News: Roadmap Resource Revamp & Continental Lattice Updated - Page 5

torokf · 2013-07-21, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Attackers are supplied by adjacent linked friendly facilities. If none then income is zero.

simple question, badly explained:
Will lattice be changed in anyway to account for this new feature?
because as of now it's often practically impossible to cut off a facility from all it's friendly hexes, because "outposts" (the nearest hexes to facilities) aren't linked with one and eachother, maybe you will link them with lattice? but people won't be able to avoid the facility and going towards other hexes before owning the facility which those outposts are linked to? i don't know if i explained myself, here's the worst pics ever

anything like this at all?

Aiden · 2013-08-14, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Attackers are supplied by adjacent linked friendly facilities. If none then income is zero.

Does this mean if you have more than one friendly facility linked, the attackers will be able to maintain 100% resource gain with more players? That seems logical. It's like the old adjacency system, except with resources instead of cap times.

**Malorn** · 2013-08-14, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Aiden

Does this mean if you have more than one friendly facility linked, the attackers will be able to maintain 100% resource gain with more players? That seems logical. It's like the old adjacency system, except with resources instead of cap times.

Going to start with the nearest facility and see how that works out. If that creates too many weird situations then we may consider using the adjacent facility with the most power, which would provide attacker advantage if the attacker had multiple connections to a facility. That would however make it significantly easier to attack and may make resources irrelevant in such situations. That's why I want to see how nearest facility works first.

GeoGnome · 2013-08-14, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Going to start with the nearest facility and see how that works out. If that creates too many weird situations then we may consider using the adjacent facility with the most power, which would provide attacker advantage if the attacker had multiple connections to a facility. That would however make it significantly easier to attack and may make resources irrelevant in such situations. That's why I want to see how nearest facility works first.

You mean adjacent bases, as in... adjacency system adjacent, or lattice connection adjacent?

Making it adjacency like from the adjacency system, so that if there was a solid front line, with multiple geographically adjacent bases, would mean attackers would have a strong base to pull from, and might make combat rather interesting.

Further, to add a buffer in so that defenders don't loose out too quickly, adjacent bases to the base being defended could have energy drawn from them.

Just throwing out ideas.

MarlboroManE · 2013-07-20, 12:43 PM

100% looking forward to the Continental Lattice.

Cautiously optimistic about the resource redesign. Currently resource have a negligible impact on the game ... this adds an entirely new dynamic, and one that I think will add depth. Depth is good. Also, Malorn mentions that it should be easy to understand, which is critical - we don't need to make things any harder on new players, ya know?

Aaron · 2013-07-20, 02:15 PM

I am super excited about these changes. It gets my vote.

Neurotoxin · 2013-07-20, 02:28 PM

If ANT runs are gonna be a thing in PS2, we need better AA, and probably those fancy new domes over Auraxium mining sites. I expect a lot of suicide aircraft to shrug off incoming flak and machineguns to afterburn dive-bomb mining vehicles with C4.

Lonehunter · 2013-07-20, 02:39 PM

So the amount of resources you are gaining per minute, is determined by the power level of the bases around you? If so then I believe it works like this....

So if I'm in the warpgate I'm gaining them at a 100% rate, constant full power facility.

If I'm in a small cluster of several territories outside the warpgate and they are all at full power, I'm getting 100% rate.

If we own the entire continent I'm getting 100%

The only time I'm gaining a reduced rate of resources is when I'm defending a base, and I'm assuming it would be reduced when fighting a base. The amount I'm getting isn't involved with the capture of the continent at all, it's only lowering resources when I'm in action.

I'm really hoping that percentage is based off of how many territories you own, and it just drops a small percentage when there's less power at your nearby facility. So you still have the carrot on the stick of more land = higher resource gain, but now we have another tactical element of resupplying power to combat areas, more land = more power.

Planetside 1's slogan of For Land. For Power. Forever. would totally work here now

EvilNinjadude · 2013-07-20, 03:14 PM

@Mordelicius It's been stated that attackers get resources via adjacent friendly territories.

@Mastachief Sounds like ANT modules for now.

Mastachief · 2013-07-20, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by EvilNinjadude

@Mastachief Sounds like ANT modules for now.

Well that'll screw the pooch. Need nanites to continue your farm? zerg 30 ANT module tanks at you farms silo.

The ps1 ANT was un armed and weak it really needed an escort to do its jump in a contested base, this required empire co-op (something this game current neither has or encourages.) To allow armed ANTs is to cater to solo players yet again and ruin a concept that was perfect.

Don't get me wrong i love most of the proposals but i still need to point out massive flaws imo.

Isokon · 2013-07-20, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Well that'll screw the pooch. Need nanites to continue your farm? zerg 30 ANT module tanks at you farms silo.

The ps1 ANT was un armed and weak it really needed an escort to do its jump in a contested base, this required empire co-op (something this game current neither has or encourages.) To allow armed ANTs is to cater to solo players yet again and ruin a concept that was perfect.

Don't get me wrong i love most of the proposals but i still need to point out massive flaws imo.

I would not cry foul, yet. They could make the ANT modules disable all weaponry and make the amount of energy it can transport depend on the kind of vehicle it's on.
There are a couple of other factors (time it takes to transfer the energy between vehicle and base? Possible to have multiple vehicles refill at the same time?), thus I'd go with "potential flaw" until we know more details.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-07-20, 04:13 PM

Attackers shouldnt be fed a steady stream of resources. In this instance I think the devs are fucking up again. Attackers should have to bring resources with them and be susceptibe to becoming resource starved just like the defenders.

Isokon · 2013-07-20, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Attackers shouldnt be fed a steady stream of resources. In this instance I think the devs are fucking up again. Attackers should have to bring resources with them and be susceptibe to becoming resource starved just like the defenders.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Attackers are supplied by adjacent linked friendly facilities. If none then income is zero.

Assuming those adjacent bases also lose power for supplying the attackers, this means you can actually starve them by intercepting their transports.

Rat · 2013-07-20, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Attackers shouldnt be fed a steady stream of resources. In this instance I think the devs are fucking up again. Attackers should have to bring resources with them and be susceptibe to becoming resource starved just like the defenders.

Not a bad point, maybe they could implement some type of diminishing returns system

Johnjohns · 2013-07-20, 04:14 PM

I like this a lot. Really going to make large sieges a lot more fun.