4, without going back and re-filling.

I wonder if it make sense now for HA AV weapons to start costing something, also. Not a ton, but maybe 5 resources each. This would have balance implications across infantry vs vehicle/air combat - but I feel this infinite capacity (now) for HA to shoot AV weapons is causing its own issues.

I also figure there must be different rules for different base types.

Chefkoch · 2013-07-20, 06:45 AM

Great changes but i would love to see that vehicles drain energy too just like they did in Planetside one if i remember correctly.

And what about destroyed NTU and Gen will they impact resource drain ?

Regarding Armor i would keep some kind of timer 5min flash 10min Sundy / Lightning / Ant to 15 min Harraser / ESF and 20 min Tanks and Gals. Ressource cost shoudt scale accordingly.

To Blance this the longer the timer the more Armor you have.

What about disabling spawns or raising spawntimers in general between spawn in bases / towers / ams ?

Now it doesnt really matter where you respawn because the timer is the same everywhere and not like in PS 1 where ams was the slowest and bases the fastest.

Chef

camycamera · 2013-07-20, 06:47 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!

EvilNinjadude · 2013-07-20, 07:17 AM

Hold the phone, I just realized that this would make attacking much more difficult. You'd run out of consumable and vehicle resources REAL FAST while on the offensive, since you're not gaining resources from the enemy facility.

HOWEVER! Why not just bring the ANT with you? Deploy it in enemy territory, and it gets a small radius (few hundred meters) within which players will gain resources. The ANT's resources will deplete over time depending on player resupply count, naturally. And since ANTs show up on the map, they'll become targets to take out and cut attackers' resources off with!

(The fact that they're visible on the map would also allow the ANT to have a radius larger than a few feet, since you could move the ANT further away and give it a larger radius without taking it out of the battle... because the battle will come to the ANT.)

Mastachief · 2013-07-20, 08:09 AM

It's certainly a lot to digest.

Personally i'd like to see Sanctuaries that way these could serve to link to 2 or more home continents once there are sufficient maps in game.

On the initial read through it all seems good.

Baneblade · 2013-07-20, 08:18 AM

Here's a thought about how the gates can be captured:

When the gate is no longer linked to any friendly territory on the continent a continent surrender timer starts... say 10 minutes. After those ten minutes, the warpgate and the connecting warpgate on the other continent both flip to the enemy that controls the links. If the links are split between the other factions, it won't flip. Once the gates flip, the empire pushing to the new continent has to take a territory within 10 minutes of the flip or the gates will revert to the previous owner allowing for a new invasion of your captured continent.

Once you own at least one territory on the target continent, the gates remain yours until someone else takes them all back.