Is the recource system bad for the metagame? Solutions!

Sturmhardt · 2012-12-27, 11:54 AM

Okay, I just wanted to answer to the tank spam thread in this forum, when it came to me: The resource system based on owned territory is fucked up how it is. Originally it was supposed to motivate people to conquer territory or buy resource boosters, but I think none of it is acutally the case in reality.

It also has a very bad effect on the defending underdogs of a continent - they get less and less resources, which makes it impossible for them to take back territory and so everyone only joins the continent where they have the high pop. And that sucks. You need to have a chance to fight back.

So I say:
Scrap the resource gain based on owned territory

I mean totally. It is fucked up and creates more problems than it does good:

It's intended to motivate people to conquer territory, so they earn more resources, but it does not motivate anyone. I've never heard anyone say "Hey, let's capture that base, we need mor aircraft resources!". Never.Ever.
It supports the already winning faction which does not make sense
--> By supporting the winning faction, the other factions will eventually quit the continent and start their own zerg somewhere else.

My idea:
Just give out the same amount of resources to all factions at all time and divide it by the number of players (or a factor that is tied to the number of players)

That way the underdogs get an advantage (more resources to pull tanks and planes per person) and have an incentive to join a continent where they are underpopulated. This would be a step forward AGAINST the continent zerging where there is one faction owning it all just because they have the high pop.

They could still sell resource boosters for resources, nothing would change that.

Does that sound good? Or bad? Any issues I did not see? Any ideas? Discuss!

bpostal · 2012-12-27, 12:12 PM

I can see the benefits: Discouraging overpopped conts and adds some favor towards the faction being warpgated.
There must be cons but the only one I can think of off the top of my head is what happens to the people who want to play TR (or VS or NC) but the server is overfull of them at the moment? Should we (the given, overpopped faction) really be punished for logging in (by way of everyone having less resources) with my outfit if the server is 40% TR?
I agree with this being a possible solution and can live with everyone on my side having less resources if they've more players...it's logical to me, but I can see this leaving a bad taste in players mouths.

Also, what do we do with the players who don't have (but for some reason need) a purpose for turning the entire map Red? Again, those who have not played Planetside before will be expecting some kind of 'super awesome mega win' condition upon zero basing an/both empire(s). Upon such an occasion, I'd personally take a picture but I can see those who would, again, be disappointed and not realize that they've 'won' if only for a while.

igster · 2012-12-27, 12:31 PM

Why do we need to reinvent stuff? Do NC and TR want to drive magriders? Don't the VS want to try Vanugards and Prowlers?

Seriously - the new players as well as the old players would love this win condition.

What was so wrong with the old meta game? Who gives a shit about 10% infantry resource cost? Give me the chance to fly a reaver any day.

Resources in the current form are numbers. Starcraft is for accountants.
You guys want to give people plasma in the face or vanguard shells up the arse!

PS. Magriders in Red and Black would suck - they always did.. and always gave me the incentive to kill them as a priority!! *8) You know all you TR want them...

Ghoest9 · 2012-12-27, 12:35 PM

If you want to help underdogs give them more xp/certs.

Nothing else matters really matters.

igster · 2012-12-27, 12:44 PM

Completely agree with the xp/certs

Meaningful xp multiplier for the people defending against large zergs/overwhelming populations.

Also less XP for newly spawned players. Conversely give someone who kills a player who has been alive for a long time an increasing amount of xp. Kill someone who has killed a lot of ppl a bumper xp windfall.

Always used to love killing a known scumbag who had been alive for a long time and getting a whisper 'how much xp was i worth?' Used to be good for the killer and the killed... like an ego boost for both sides.

bpostal · 2012-12-27, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by igster

Why do we need to reinvent stuff? Do NC and TR want to drive magriders? Don't the VS want to try Vanugards and Prowlers?

Seriously - the new players as well as the old players would love this win condition.

What was so wrong with the old meta game? Who gives a shit about 10% infantry resource cost? Give me the chance to fly a reaver any day.

Resources in the current form are numbers. Starcraft is for accountants.
You guys want to give people plasma in the face or vanguard shells up the arse!

PS. Magriders in Red and Black would suck - they always did.. and always gave me the incentive to kill them as a priority!! *8) You know all you TR want them...

It seems to me, that the devs who created PS2 wanted it to be as remotely distanced from Planetside as possible so as to open the game up to everyone. This results in working parts of the game being discarded to the detriment of PS2. It's a damn shame I know, but if they don't want to go back to what worked then it behooves us to think up something else that works in the hopes it gets seen and helps influence the game in a better direction.
With that said, Yes! Give me Maggies and Vannies! I never was a fan of Blue (or Purple) Prowlers, but nothing is sexier than a Black and Red Vanguard.
Not to mention I can snipe with a Magrider.

DirkSmacker · 2012-12-27, 01:24 PM

If they are going through with their dream of a sandbox economy, the current resource system seems to be just a placeholder. Then again, it all depends on what products players would be able to make. If its just stuff like ammo, the current resource system could remain.

As for the solution in the OP, it deters lots of people working together to win.

Sturmhardt · 2012-12-27, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by bpostal

Also, what do we do with the players who don't have (but for some reason need) a purpose for turning the entire map Red?

