News: Roadmap Resource Revamp & Continental Lattice Updated

[Malorn]

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

[lovepack]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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

Will we be able to get resources through XP? If not there goes my play style .

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by lovepack

Will we be able to get resources through XP? If not there goes my play style .

No, that would go away. Its unnecessary complexity and instability. Its existence is insulation against denial effects. You simply get income at a steady rate from the supplying facility.

[Mordelicius]

- Power Supply Lines sound great. I like they are adding logistics now.

Drawback: I expect a rise in vehicle team killing with this. They need to buff up the grief report system in anticipation of this.
Vehicles need ownership tag and kill tag so we know who's doing the shenanigans.

I see vehicles blocking paths to the charging/dumping station to players alts being abused to add to power drain.

Drawback2: As some would say, how do attackers get their resources if they are in an unfriendly hex? I fear this could turn into Defenseside, where players only go on defense to get their resources.


- Continent Lattice (current design). I'm wondering if the spread out population is enough with the added continent + BI. So, are we expecting more server mergers?

Drawback: Home base is bad. Forcing players to play in certain continent is a terrible design. Give us an alternative Warpgate "locking" mechanism that is player-driven. I've suggested before a mechanism of pushing WGs in a WG-BI-WG line (where the BI WG is only activated when a WG is captured, thereby "pushed" into the BIWG). If WG has been pushed twice, it becomes "locked". This removes the necessity for a locked, Dev mandated "Home Base".

Drawback 2: No rotation? Allow Home base rotation. Many players prefer Indar, such as myself. Esamir and Amerish have their fans as well. Simply locking a continent to a faction is inane. Rotate them like every 4-6 months.

- More Server Merges. Hopefully, in case they merge Waterson and Mattherson, they keep the Waterson name. Waterson has a very balanced culture not allowing one faction to just dominate. Mattherson is too Vanu centric. I fear if Waterson is absorbed into Mattherson, it will take a long time to erode the Vanu-centric culture there.

It took NC months to push back on the TR and Vanu heavy influences in Waterson and it happened since the game has only been released.

[Mastachief]

Will we have a proper ANT vehicle or something pandering to easymode such as prowlers with ant modules.

[camycamera]

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

- Power Supply Lines sound great. I like they are adding logistics now.

Drawback: I expect a rise in vehicle team killing with this. They need to buff up the grief report system in anticipation of this.
Vehicles need ownership tag and kill tag so we know who's doing the shenanigans.


I see vehicles blocking paths to the charging/dumping station to players alts being abused to add to power drain.

nah, i wouldn't think it would do that. it hardly happens, at least to me anyway. and i doubt "those" people wouldn't end up driving the ANT anyway, organised squads would.

Drawback2: As some would say, how do attackers get their resources if they are in an unfriendly hex? I fear this could turn into Defenseside, where players only go on defense to get their resources.


- Continent Lattice (current design). I'm wondering if the spread out population is enough with the added continent + BI. So, are we expecting more server mergers?

probably.

Drawback: Home base is bad. Forcing players to play in certain continent is a terrible design. Give us an alternative Warpgate "locking" mechanism that is player-driven. I've suggested before a mechanism of pushing WGs in a WG-BI-WG line (where the BI WG is only activated when a WG is captured, thereby "pushed" into the BIWG). If WG has been pushed twice, it becomes "locked". This removes the necessity for a locked, Dev mandated "Home Base".

Drawback 2: No rotation? Allow Home base rotation. Many players prefer Indar, such as myself. Esamir and Amerish have their fans as well. Simply locking a continent to a faction is inane. Rotate them like every 4-6 months.

once we get more maps i bet we will see sanctuaries. sanctuaries from PS1 are essentially little home bases for empires, and people could use them to go to which continents they want by going through a warpgate.once it is in, there would be no need for warpgate rotation, because it would be more player driven.

so, yeah.

[torokf]

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]

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]

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]

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.