Resource Denial: PS1 vs PS2

[Seagoon]

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.

[SKYeXile]

also Malorn, you need to make a thread on resource gain and distribution, not many people seem to care about the potential problems with it, if not done right.

[MrMorton]

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).

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

also Malorn, you need to make a thread on resource gain and distribution, not many people seem to care about the potential problems with it, if not done right.

There's a couple other resource-related topics I wanted to post about but I wanted to keep it to one goal at a time. Gain and distribution is rather tightly related to denial in this case.



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.

[SKYeXile]

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)

[Seagoon]

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'.

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.

-Resources can be blocked from resupplying, or maybe even drained from a site using some special gear, maybe even a specialised galaxy loadout.


-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.

[Synapse]

Well convoys certainly are a lot more fun than (visible or invisible) pipes, Seagoon.

[ArcIyte]

(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.

[MrMorton]

Originally Posted by ArcIyte

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.

aren't they already doing that?

they mentioned that each base would have special bonuses/abilities as well as certain bases giving access to more advanced vehicles.

[disky]

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.

[Malorn]

They explicitly do not want to make combat focused around the facilities, so facility-based resources does not work.

[disky]

Originally Posted by Malorn

They explicitly do not want to make combat focused around the facilities, so facility-based resources does not work.

If you're referring to my mention of bases in my previous post, I meant to say territories. Each territory would be assigned a resource value. I've edited the post to make it more clear.

[Kalbuth]

Originally Posted by disky

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.

Simple, and elegant.
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

[Sirisian]

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.

Originally Posted by Malorn

1) Personal Supplies
Personal supplies of resources are at the root of the problem. As long as players have their own supplies they are shielded from the effects of resource denial. Any solution to make denial a viable strategy would have to affect personal resource supplies. Without this it can never be immediate and any impact would be delayed until supplies ran low, which will vary on a player-to-player basis. It will be inconsistent at best, completely ineffective at worst.

Actually resources aren't the root of the problem. If anything using the resource system to control strategic denial will just alienate casual users who log on to play for an hour or two. They will notice they are getting less resources and invariably having less fun than the other factions. In fact this is something they have very little control over in the short time they play every day with their outfit.

Now to show a balanced system that's fun for everyone while allowing strategic denial a few changes need to be imagined.

1. Simplify to two resources. Auraxium and Nanites. Auraxium is used to unlock certs and is gained slowly. Nanites are gained frequently as explained next. The reasoning being that for someone that doesn't fly or drive they are going to accrue useless resources. A unified resource for personal purchases allows all play styles to be exist without favoring one, which I don't think the game needs. If you want to stop air pull a bunch of AA. You don't need a strategic gameplay element for it. Especially since it artificially limits the use of all gameplay styles simultaneously. That's what most people want to see in the game when playing. Auraxium isn't capped, Nanites are.
2. Remove the resource accumulation system from the territory. Replace it with with a faction loyalty bar system per player from 0 to 100% loyalty. Killing the other factions, fulfilling a support role, being near points when they're captured, etc would all increase this percentage quickly. Shooting teammates, going idle, etc would quickly drain the bar. The loyalty bar is proportional to a maximum resource gain of Nanites. Auraxium would be gained at a slower pace and also by taking individual territory, but not for holding it. This allows both casual and dedicated players to have resources independent of their faction while also controlling their level of customization over time based on their faction loyalty. (Getting to 100% loyalty wouldn't be overly difficult). This also still means that very casual players might want to buy cert unlocks if they are accruing Auraxium too slowly.
3. In replace of the resource system per territory, create a lattice of bonuses. I'll only explain generator bonuses and drains and tower bonuses.
4. Generators at bases slow hacks in adjacent tiles and for the tile itself. (Easily defended in a base. Requires tactics to destroy like a galaxy drop ideally).
5. If a generator goes down adjacent friendly tiles must power that tile draining their power to run the nanite generators. This create a loss in efficiency where equipment and vehicles are hit with a nanite penalty if the player chooses to upgrade in that tile or an adjacent one. Probably like 20% more. The more generators taken down the further this hurts the adjacent tiles as power must be redirected.
6. Tech plants would increase nanite creation in adjacent tiles by 10%.
7. Implement universal resource sinks for all play styles. Whether you're a grunt, driver, or pilot. To do this everything costs resources except stock weapons, certs, and ammo. So any cert utilized on a weapon or vehicle would cost a different amount of nanites depending on its relative bonus. This creates a constant drain every spawn in a player's nanite resources. Whether they choose to pull an upgraded rifle or an upgraded tank and creates a deep sense of meaning for resources and unlocked certs. Especially for creating loadouts of different complexity. This also allows identical certs with varying perks by utilizing different resource counts. I digress, this has been discussed to death in other threads.
8. Tower nanite pipeline bonuses give a nanite generator efficiency of 10% to all adjacent friendly bases. Anything spawned at the tower is 20% cheaper. (Incentive to use towers with spawn systems, I might be the only one that loved tower fights).
9. Pulling from a hex where all adjacent hexes are owned gets a 20% decrease in nanite costs. You're affectively pulling a loadout or vehicle from behind the front lines so if someone needs that they can do that to defend their territory. Pulling from the uncapturable is a 30% reduction in nanite costs to offset any bonuses a base might have.

