News: Friday Night Ops EP39 Resource System Q&A Tonight

[NewSith]

There:


This actually raises a cocern - as a matter of fact it's cheaper to destroy an AMS, rather than than to pull one, resource-wise. Plus I don't think that using a grenade is similar to pulling a vehicle, as was stated in the very Q&A, so I for one don't think that pulling an AT mine should be put into the same basket as pulling a tank.

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by NewSith

It's all simple - a base drains its own separate resource to generate us our own separate resource for the hex its on. The more a base has in its silo, the more resource per second it generates. If its silo is empty it stops generating resources. As simple as that.



Visually:

Mao is on 100% power
Players on the hex recieve 100 unobtanium per minute

Mao is down to 43% power
Players on the hex recieve 43 unobtanium per minute

Mao is down to 0% power
Players on the hex stop recieveing resources

I gotta get me some of dat unobtanium.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by NewSith

There:

https://twitter.com/xalorn/status/361145652513742849

This actually raises a cocern - as a matter of fact it's cheaper to destroy an AMS, rather than than to pull one, resource-wise. Plus I don't think that using a grenade is similar to pulling a vehicle, as was stated in the very Q&A, so I for one don't think that pulling an AT mine should be put into the same basket as pulling a tank.

This may be improper of me but I'm going to assume another balance pass to ensure that this doesn't come to pass.
That is to say that either infantry consumables are going to be more expensive or they're going to get a damage nerf. Or possibly vehicles are going to see a explosive resistance buff.
Either way we're going to need some retuning.

[Malorn]

There are many ways it can be cheaper to destroy something than to create it. Heavy assault, a turret, in the case of ESFs , harassers, and flashes small arms can destroy them.

It isn't a zero sum system and it doesn't need to be.

[Hamma]

Here's a rundown of the interview last night by the way, thanks to tinnedwaffles over on Reddit

ANT Griefing

• Tackling the problem from the motivation angle. People in the surrounding area of the ANT will receive the same XP/resources as the person driving. Also if you fight/defend the ANT you get bonuses etc.

New vehicle for ANT or Sunderer module?

• Makes it clear that devs will listen to complaints, but at the moment it seems a Sundy module is the most likely solution to keep dev time low. A trade off between AMS or ANT (sorta obvious). Hamma would prefer a new vehicle, [the Deliverer](http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/...itle=Deliverer) (combining small squad transport + ANT).
  Malorn reiterates that the Sundy is already the big base crashing truck and that ANT functionality would suit it with the right visual distinctions, his own 'pie in the sky' ideas for the visuals being similar to the pipes of AMP stations/dotted around the maps.

What happens to timer reduction certs?

• Basically, SOE want to steal all your certs. Pre order cancelled. a cert refund or translating the timer reduction certs into some similar/equivalent in the new resource model. Cert refund would be ideal.

Infantry inventory removal = 'unlimited' grenades/C4/etc?

• Hope to keep the system similar as current one as possible. Considering a timed recharge mechanic that spends resources on use/throw, but may result in more spam. Making more powerful loadouts cost more resources considered, but makes the system a lot more complicated.

Will people pulling their vehicles/vehicle loadouts affect me?

• No. No threat of 4th factioners draining resources by pulling vehicles. Power drain is based on people in the area? I wasn't too clear on this.

Details on resource delivery mechanics?

• Re-purposing ammo towers as power silos. Keep function of ammo resupplying. Malorn likes the idea of conveying power levels in actual world, not just the UI. Power systems will provide secondary objectives outside the meat grinder and still affect the battle indirectly.

If different vehicles are used for the ANT will they have different power capacities?

• Already sort of addressed with the Sunderer module, they think they'll just stick with one vehicle. They wanted something bigger and slower, a Flash/Harasser are too quick and might result in really short engagements? Comments on PS1 LLU system that they're trying to reverse the concept, so you're taking something of value to a battle instead of out of one.

Balancing supply Outfits vs heavy fighting / spec op Outfits?

• Not necessarily a issue of 'balance' but making sure the outfits will always have something to do within their role. They overlap, like roles developing to protect ANT runs, etc. No plan to restrict ANTs like the AMS, only a time based power delivery mechanic.

Can we spam vehicles if we have the resources?

• Yes, as long as you have the resources. But you'll probably have a harder time continually hopping between roles.

How much resources can we stack?

• Resource gain = unit of time. 60 resources a minute. 600 resources in 10 minutes. Short cap, but a fast rate. "More acute, less permanent". Using Neutral bases are in the design but realization is a different question.

Will subscribing still boost resource gain?

• Malorn can't comment on it, not his decision/role. Does say its complicated. Tangent takes them onto new players and how the resource revamp will make this a little more intuitive for them.

Air based resource vehicles?

• Probably not. Probably would result in the same front ground line bypassing problem the Galaxy-AMS did in beta.

Thoughts on command tools requiring resources?

• Probably not. They want to encourage it the use of tools. Back in beta, the resource cost of squad spawn beacons would discourage their use. Maybe for Orbital Strikes.

Can/Will AMP stations contribute to the passive energy gain like warpgates?

• AMP stations do have similar themes, perhaps a base benefit however is current slated for a different benefit ie dome shields. Trying to keep things simple.

Upcoming resource changes affect rate of vehicles being pulled?

• Not particularly, expects it to be slightly more. Want to give vehicles, ie players inside vehicles, to maintain value. While you have the vehicle the resources are "reserved" so you can't cap out your resources while your vehicle is spawned.

Hijacking enemy ANTs / Stealing resources?

• They have actually considered that when the system was an LLU system where resources were picked up. Resources can technically be stolen from enemy territories. As soon as ANTs have power they appear on continent map.

Continent/Territory control affect resources?

