Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2 - Page 4

Mechzz · 2012-06-21, 07:20 AM

Good discussion.

On the point of players losing some resources when a hex is lost, the simple explanation would be that those resources were physically held in the lost hex.

I also think the % multiplier that kicks in as you drop below 33% territory will cause the losing empire to go negative in its resource inflow/outflow.

So if you drop to 20% (-13%) and your biggest enemy goes to 46% (+13%) they're getting resources 2.5 times quicker than you.

The losing empire in that case will experience "brown-outs" where they can't pull vehicles for increasingly longer periods of time.

The exact speed at which you run out of resources is determined by many variables, so I think this is a classic example of a system the devs will want to tune during the beta.

disky · 2012-06-21, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

What happens if the resources are dynamically relocated?

Explain.

Greeniegriz · 2012-06-21, 07:49 AM

Question: Do we know the rate at which resources are generated? Safe to say the more bases of X resource you have the quicker it will generate but do we even know the actual base rate?

If not, then its hard to determine whether losing a base will/wont have enough impact.

Either way, I like the OP idea of border bases generating more resources. Perhaps you'd also need to be holding that particular border hex for a period of time before it generated at a higher rate.

Cheers,

GG

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

disky · 2012-06-21, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

In July last year at SOE Fan Faire in the initial developers meeting with fans, Higby said resources would be dynamically moved about a cont. At what intervals I have no idea but the general idea is that map Xyntech posted would not be static. Resources would be shifted around the continent in order to "shake up the battlefield", I believe is how Higby said it. However, since then he has said otherwise I believe, I haven't heard that but others said they have. I didn't read all of this thread and whatever has been said this resource movement may not matter but it is a dynamic I hope to see in the game, sooner rather than later.

As far as the idea I suggested is concerned, I don't see how it could negatively impact the system overall. I can see it forcing players to pay more attention to what they're trying to capture, which is a good thing. It may also complicate some of the more esoteric suggestions in this thread, but I'm not sure.

thegreekboy · 2012-06-21, 07:56 AM

Great discussion, and I agree with malorn that the devs need to figure out a way to make resources fit the specifications in the the OP.

amblingalong · 2012-06-21, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Synapse

What if resources were represented by actual automated haulers driving back to your warpgate? Then supply lines could be literally blocked and raided, instead of having a lattice to simulate it.

That also opens up the ability for players to bring extra resources to bases that are cut off or just front line to boost fighting there.

This would be fantastic- it would add organic escort missions, make hit-and-run againt convoys viable strategy, and wouldn't be that resource-intensive to impliment.

SKYeXile · 2012-06-21, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Greeniegriz

Question: Do we know the rate at which resources are generated? Safe to say the more bases of X resource you have the quicker it will generate but do we even know the actual base rate?

If not, then its hard to determine whether losing a base will/wont have enough impact.

Either way, I like the OP idea of border bases generating more resources. Perhaps you'd also need to be holding that particular border hex for a period of time before it generated at a higher rate.

Cheers,

GG

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

they come in at a tick rate every 5min, but we have no idea by how much.

Luieburger · 2012-06-21, 08:16 AM

Good thread I say. I agree with most of this, but don't have any PS1 experience to compare.

kaffis · 2012-06-21, 09:03 AM

The concepts here are a sound outline of the situation, but without more details, it's difficult to determine whether there's a problem or not.

The value of the personal resource cap will have a big impact on what you call immediacy, for instance. We also have no idea what kind of vehicle pull-rate can be sustained by "average" resource incomes. This, relative to average vehicle lifetimes, will also have an indication on how sensitive people's ability to pull vehicles ends up being when a facility is taken...

So.. good framework for beta discussion, but we won't be able to tell whether the discussion even needs to take place, let alone what kind of character the solution will have to take on, until we're in beta.

MCYRook · 2012-06-21, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dart

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!

Dis I like. Dart smart man!