That's a whole other question and I would say it's nearly off topic because the resource system does not motivate anyone to take territory. They are just not important enough since you can pull the vehicle of your choice anyway if you don't fuck it up all the time. The problem of motivation is not addressed right now so we should not think about it when we talk about the resource system - I have never seen anyone being motivated by resources to conquer anything.

Originally Posted by DirkSmacker

As for the solution in the OP, it deters lots of people working together to win.

In what way? People don't take territory for res anyway, they take res for base benefits, but even that incentive is not very strong.

ShadetheDruid · 2012-12-27, 02:09 PM

Personally what I would do is focus the resources more, so rather than having every territory give resources, not all of them do - and those that do would give a bunch, so it creates a noticeable difference if it gets taken away.

This would also give focus to an underdog faction pushed all the way back to their warpgate (as well as strategic purpose to resource "hubs" in general, taking areas to get resources or deny them to the enemy etc), where they could specifically target a base to get the resources to start pulling armour (for example).

The smaller outposts/bases that then don't have any resources/other bonuses, I would give unique and interesting (and useful) bonuses to so they actually have a use.

RykerStruvian · 2012-12-27, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by igster

Why do we need to reinvent stuff? Do NC and TR want to drive magriders? Don't the VS want to try Vanugards and Prowlers?

Seriously - the new players as well as the old players would love this win condition.

What was so wrong with the old meta game? Who gives a shit about 10% infantry resource cost? Give me the chance to fly a reaver any day.

Resources in the current form are numbers. Starcraft is for accountants.
You guys want to give people plasma in the face or vanguard shells up the arse!

PS. Magriders in Red and Black would suck - they always did.. and always gave me the incentive to kill them as a priority!! *8) You know all you TR want them...

THIS! The resource system doesn't make sense and works as a poorly implemented carrot on a stick. The real carrot has always been about dominating the enemy and eventually being able to drive their stuff. Toss out the resource system. It doesn't serve a purpose because we have vehicle timers already.

Capturing territory serves one purpose: making base captures easier. Base captures serve one purpose: to give incentives to the faction that owns it. Why try to over complicate something so simple? Tech plants grant advanced vehicles and weapons, biolabs decrease spawn timers, interlink facilities give enhanced radar.

Seriously, the system worked fine for its purpose. Instead of reinventing it, it should have been improved. For instance, new facilities that give new benefits, like access to artillery weapons, orbital strikes, etc. In that situation, perhaps resources could then be tossed in to the mix like NTU silos, where outlaying facilities granted NTUs to power a base.

bjorntju1 · 2012-12-27, 04:29 PM

In my around 35-40 hours of playtime, I only got low on resources once or twice. The system as it is in place doesn't really work. If you spawn a tank, by the time you get killed you already earned your resources back.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-12-27, 04:44 PM

How about this one? Increase the resource cap to about 2000, then award MORE resources for actually capturing territory but get rid of the regular injections EDIT: and vehicle timers.

{Hardcore servers: EVERYTHING costs resources except the very basic, tier one infantry gear. Need an underslung grenade launcher? 50 RU plz. Want grenades too? 25 each thanks. Grade 5 med gun? 50xp, ta. Can't afford 50 yellow RUs? Oh well, take a level 1 med gun.}

A big base should be worth more resources for everyone involved in the cap divided by the length of time they were involved in the battle. Similar to the PS1 system. Join the cap 5 seconds before the win and you only get 5 resources. Been there since the start, killing thousands of enemies, get a hundred thousand resources. Smaller resource multipliers/ratio for smaller bases.

With no regular injections, it would encourage people to actually capture territory. If you stagnate, your resources dry up.

The counter to this is to territory swap, but that involved co-operation between factions. Harder to do with the zerg being mindless.

Also, what's wrong with looking at PS1? Having black and red vanguards would be cool.

NewSith · 2012-12-27, 04:50 PM

Talking about metagame and suggesting encouraging pop balance? You, sir don't understand what the metagame is.

Also, the resource system is PERFECT addition to the game. The only problem is - devs are too lazy to change the income rates for global resource gain each time there is a new continent out (they said it themselves on these very forums), so they just made it continent-wide, which is the primary cause for resource and pop imbalances.

bpostal · 2012-12-27, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

...You...don't understand what the metagame is...

Care to elaborate then? What's the metagame in your own words?

In my own words (in a nutshell either way) it's the 'why' we fight, and to some extent the 'how'. The overarching reason and the interaction of systems in the game, not to mention the interaction of those systems and the playerbase.

Resources, in their current configuration are NOT working. Making them global instead of continental would make the playbase (not all, but enough to matter) shift. Instead of going to another continent, they'd go to another faction and thus the problem would get worse instead of better.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-12-27, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by igster

Completely agree with the xp/certs

Meaningful xp multiplier for the people defending against large zergs/overwhelming populations.

Also less XP for newly spawned players. Conversely give someone who kills a player who has been alive for a long time an increasing amount of xp. Kill someone who has killed a lot of ppl a bumper xp windfall.

Always used to love killing a known scumbag who had been alive for a long time and getting a whisper 'how much xp was i worth?' Used to be good for the killer and the killed... like an ego boost for both sides.

Exactly!

Also, have a big orange flashing "Defense bonus +[xx]xp" come up every time you do something "defendy" instead of having it basically invisible.