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

TermiGR · 2013-07-20, 03:17 AM

I really like both! The Resource-System-Idea is just awesome -> i was waiting for the "Energy-Level-Thing" like in PS1 - NICE!

The Continental-Lattice is awesome, too! -> Now we have to wait for Hossin and the BI'S...

Boildown · 2013-07-20, 03:39 AM

These will be the best changes they've ever made. I think both items will be awesome, particularly their Vision (tm) for resources. Rolling Sunderers to grab resources to spawn tanks, is fracking brilliant. Can you say Zug Zug? PS2 will become a RTS/FPS/MMO hybrid. Awesome.

Originally Posted by maradine

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.

Better idea... at the end of a month, make everyone's home warpgate capturable. Once one faction captures another's warpgate, they "win" and the maps reset and warpgates rotate. If no one can capture anyone else's warpgate, then they must be pretty balanced that way and they don't change. Its a win-win design.

EvilNinjadude · 2013-07-20, 03:41 AM

Not having played Planetside 1, I'm struggling just a tiny bit to get this all down in my head (because it's not live yet and I love trying things for myself). I'll throw in a short question once in a while.

So basically, a player with non-full personal resources enters a friendly territory. The territory starts to refill the personal resources (at what radius? Anywhere in the "territory"?). This resource refill taxes the base's power level. The more people with non-full resource stock, the faster the base loses power. (When power reaches Zero, no resource refills? Any other deficits? Changes to spawning timer? Spawning disabled?)

To refill base resources, enough non-full people must leave so that the base recovers; or someone brings in an ANT that carries base power (how much? How long can it hold onto the power? How long will it take for the power to be transferred? I personally see the ANT as a spare capacitor holding 50-100% of the base's power, to be transferred over to the base at a slow, steady rate when required).

One request: I want there to be a personal resource replenishment toggle. If I've just pulled a vehicle or used lots of consumables, and I'm in a base that's under assault and missing an ANT, I'd rather not make the situation any worse, and NOT replenish my personal resources there. In PS1 everything (including spawning) drained base power... this is not the case here, since we have a personal resource stock instead. I'd love to be able to manage it more, if I understand the current planned system correctly.

Carbon Copied · 2013-07-20, 03:57 AM

Regarding the continental lattice diagram and touching on the side issue of major faction population imbalances: are there mechanics in place/planned for any potential max player continent population lock problems? i.e x amount of people on one faction rendering the battle islands unwarpable due to them (possibly on purpose) pop lock?

Unlikely to happen I know but a possible problem.

Really like everything posted but just want to know if anything like that has been taken into account!

ringring · 2013-07-20, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Carbon Copied

Regarding the continental lattice diagram and touching on the side issue of major faction population imbalances: are there mechanics in place/planned for any potential max player continent population lock problems? i.e x amount of people on one faction rendering the battle islands unwarpable due to them (possibly on purpose) pop lock?

Unlikely to happen I know but a possible problem.

Really like everything posted but just want to know if anything like that has been taken into account!

That's a good question. It could happen during the low pop hours and then when people start to log on again there's nowhere to go.

e.g. one empire is kicked from both of the other two home continents, they can then only find a fight on Hossin and two BI's while the excess population on 'their' home continent is idle (and perhaps logs off).

It would be nice to have devs comments on this scenario, perhaps it will never happen and the devs know this from the data.

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?

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?

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

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!