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.

Originally Posted by Malorn

3) Limited Attack Options
The Influence system is sort of causing problems in this instance. On one hand it creates the same idea that the lattice did in PS1, which was to funnel troops to certain areas to fight at a time and not go anywhere and everywhere at once. But the Lattice had a dual function - not only did it govern hacks but it was also the supply line for benefits. The Influence system doesn't provide a way to make a resource impact behind lines. Captures behind lines are described as taking roughly 30 minutes to capture and possibly 30 seconds to lose. That is, at best, a very risky attack decision. The only practical resource attack options for denial are along the borders, of which there may be only 1-2 of any given resource. This exacerbates the too-many-producers problem. There needs to be a means of impacting resource flow without plowing through all of an empire's territory.

Agreed. The fronts will open up quickly, but there has to be a way to cut-off supplies from the back. If places have generators or nanite facilities to attack they can remove for instance hack time delays ideally for adjacent hacks. Still makes it difficult, but it would open up for more complex hacks. Like where infiltrators take out multiple generators to help a hack go through faster. Ideally the strategic events should affect where an individual soldier uses their resources, not how many they gain. Very subtle difference with how players will perceive the game. Also both teams should be able to perform these hacks. Imagine both teams trying to take out each other's generators at the same time. That's just one system that could be disrupted.

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I was thinking more oil pipes or power lines that could be blown up at particular points, but that would be rather annoying to repair and maintain and confusing to intercept. something like a train could work, provided it couldnt be damaged by mines and would need multiple AV aircraft, tank or infantry to takedown, i think it could work....though maps would need some fair redesign...so prob not gonna happen.

I was trying to think of a way to make that work also. Having a kind of nanite pipeline system that transports nanites for individual players that could be destroyed. I can't think of how it would help gameplay. You cut off a base to 1 of them and they have connections to other friendly bases. Do you need to cut off all of them? I wrote up a huge idea for them, but ended up erasing it to go with a generator system since it allows 1 generator to affect adjacent tiles in a way that it gives players a choice about how they use their resources. You could have tower bonuses that increase nanite generator efficiency so owning a tower makes things created 10% cheaper. Those are simple idea for single capture points to adjacent bases. I added that as idea 8.

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.

Originally Posted by Synapse

Well you guys are the ones saying what you had in PS1 was good.

To me it sounds like a recipe for making sure an empire that's losing, keeps losing.

I think you'll find the ideas I just put forth stop this scenario from occuring by not directly cutting into a player's resources for fighting on a losing continent.

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

I just had an interesting thought about what SOE could do when it comes to resources. They could create resource spikes when they want to encourage combat in an area. This could be coupled with a resource shortage in an area that has been getting a lot of action and is getting stale. These spikes could help move the fight but also create more opportunities for resource denial.

Already proposed a while ago. Hold the meteor resource mode. Forces areas that need some chaos to get it as it plays on player's greed for personal resources.

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

Bases should produce NO RESOURCES. They should instead GREATLY REDUCE the cost of vehicles purchased at the base. Any resources they might have given is made up from the resources saved from buying there. This makes bases more than just differentiated hex capture mechanics and actually valuable points of interest.

Eh if you just subtract uniformly for all the bases then you end up with 0. Unless you mean the more bases you own the less vehicles cost? I've included an adjacency bonus for spawning behind front lines in item 9. Makes sense.

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.

If they do keep the 3 resources system this kind of changing of resources per tile seems extremely important. Maybe explain it away as deep mining and extreme plate tectonics because of all the moons. Either way keeping it static was one of the huge problems I saw with what they were explaining.

Originally Posted by noxious

There is one glaring problem with this system as it has been described thus far; resource generation is a public good. Individual players have no incentive to assault resource generating territories because a player will obtain the same amount of resources even if all they do is attack/defend facilities. To rectify this, resource territories should have terminals from which a player can obtain a modest but immediate injection of resources (with a cooldown of N minutes so you the player can't reach the resource cap by visiting a single resource territory).

I think a system using strategic elements and bonuses would work better. Things like taking out generators or connecting towers to bases for bonuses or unlocks seems much more strategic than going after resources for individual gain. The loyalty system I proposed would mean someone in a battle no matter where will get resources for helping their faction. They could be rewarded for mission objectives. That could be done with extra bonus resources separate from the loyalty. If it's not exploitable it would work well.

Originally Posted by WildVS

Really really good ideas here but overall this has to be simple enough a 12 year old can understand it, if you know what I mean.

They can play the game and have fun. The mission system will help the zerg find their way anyway.

(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).

[Figment]

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.