Resource Collection and Self Interest - Page 3

Forsaken One · 2011-07-16, 09:08 PM

I think people are getting ahead of themselves when they talk about useing resource's for stuff like upgrades as if they would need to repay for it everytime they want to pull it.

Then again I highly hope they aren't stupid enough to pull that. I for one like to permanently earn things. If I wanted to pay for gun X everytime I used it I'd go play WoW. (and I don't play crap like WoW)

A small list of bullshit that should not be in the game.
#1. needing to pay to repair anything.
#2. needing to pay for ammo.
#3. upkeep on anything.
#4. needing to pay for a gun, vehicle, or upgrade more then once per-char.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-16, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Forsaken One

I think people are getting ahead of themselves when they talk about useing resource's for stuff like upgrades as if they would need to repay for it everytime they want to pull it.

They used denial of resources as an example several times. If you dont' consume resources when you pull vehicles and weapons and such then resource denial doesn't have much use. If you're thinking of the strategic resource concept from Civilization, if they took that route then abundance wouldn't be all that important...as long as you had one of a resource you're good. That doesn't motivate as much to go get more of it.

Also if you accumulate resources over time and you dont spend them on anything then you get resource inflation.

For the resource system to work well they need consumption of resources roughly as fast as they are coming in. If pulling a tank uses oil, for example, you'll want to make sure you have a lot of oil to fuel that war machine. And denying oil to your enemy is a fast way to cripple his tank production on the continent. You might also be able to cripple tank production by restricting access to steel or another base material, though that might be much more abundant.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-16, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

big post shortened.

There are MANY ways to use denial of resources without useing any of the bullshit from my "list of bullshit"

PS1 has many. base full shielding. door shielding, base turrets, pretty much any module from the caves. level of a base's turret, etc. all this and more can have to do with the "empire's resources" without giving a player the limit of "damn it, I want that and can't use it."

empire's resources should effect the main Empires stuff.

personal resources should be used for leveling up and upgrades that you keep forever once brought.

Soothsayer · 2011-07-16, 10:43 PM

I really agree with Malorn on this one Forsaken.

While I don't think cost should be restrictive, I didn't even consider one time payment for weapon upgrades... I had been assuming that with skill upgrades, yeah that would be a one time payment per skill level/cert.

But with weapon upgrades/vehicle upgrades I think that we would see far too much accumulation of resources if there were not a continual cost for these things.

Cost should not be too prohibitive, choosing to upgrade your 150mm should not be a decision to agonize over. Consideration should be made, but in the end I think it is better if you decide to upgrade more often than not.

This is at least my opinion if we are working with empire/outfit/personal resource accumulation and spending.

CutterJohn · 2011-07-16, 10:57 PM

A cost for upgraded items is good. Its something players can actually value, and the fact that losing those upgraded items means they have to spend more money will make people play safer with it.

If they want to just spam/zerg, they can always use the basic items for free.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-16, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

A cost for upgraded items is good. Its something players can actually value, and the fact that losing those upgraded items means they have to spend more money will make people play safer with it.

If they want to just spam/zerg, they can always use the basic items for free.

they can also just uninstall because they want to play a shooter not a RPG where you're forced to buy ammo.

I know I for one wouldn't even bother buying the game if things I earn I don't keep forever. there IS a reason why CoD, Battlefield, and even Planetside don't pull that shit, no one would want to bother with it.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 12:08 AM

Consumable resources also means that you have supply/demand mechanics governing overall strategy and you encourage players to not be wasteful with their vehicles and with their weapons. This is a good mechanic and encourages us to be better players.

And to reiterate something Matt said very clearly in the opening announcement of Planetside 2:

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

This statement seems clear to me that poor management of resources and extravagant spending will leave you resource-starved while conservation of resources and using the right tools for the job and going after the right targets will mean you be more successful.

I just don't see the system having the impact they describe if they don't have a model requiring you to make careful decisions on how you spend those resources, and which resources you choose to go after.

I'm sure we'll always have some amount of tools to fight with, and as he said, it's continent-based and you can store resources so if you're in a bad situation on a continent it may be time to go to a different one and store up some resources and then come back.

Let me provide you with a Planetside 1 analogy to this mechanic.

In PS1 suppose you only owned a bio lab - no tech, no shields. If you wanted tech vehicles on that continent what would you do? Either capture a facility that gave that benefit, or you would go back to sanc or another continent and pull one there and bring it through.

The way they describe this system facility benefits are being replaced by a much more robust and granular resource system. So if you don't have Resource A, then you can't get a shield upgrade on your tank. If you don't have resource B then you can't pull a tank at all. What are your options? Pretty much the same as PS1 - you either go capture those resources or you go to another continent where you have those resources and get some of them and then come back.

The main difference here is that the resources for a tank isn't to go attack a tech plant - instead it might be some random wilderness territory. Alternately instead of going back to sanc/another continent you might be able to dive into your personal or outfit resources and pull a tank anyway. In that respect your personal resources sort of become like a reserve. If you manage that reserve well you can always get the things you want. If you manage it poorly then your success will suffer - just as Matt described.