A couple other ideas that crossed my mind regarding this, although none of them really solve the entire issue:

Diminishing returns.
Facilities/territories produce less stuff the more you have of the same type. Helps alleviate the "rich get richer" problem.
Downside: Not as easily comprehensible.

Local personal resources.
You still have your personal pool of resources, but the sum of those are tied to the hexes that produced them. Like, your empire has held hex 43 for half a day, and it has been producing lots of resource A for you, so out of the total of 2300 resource A you currently have, 850 of those were produced and are "stored" in hex 43. If you now lose hex 43, you will lose 850 A.
Small downsides: Every player needs a personal resource map to see where all his current resources are "stored". Also needs a comprehensible system what location your resources are deducted from when you spend them.
I pretty much like this tho tbh.

Especially since it means that way-behind-the-lines hexes will make for really juicy targets.
Bigger downsides: People hate having their personal stuff suddenly taken away. And: This aproach means that if an empire loses all their A-producing hexes, they lose ALL of their A except the portion that is earned via combat. That's pretty harsh and while it does give resource denial lots of impact (and immediacy as well), it's not necessarily a good thing if it's too hardcore, especially regarding a "sanc-locked" empire getting back on its feet.

Small personal resource supply cap.
Pretty straightforward way to combat the "resource hoarding" problem and make the impact of resource starvation more immediate - just make the pool that you can hoard smaller.
Alternatively: Personal diminishing returns, i.e. if you already have > 1000 resource A, your income ticks are reduced by some amount, > 2000 some more, and so on.

Kalbuth · 2012-06-21, 10:02 AM

Zipping through the thread, just a question : do we know if resource are rewarded per tick based on global territory possession, or based on territory held on the continent you are in?
I hope the latter, making for territory possession more impacting the resources.

Kalbuth · 2012-06-21, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Just per cont for now.

Good, this opens up possibilities for continental domination, tbh.

Traenor · 2012-06-21, 12:17 PM

Here is how i am seeing it, and restating some of Malorns points.

The Problem

How can you make a strategic and complex system that supports denial of resources, and thereby increases interesting choices in how you can affect what vehicles enter the battlefield? This needs to be impactful and immediate, since if it is neither of these two things, choices will not be or feel meaningful.

What we have¨

We have a resource system, wherein different resources are gained from different locations, or "hexes". The resources are stored per player. I think it has to be stored per player, as shared resources will open up for griefing, and create general bad will player inbetween.

Solutions

So we need to have varied decisions to take, so it not only is expand empire, acquire resources. Darts suggestion, that each area producing resources also affects the timers on how often you can draw the vehicles is very good. Why?
It feels good when acquiring areas. I will try to get that tech plant so that i can spawn my beloved scythe more often.
It also feels good for denying. I will take that tech plant so that the Vanu´s air superiority is reduced, while my own mosquito´s now will flood the sky.
It is logical. It makes sense that if acquire/lose hexes producing that resource, production of said vehicles are affected.
It is simple. A lot of the other ideas have a lot of learning baggage and does not fit that well in this system. This does.
It is elegant. It ties production and timers together, two things that already exists in PS2.

It will ofcourse need to be done so you always can make vehicles faster than you gain by income, but that is simple balancing. I had personally thought of a lot other solutions, but this fits the bill.
The only problem is that it does not help sieging as much. This is broadly affecting, not locally affecting. But since the system is hexes and not links, i cant really see supply lines as fitting in any way, shape or form.

ParisTeta · 2012-06-21, 12:19 PM

Nice topic! To make resource matter, they must be limited. So the Personal Resource schould be limited. Example: For 150 you get every vehicle in basic gear. You can own up of that resource till 200. Your empire conquer a hex with that resource, you have a faster income and can now own 33 more of this resource to 233. If they lose it, the extra amound could be lost (any mount, from full to 50% whatever fits balance wise) or/and extra regeneration is frozen.

Exception would be Auraxium, the shop/implants currency.

Someside concerns, Auraxium in alpha/e3 is only gained in facilites, not on the open field, making them the important and center of fights again.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-21, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

Good, this opens up possibilities for continental domination, tbh.