• This new system makes every more local and creates a siege mechanic but there is no direct relation to territory control. Continent/Base benefits may undergo changes in the future.

Distances between bases and mines(resource nodes)?

• They want to put them in places that will make interesting fights but also have nodes out in the middle of nowhere where players must travel out to reach. Considered random spawns for supplies that could be drained and depleted. This was the actual plan for PS2 with all the different resources which eventually translated into hexes... somehow lol.

Will resource system tie into player bases?

• Building/Customizing the base would require a lot of time and he pictures ANTs being required to maintain them.

New resource types?

• Potentially different types of power, but currently only one.

Resource system global? If yes how will it affect cont locking?

• No. Less global than current system. More local. Designed to encourage moving around territory, more impactful but less permanent effects of resource denial. No cont locking answer.

Will those hexes behind Warpgates have a purpose with the new resource system?

• Malorn doesn't see any reason for them to exist.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Malorn

There are many ways it can be cheaper to destroy something than to create it. Heavy assault, a turret, in the case of ESFs , harassers, and flashes small arms can destroy them.

It isn't a zero sum system and it doesn't need to be.

You got me wrong - what I was saying is that infantry utilities are far more expendable than vehicles. And in that particular case, one thing stands out rather clearly - 2 AT mines vs unmineguarded AMS. This is just a clear example of how differently expandable they are.

Basically what I'm implying is that vehicles and "consumables" should use different resources, but maybe its just me spoiled by the current system.

[ZephyrBurst]

2 AT Mines can destroyed an unmineguarded party bus, but the only utility the mines have is to destroy something else. The Sunderer has far more uses. Those 2 mines will destroy a single Sunderer if the user's goal is met with them. The Sunderer can spawn virtually infinite troops to a base and provide a mobile resupply station.

It's not a 'this destroys this better than that' type thing. Things are situational.

[o Solei o]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Here's a rundown of the interview last night by the way, thanks to tinnedwaffles over on Reddit

Thank you very much for posting this synopsis. Rarely have time to watch long vlogs and videos to get at the details anymore. Very helpful.

Have to say though, the bit about not accruing res while in a vehicle is going to be a massive problem. If it's "vehicle deployed", that really punishes people rolling sundies or engineers who drive. If it's "riding in vehicle" people are just going to have to watch the timer like a hawk and hop out every 5 min.

I know for one that I will not be able to afford to pull my sundy for the use of others as a reserve spawn at big fights for 50 min to an hour if it means I'm not going to get any res back during that time! Hell, keeping that thing alive often costs me a few thousand (yes, thousand) res in land-mines to keep harassers from just mowing my spawners for easy xp.

Long-story-short, this means that the people collecting res or or defending miners are being quite selfless, as they won't be seeing any of the resources they're collecting.

"/re Need DEF on ANT!"

"/re NOT GIVING YOU MY RES GETTING KILLS THX LOL"

[Rahabib]

I am really not liking this approach. It introduces way too many balance issues, and really doesnt introduce much strategy. Its just going to cause a lot of lolpodders taking down any sunderer they see.

Base specific bonuses are still basically non-existent. Why not just keep the 3 resource system and then make the base specific bonus be available to a corresponding major base type (amps, bios, and techs). voila, you now have unique strategic differences based on base type. If you want to use air, better take and hold the tech plants. If you want infantry resources, hold the bios. So now you can seige but really it doesn't change the fact that attacking base A or attacking base B is no different in the long run. The rewards are still the same - xp.

It really feels like they are just trying to cater to the PS1 vets without thinking through the ramifications and satisfying relatively few. New players, forget about trying to figure this out.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Rahabib

It really feels like they are just trying to cater to the PS1 vets without thinking through the ramifications and satisfying relatively few. New players, forget about trying to figure this out.

PS1 vets? I'm not sure that this resembles anything from PS1. NTU was a completely different system, with a different tie-breaker purpose.

The proposed system:

• Will not turn bases neutral upon going down to 0%
• And thus will not allow to backhack enemies via drains
• Will not turn off spawns and generators
• Will affect the moment-to-moment gameplay, unlike NTU
• Will not change anything, since the n+1 rule doesn't exist only on Esamir (now and maybe).

[Rahabib]

Originally Posted by NewSith

PS1 vets? I'm not sure that this resembles anything from PS1. NTU was a completely different system, with a different tie-breaker purpose.

The proposed system:

• Will not turn bases neutral upon going down to 0%
• And thus will not allow to backhack enemies via drains
• Will not turn off spawns and generators
• Will affect the moment-to-moment gameplay, unlike NTU
• Will not change anything, since the n+1 rule doesn't exist only on Esamir (now and maybe).

That's part of why I said it will satisfy relatively few. It's a half implementation. They really should fix the current system rather than shore horning a sunderer as an ANT and accomplishing very little in the process.

[Kail]

Apologies if I missed it, but how do attackers fit in with this model? Is it:

1. Base distributes nanites to all players based on power level
2. Base distributes nanites to defenders based on power levels, attackers generate none in enemy territory
3. Base distributes nantes to defenders based on power levels, attackers generate nanites some other way (fixed amount in enemy territory, etc)
4. Something else entirely

Edit: If it's #1, then draining a base out of power affects both sides equally which could just cause fights to stall or stop entirely after a base is empty (and then attackers actually letting defending ANTs through)

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Kail

• Base distributes nanites to defenders based on power levels, attackers generate none in enemy territory

This most likely.

[Malorn]

Attackers get nanites from the nearest linked region within 1 lattice link. It functions the same as defenders.

[WRAITHRAGE]

How are membership rewards going to be addressed with the revamp?

*The resource boost having been a significant reason to continue paying a subscription for many people thusfar.*

BTW: A big thank you to Malorn for answering so many questions on this FNO. Its great to see Devs. taking time to inform their community that way.