Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: keeping me from robbing banks.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #76 | ||
Corporal
|
EDIT: this was a pointless post, read the damn thread next time before posting me...
If players dont want to do the resource hauling (who would :/) then we can have the AI do it for us. Simple, you have some robotic cargo transporters that follow set routs from the bases to the warpgate and will deliver the resources from that bases 'catchment area' of hexes. Another option is to have a pipeline map where resources flow from their hex to the nearest base and then through other hexes to the warpgate, this will create choke points where a number of hexes worth of resources can be blocked by a blackops team capturing that hex. Think of this map like a series of rivers flowing to the sea (the warpgate) with each hex providing a tributary to the main line which comes from a base. Last edited by Seagoon; 2012-06-21 at 08:13 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #78 | ||
Sergeant
|
while this concern does have merit, I would like to point out that the resources gained will hopefully be fairly small per person. Meaning that a relatively small change in resources could still decide the winner of a battle.
more importantly. The hex system means that there will be a lot of territory with a very low defensive presence. So, if VS gets some dropships to set up camp somewhere in the middle of NC territory, they can quickly cap multiple enemy hexes, effectively spiking down NC's resource gain for a small amount of time. This spike wouldn't instantly take effect, but 20 minutes after recovering their territory, NC would be very low on resources and vulnerable to a frontal assault of which VS would happily oblige). |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #79 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
I was thinking about this some more today and I think there's two solutions 1) The ideal solution This is probably too involved for them to implement before release. It's good to brainstorm what this would be, but I don't think we'd see the fruits of that for a while after release. 2) The quick-and-dirty, viable-but-meh solution This is the one I think is most interesting for now. I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I like something that gives behind-the-lines objectives like the classic gen drop at a tech plant, or lattice-severing like behavior. As for the quick and dirty viable but meh solution, I think it's rather simple. * Different weights on the territory value to make things interesting, as Arclyte mentioned with the CoH example. * Scaling loss of player resources when a territory is captured. The resource that the territory gives is the resource that is lost. I described this in my OP. Something simple like you lose 20% of your current resource amount * the weight of the resource. So if you lose a high resource territory (3) you lose 60% of your resources for that resource. If you lose a low resource territory it's only 20%. I just made up those numbers for the sake of illustration. Actual numbers and formula would have to be carefullly considered and should ideally take total number of resource producers into consideration. Only downside to that I think is the people may not like losing resources and it might be a bit tricky to balance the scaling right. I do think though that the above two things would make resource denial viable as a strategy. Not the best solution, but one that is workable before release within the current game mechanics. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #80 | ||
Major General
|
you could perhaps do it malorn so that you have a base amount of resources you can carry, say 2500 of each, but then capturing more nodes means you can increase your maximum storage, taking a node from somebody would mean if they're over that 2500 then they would loose those extra resources. (if they're at the maximum they can store)
Last edited by SKYeXile; 2012-06-21 at 08:37 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #81 | |||
Corporal
|
Ok now that I have actually read the thread, how about this:
-Each base has its own resource pool, this is automatically filled from the contenents overall pool. This pool of resources will be small enough that in a heavy fight with constant vehicle spawning it runs the risk of being depleted. Bases have much larger resource pools than outposts and towers, if the local resource pool is drained then you will have to travel to a nearby hex to resupply. -Personal resources dont exist anymore other than auraxium, which will be gathered in the same way as it is currently. Instead of your own resource pool, you will see the resources of the area you are in at the moment. -To supply the contenent pool with resources they must be transported to the teams warpgate via automated convoy or a tributary system of 'pipes'.