This model is extremely flexible, and just becuase some thigns require resources doens't mean all resources do. It also allows them to extend resources into weapons and other equipment, not just a handful of vehicles. Just like Planetside there were vehicles you could always pull regardless of facility benefits, and I'm sure that will be true here (it doesn't make sense otherwise) where there is a core set of vehicles and weapons that do not require resources and will be sufficient to wage war at some level. Upgrades to those core vehicles and weapons require resources. In PS 2, owning and effectively managing resources allows you to be more effective and successful, just like owning more facility benefits in PS1.

The concept already existed, they're just taking it to the next level and making it far more flexible, dynamic, and adding a huge element of player skill both at a tactical level and at a meta-game level.

Being a meta-game fanatic I find this completely brilliant and utterly awesome.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Let me provide you with a Planetside 1 analogy to this mechanic.

In PS1 suppose you only owned a bio lab - no tech, no shields. If you wanted tech vehicles on that continent what would you do? Either capture a facility that gave that benefit, or you would go back to sanc or another continent and pull one there and bring it through.

thats all well and fine. but if the game becomes.
Player A likes to have a reddot instead of iron sight. He has put the time and resource to get the upgrade once, but now the game tell's him to go fuck himself because he doesn't have the retarded rpg money crap to buy it again, even through he already earned the right to.
Rage as a shooter player is what would happen.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 12:22 AM

You had the same situation in PS1. I certed vanguard. I can't pull one at the base I'm at because there's no tech.

Same thing.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

You had the same situation in PS1. I certed vanguard. I can't pull one at the base I'm at because there's no tech.

Same thing.

no, its not at all. being unable to pull something like a heavy tank or gal unless certain conditions are met is one thing.

when those conditions are met you should be able to spawn your fully upgraded with all bells and whistles van or gal that you already earned the right to use through certs and buying the rights once.

being forced to use a crapy piece of shit gun when you have fully earned the right to a upgraded version because of some money bullshit has NO place in shooters

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 12:44 AM

How is it different? I'm forced to use a piece of crap Lightning even though I am certed for a Vanguard if there's no tech available.

In PS1 if you wanted certain benefits and access to things you had to strategically secure them. I don't see anything wrong with extending this system to more than just a handful of vehicles.

And its not like you'll be forced to fight in your undies with a suppressor. We're talking the difference between a Gauss Rifle and a Gauss Rifle with a Red Dot Sight or expanded magazine or some such. You can also avoid dying. That would mean you need to re-buy less.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

How is it different? I'm forced to use a piece of crap Lightning even though I am certed for a Vanguard if there's no tech available.

Lighnting with all the bells and whistles.*** if you certed it. and as I try to point out. there is a BIG difference. Shooter players do not like dealing with money/etc bullshit. that's why shooter games that do have a "cap" that one can work for. once you hit this cap you can stop worrying about bullshit stuff like grinding. as you have access to everything.

Planetside had it, battlefield has it, CoD has it.

with rebuying bullshit there would be a forever grind, you'd never be able to reach the point where you can fully enjoy the game without really worry about "bullshit"

we are talking a BIG difference between RPG players and shooter players.

Edit: I feel the need to explain this better. MMORPGs are boring as shit. there-for a forever grind is needed to keep the game going and exciting. FPS games are backwards to this. Shooters are exciting to play and as such shooter players want to get the grind out of the way as soon as they can so they never have to deal with the bullshit again, understand?

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 01:00 AM

Yeah still not seeing what you're concerned about. You seem to just flat out dislike the idea of having limited resources and having to make decisions about what weaponry you use.

Personally the longer this conversation goes on the more I like the idea of denying you the resource that enables the red-dot-sight. Just imagine it - we discover that the VS can't shoot for shit using ironsights, so we go after the glowing red crystals required to upgrade them. Then they all start shooting as terribly as the drugged-up Somalians in Black Hawk Down.

Want 'em back? Fight for the crystals.

Seems quite awesome to me and adds tons of depth to the game.

Seriously though wait and see how it pans out. As T-Ray said, if it frustrates players they'll fix it in beta. No need to get all worked up about it when you're just speculating and assuming the worst. I'm sure your concern is good feedback for them though and they'll consider it and ensure you dont' see the drastic differences that you're fearing.

Soothsayer · 2011-07-17, 01:08 AM

I'm not trying to be cute or smarmy by saying this, but Counterstrike's system lacks one time purchases instead having resources (cash) which carries over from previous matches.

If there was to be some sort of one time purchase, I would want the cost of that one time upgrade to be staggeringly high, but with the potential for a pay off within something like several months later. That would be assuming that the upgrade is used pretty much every time you spawn with the class/weapon its associated with. That's a big if for me though, I don't know if its something I'd really actually want.

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Seems quite awesome to me and adds tons of depth to the game.

seems rage, uninstalls, unsubbing of shooter players to me while a few RPG players will stay for a while. My edit in the last post explains why.

as for getting worked up, I've been around gaming long enough to see MANY games turn into shit. When you've seen as many games as I have being turned into complete and utter shit before a game even leaves beta then you can tell me not to worry.

I now take a proactive approach to try to stop bullshit and stupidity before it can mess stuff up.