Should Auraxium be a resource?

Emperor Newt · 2012-09-04, 02:28 PM

Currently, partially due to the population imbalances, I am wondering if it is a good thing that Auraxium is a resource generated by some of the bases. At least on the two servers I am playing Vanu at almost all times only has one of those, the rest is "shared" between TR and NC. Sometimes VS can get another one, but not hold for long as the forces are then too far spread out to defend the territory.

The problem is that Auraxium is required to buy stuff from the shop. Now that VS already has less people and therefore gets less Auraxium people might flock even more to NC and TR because they will make less progress with the VS. And people will want to unlock new stuff, so why constrain yourself?

(Of course Auraxium is also generated by playtime, but as this is the same for every empire this is of no concern for the issue)

So I am wondering if it is a good idea to have Auraxium being a resource. It benefits those who already have a benefit and I doubt that it will have a healthy impact on population balance in the long run.
I actually think that it would be better if Auraxium was purely generated by your time playing. The store resource should be spread evenly and fair across all players /imho

EvilNinjadude · 2012-09-04, 02:32 PM

I think it's fine from what I've seen: The way the player counts fluctuate on EU03 (my server) leads to the factions never being on control forever.

However, most of this "data" was gathered before Adjacency was put in, and ALL OF THIS including YOUR argument may change when the new Continent is put in. Remember, continents connect to each other and we're all curious to see how this system carries across from PS1 to PS2.

Including all sorts of side effects.

Emperor Newt · 2012-09-04, 02:45 PM

Well, I kinda doubt if continents actually change it all too much as the problem will stay the same: For one Auraxium (at least currently) is still THE resource in the game you require to progress in the game (from a "casual" players point of view) and also the problems with population imbalance would remain the same.
Of cource the discussion is a bit "far fetched" as beta is beta but I am wondering if it such a good idea to strictly bind player progression on a single resource.

Chefkoch · 2012-09-04, 04:08 PM

It should ne be a resource that is tied to a base location as we see now that we have the "richer get richer" effect on the move.

If one faction controlls 4+ auraxium bases people will tend to make new Toons with a new Account on this faction making the situation for the underpopulated empires even worse.

As someone pointed out in the beta Forums.

Auraxium should only be awarded for base captures same as command XP in Planetside one was for Squadleaders.

The longer you fight in the SOI the more Aux you get for a Outpost / Base Cap.

To prevent "farming" of undefended Outposts the minimum Aux you get should only be 10 if you have no enemy contacts at all.

If Auraxium is tied to captures only the fights will also be more open and not only around the Aux bases as they do now xD

On a sidenote. If your empire has low pop please also add not only a XP Bonus but also Ressource Bonus.

Thank you

EvilNinjadude · 2012-09-04, 04:16 PM

It isn't just "A" resource, it's "THE" resource, and I think it's meant to be. You get it only for holding the big big bases, and it's meant to be a reward for holding the Big Big bases.

Thing is, the way it works now, the game has progression not according to certs, but according to control with time.

I thought that certs would be earned over time, apparently they aren't, though you still get them if you defend or capture bases (not sure if you get one when your area is lost. You should, you really should)

Because IF you have progression based on success, then there are problems if success is based on progression. For Success based on Progression, see Hellfire Rocket Pods.

please PLEASE stop having Progression based on success. It's just going to snowball. Having Certs was a great Idea until Auraxium (Progress based on Success) replaced it.

Originally Posted by Chefkoch

It should ne be a resource that is tied to a base location as we see now that we have the "richer get richer" effect on the move.

If one faction controlls 4+ auraxium bases people will tend to make new Toons with a new Account on this faction making the situation for the underpopulated empires even worse.

As someone pointed out in the beta Forums.

Auraxium should only be awarded for base captures same as command XP in Planetside one was for Squadleaders.

The longer you fight in the SOI the more Aux you get for a Outpost / Base Cap.

To prevent "farming" of undefended Outposts the minimum Aux you get should only be 10 if you have no enemy contacts at all.