-This system allows players to attack the resource system directly. -It alows for meaningful impacts from either not haveing enough income or having your resources attacked. -It allows for the dammage to the resources of the opponent to become apparent quickly. -It opens up a new method of winning fights through attrition. -It lessens the impact of losing hexes by the fact that less hexes require supplying by the losing empire. EDIT: A more complicated idea might be to have a combination of both the pipeline idea as well as the automated supply convoy idea. The pipes would transfer raw resources to the warpgate, and the convoys would transport real supplies to the front lines. The difference this would make would be that attacks on the supply convoys would be even more instant in their effect on the front lines, and that black ops work capturing choke points in the pipelines would provide more of an effect on the over all empires supply situation. This pipeline/convoy combination would provide even more options for blackops and raids than either on their own, this as well as creating a much more dynamic resource system compared to just using one transportation method due to the more varied and dramatic impacts attacks could have. It would also provide more interesting combat, in that the defenders dont just have to protect the base, but also the main route of resupply into the base, if they get surrounded then the transports will have a much harder time getting through. And this also makes attacking more interesting, since you can apply a larger variety of strats to take a base, maybe even replicate real life situations where strongpoints were surrounded and cut off from resupply and the rest of the army moved on past the strongpoint to the next target, I belive this was done by the germans when attacking russia in WW2. Last edited by Seagoon; 2012-06-21 at 09:06 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #83 | ||
Sergeant
|
![]() (photobucket is being a pain in the ass with sizing, right click -> view image to zoom in and make it larger) OK, I'm going to expand on my Company of Heroes example but hopefully this makes sense. As you can see each empire starts out with 2 +10 munition and 1 +16 fuel right next to their foothold, so they are least have some form of income unless they are completely beaten on that cont. Obviously the crater and surrounding area containing all that +16 fuel and ammo is going to be hotly contested, but it's not the only place that has them. Strike teams could hit the heart of the enemy empire and take out the +16 resource nodes, in the hopes that the enemy will bleed themselves out fighting elsewhere. Anyway, I think having varying degrees of income from nodes (provided they are placed properly) is the way to fairly award territory gain all the while giving people strategic targets to take away from the bigger enemy. Last edited by ArcIyte; 2012-06-22 at 12:08 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #84 | |||
Sergeant
|
they mentioned that each base would have special bonuses/abilities as well as certain bases giving access to more advanced vehicles. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #85 | ||
Sergeant
|
I honestly think the easiest way to keep it simple and balanced is to just assign resource values to territories, and when your faction controls the territory, everyone on the continent gets the resource at a set time interval, and if they haven't used the resource by the next time interval, they don't get it again. This prevents stockpiling and creates an incentive to capture, because the more territory you have, the larger each player's resource pool becomes and more resources are restored to their personal pool at the time intervals. And obviously, it also diminishes the pool of the opposing players.
With this system the game isn't complicated with transportation and personal storage because each player's personal resources are defined solely by the bases their faction owns. I'm probably one of the few people that actually liked ANT runs, but I feel like this would make it much easier for new players to grasp quickly. Last edited by disky; 2012-06-22 at 12:28 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #88 | |||
First Sergeant
|
Maybe a little harsh to a losing faction. Possible addition : personal gain (not sure it has been mentionned already) : apparently, we're also going to gain personnal resources by killing people. A simple possible rule : on top of having resources corresponding to your empire territory, you have the resources of the last guy you killed |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #89 | |||||||||||
Colonel
|
I think you're targeting the problem wrong by looking at strategic denial via the resource system. The concept that turning off resources doesn't create an immediate effect has been explained in previous resource threads. You're on the right track though with thinking of the PS1 system. Specifically the tech plant bonus and the concept that certain vehicles required a connected link. The territory system offers the same connections.
Now to show a balanced system that's fun for everyone while allowing strategic denial a few changes need to be imagined.
Other bonuses might relate to certs. For instance, an advanced nanite outpost might unlock any certs in adjacent bases with a tag "Requires Advanced Nanite Research Bonus". Those kind of things make certain loadouts harder to pull from the front lines and easier to disable.
I took some of the GW2 ideas about adjacent bonuses. (Without any complex ANT transport. I think a pipeline is fine between a tower). Also I love the idea of trains guys, but I don't think their benefit has been clearly defined. Also I'm glad everyone seems to be on the same page about not denying vehicles like in PS1. With how many vehicles we're going to have it might be odd. Pushing players back to by expensive ones cheaper behind the front lines I'm fine with though. Honestly, I'd like to see maybe pulling vehicles from behind the front lines where all adjacent hexes are friendly get something like a 20% nanite bonus. I added it as idea 9.
(Also this thread took a while for me to read. Information dense, good luck to anyone jumping into this thread halfway through, hmm this looked smaller in notepad when I was making it).
__________________
[Thoughts and Ideas on the Direction of Planetside 2] |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #90 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
The easiest thing to do is limit the personal pool of resources to allow for the pulling of very few units per player. With sub, double that tops.
This would make transports more important, plus would allow tanks to be a bit more powerful (rate of death of units also affects resource drain). It is also possible to have bases as storage of supplies and towers and outposts as producers. Storage would simply change ownership of the supplies stored in that facility. The outposts and towers would affect the net gain of resources of bases bordering that outpost. Distribution then would be impacted by bases, divided by territory held (amount of hexes) and secure bases, then divided per player in that hex. This would mean that even a semi controlled base would decrease resources, especially for an empire with a lot of hexes. A frontline base with a lot of players per hex would then run out of resources much faster. Could be there are treshold levels that provide priority modifiers to larger groups to compensate a little bit. Either way, this would give more clear advantages, the impact of capturing an outpost would be felt in multiple connected bases and the impact would be more significant. The effect of losing and capturing a base would also immediately benefit your empire's production. Lastly, I would suggest and expect that encircling an enemy by capturing the terrain around them should cut them off from supplies altogether. Meaning only linked resources are distributed. Last edited by Figment; 2012-06-22 at 03:08 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|