If resources were global then resource denial would be impossible. By having them continental-based it means you can impact the local battle by acquiring or denying resources. I don't think it was intended for continental domination. In a way it actually works against it because the more back line resource objectives you have the more you have to defend, and it gives an underdog with few territories to more attack options and a way to hurt the juggernaut empire that's dominating much of the continent.

Originally Posted by MCYRook

Diminishing returns.
Facilities/territories produce less stuff the more you have of the same type. Helps alleviate the "rich get richer" problem.
Downside: Not as easily comprehensible.

Intuitive solutions are important, PS1's system was fairly straightforward. However, diminishing returns might help reduce the stark difference in resource production from a large empire to a small empire, but diminishing returns hurts resource denial. It makes territories in larger empires less valuable, so denying any resources becomes less meaningful. If you get to the point where you need diminishing returns then the empire is already at a point where they have more than they need.

I like the idea of making management of large amounts of territory more difficult because it creates more resource targets. More territory - more targets, so the empire would potentially need to expend more energy going around and securing that territory.

Local personal resources.
You still have your personal pool of resources, but the sum of those are tied to the hexes that produced them. Like, your empire has held hex 43 for half a day, and it has been producing lots of resource A for you, so out of the total of 2300 resource A you currently have, 850 of those were produced and are "stored" in hex 43. If you now lose hex 43, you will lose 850 A.
Small downsides: Every player needs a personal resource map to see where all his current resources are "stored". Also needs a comprehensible system what location your resources are deducted from when you spend them.
I pretty much like this tho tbh.

Especially since it means that way-behind-the-lines hexes will make for really juicy targets.
Bigger downsides: People hate having their personal stuff suddenly taken away. And: This aproach means that if an empire loses all their A-producing hexes, they lose ALL of their A except the portion that is earned via combat. That's pretty harsh and while it does give resource denial lots of impact (and immediacy as well), it's not necessarily a good thing if it's too hardcore, especially regarding a "sanc-locked" empire getting back on its feet.

Small personal resource supply cap.
Pretty straightforward way to combat the "resource hoarding" problem and make the impact of resource starvation more immediate - just make the pool that you can hoard smaller.
Alternatively: Personal diminishing returns, i.e. if you already have > 1000 resource A, your income ticks are reduced by some amount, > 2000 some more, and so on.

I think that a solution to making resource denial viable and opening up strategic options on the map would involve some sort of binding of territory to personal resource supply.

I also like the idea of having resource supply depots of sorts that exist in territories that can be attacked without having to capture the territory. This is the sort of thing that would make continental domination difficult - the more territory you have, the more resource nodes you have to protect. Additionally, supply depots can help bring combat to areas of the continent that would otherwise rarely see it (like right around warp gates, or on the edges of the map).

Originally Posted by Dart

Just a thought here, but we know there will be vehicle/Max timers as well as resource based purchasing. Rather than going after the personal resource banks, would immediacy not be more easily achieved by simply tying hex-based resource production to the timers themselves? Therefore you can keep your 5k resource credits but if you lose your last tech plant you'll have to wait half an hour to get another Prowler anyway!

This introduces another variable that might make it more difficult to understand and balance. Also, this sort of approach seems to punish an empire that's losing. Not a bad idea, but I'd like to find a way to localize its effect.

I think the idea of resource denial should be such that it is a tool for a losing empire to turn the tables. If straight up slugfests aren't working, try some behind the lines stuff. It gives smaller outfits meaningful things to do as well, both in attacking and defending these points.

In order to keep a losing empire competitive, resources need to be more valuable when they are close to the fighting. That way all the resources behind the lines aren't as big of a factor and its more about what's going on now. Instead of continent-wide resource denial I really like the idea of localized resource denial. You deny to specific territories, not the entire continent. In this way a force could deny reosurces to the front lines, but even if they take that front line and the enemy falls back, the enemy falls back to fresh resources has an opportunity to strike back (and possibly do the same thing).