If Auraxium is tied to captures only the fights will also be more open and not only around the Aux bases as they do now xD

On a sidenote. If your empire has low pop please also add not only a XP Bonus but also Ressource Bonus.

Thank you

I'm not a Vet, and don't know if I should know what SOI means... could someone explain it?

They're using Influence to encourage captures of adjacent areas, but we all agree that with the way stuff is organized now, the soldiers are all better off just flooding the main capture zone, influence or not. Victory in numbers and all that.

I agree with your other points. Resource bonuses exist, I think... but 0 AURAXIUM PER MINUTE still means 0 AURAXIUM PER MINUTE no matter how many multipliers you stack on it.

Ruffdog · 2012-09-04, 04:29 PM

A different option is to make every base yield Aux and have some yield triple or whatever - the big ones. I don't think you'll get away from the rich get richer phenomenon no matter what you do. But this way at least you don't have a standing still feeling if you're under popped and don't hold much.

EvilNinjadude · 2012-09-04, 04:34 PM

Guess what? I've often come out of the warp gate and found my faction owning nothing. Now, if I had run out of resources, i would have had to go on foot, right?

Now think of how overpowered Hellfire Missile pods are, right?

If we're NC, and have slow inaccurate Dumb-firing missile launchers, and are trying to get out of the warp gate which is being patrolled by as few as 10 people in Mossies... who do you think would win?

What if there was 10 mossies at the NC AND the VS warpgates? Would anyone ever escape, or gather ANY resources?

The sensible thing would be for warpgates to yield alloys, used for standard transports. Who knows, they might already! I haven't checked.

EVILPIG · 2012-09-04, 04:47 PM

1. Weapon balance is not even the primary focus of Beta right now, so that really does not matter atm.

2. "The richer get richer" panic is nothing more than panic. It won't have any real effect on the game in the long run. Sure, one empire may get ahead on each server early, but that won't matter much after the first month or so when most weaponry will be common on each empire.

3. Unless there is some kind of seriously coordinated armistice between the other two empires, you're never going to be stuck in your warpgate unable to leave. If an empire is holding you in, the third empire will eat up their territory and force them off of you. If you believe that such an agreed double team could hold up, I will say you are wrong. There may be some players who would agree, but most of the playerbase will not stop fighting any enemy they see and you will be able to break out.

Emperor Newt · 2012-09-05, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

2. "The richer get richer" panic is nothing more than panic. It won't have any real effect on the game in the long run. Sure, one empire may get ahead on each server early, but that won't matter much after the first month or so when most weaponry will be common on each empire.

Panic exists for a reason, not all panic is wrong in it's core

Thing with the current system is that it will be common with one or two empires, one will always be lagging behind until all empires are "maxed out" in terms of progress. And I doubt that this will happend within a month. Not without a lot of people putting a lot of money into the game up front.
And that is what might drive people away from playing that empire, further increasing the amount of time the empire lags behind due to being underpopulated. And that might very well hurt the game (at least on some servers) in the long run.
In an "ideal" world where the game is only played by coordinated outfits who know what they are doing this might not be such a big of an an issue, but I think the final game will be far away from that. From a "casual" point of view, and those are needed on all empires, it's more efficient (and often fun for those players) to play on the rich side to get richer. Why play the underdog when you can stomp them instead?

And I really don't get why they use Auraxium for progression. They already have certs and xp. Both could be used to purchase stuff from the store instead (like in Tribes Ascend of War of the Roses (not F2P, but a similar progression system)). Only thing I can currently think of is to give people an incentive to fight over bases but those could also just yield all the other ressources to make them more important.

Dagron · 2012-09-05, 07:50 AM

I think that the problem could be at least mitigated if they ended the unbalanced pop lock. If the continent reaches it's population limit and the VS (for instance) has only 20% of the population, of course they're not going to hold many (or any) Auraxium generating bases.
[edit: i may be wrong in this, but i'm pretty sure i saw someone complain that they were locked out of the server while their faction's population was way lower than the other two]

When the game is released, i'm pretty sure there will be enough people playing to make the population in almost all servers pretty balanced if they make the pop lock ~33.3% (666 people) for each faction out of the (currently 1998) continental total.