Yet Another Unorthodox Idea On Resources

NewSith · 2013-01-20, 05:34 PM

Okay, somebody on these forums once said that infantry resources are fine and awesome, it's the Vehicle and Air Resource that is the bane of the system.

Then I had a discussion with some other guy, and I told him that some anti-imbalance solutions for vehicles can be found in RL parallels. And then it struck me.

Vehicle Fuel. Costing Resources.

The bigger the vehicle is, the faster it eats away fuel. No need to complicate things by running engine eating fuel, just movement in a vehicle = fuel drain = resource drain upon refueling. If fuel is out vehicle just... stops.

Thoughts?

PS VS will have "energy" on their ES vehicles...

-----------------

Originally Posted by NewSith

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

This would be incredibly awesome, but hard to balance, I think.

Not at all... The devs have the means to calculate the average vehicle lifespan of MBTs and Liberators and make that life span fuel cost equal to the purchase cost.

Then they will just need to give more fuel (less fuel consumption) to ATVs, ESFs and Lightnings, and less (more fuel consumption) to Sunderers and Galaxies.

P.S.
Funny, Sunderers and Galaxies in reality stand still much more often than the rest of the vehicles so this also balances itself out...

For successful implementation it also requires 3 things:

Intercontinental Vehicular Travel
Worldwide Resource Gain or better THIS Idea
Vehicle Refitting. Since it will be twice as annoying with this kind of system to not be able to switch vehicle gear. You can refuel vehicle in the same window as refitting that way, btw.

BlaxicanX · 2013-01-20, 05:41 PM

This would be incredibly awesome, but hard to balance, I think.

NewSith · 2013-01-20, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

This would be incredibly awesome, but hard to balance, I think.

Not at all... The devs have the means to calculate the average vehicle lifespan of MBTs and Liberators and make that life span fuel cost equal to the purchase cost.

Then they will just need to give more fuel (less fuel consumption) to ATVs, ESFs and Lightnings, and less (more fuel consumption) to Sunderers and Galaxies.

P.S.
Funny, Sunderers and Galaxies in reality stand still much more often than the rest of the vehicles so this also balances itself out...

thegreekboy · 2013-01-20, 06:55 PM

I like both the idea in the video and the idea you presented, sith.

Brusi · 2013-01-20, 07:30 PM

Nice idea. I like the idea of dropping a Galaxy, full of fuel on the heads of the defenders at the crown too

NewSith · 2013-01-21, 04:45 AM

As much as I LOVE positive feedback - can I see some negative, please?

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-21, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by NewSith

As much as I LOVE positive feedback - can I see some negative, please?

You smell funny.

NewSith · 2013-01-21, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

You smell funny.

More on the point, I mean

Canaris · 2013-01-21, 05:12 AM

for myself I think adding in fuel for vehicles is a bit unnecessary for a game as big as PS2

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-01-21, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Canaris

for myself I think adding in fuel for vehicles is a bit unnecessary for a game as big as PS2

Agreed. Dev resources are better spent elsewhere.

It's not a completely horrible idea, it just seems like a unnecessary complicated solution to the problems with resource mechanics. Increasing the base costs would achieve a similar effect without introducing a completely new mechanic.

Also it indirectly supports camping with vehicles (less fuel consumption), and players would sometimes have to get their calculator out to see if they can reach a certain area with the resources they have
("ok, i want to get to allatum but only have 100 resources left. I think i can get to dahaka with that, then i have to wait for five minutes untill i have enough resources to buy the fuel needed for the rest of the way" - doesn't sound like fun to me).

Gatekeeper · 2013-01-21, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

Agreed. Dev resources are better spent elsewhere.

It's not a completely horrible idea, it just seems like a unnecessary complicated solution to the problems with resource mechanics. Increasing the base costs would achieve a similar effect without introducing a completely new mechanic.

Also it indirectly supports camping with vehicles (less fuel consumption), and players would sometimes have to get their calculator out to see if they can reach a certain area with the resources they have
("ok, i want to get to allatum but only have 100 resources left. I think i can get to dahaka with that, then i have to wait for five minutes untill i have enough resources to buy the fuel needed for the rest of the way" - doesn't sound like fun to me).

I agree, it seems like it might actually discourage helpful vehicle behaviours (gal pilots and sundy drivers giving people lifts) and encourage bad behaviours (camping). And yeah, it does seem like it would make things pretty complicated.

How about making vehicle ammo cost resources instead? That rewards accuracy, penalises spamming and means people who are helping out with support vehicles pay less than front-line combatants.

NewSith · 2013-01-21, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

I agree, it seems like it might actually discourage helpful vehicle behaviours (gal pilots and sundy drivers giving people lifts) and encourage bad behaviours (camping). And yeah, it does seem like it would make things pretty complicated.

How about making vehicle ammo cost resources instead? That rewards accuracy, penalises spamming and means people who are helping out with support vehicles pay less than front-line combatants.

This is propblematic when you copare it to fuel, since by the end of the day 0-based faction will not be able to use vehicles at all. MBTs for instance, get their ammo stash emptied in less then 10 minutes during a dire fight...

Also, as for camping, you, gentlemen, are incorrect - it encourages staying immobile. That's different from camping, since you can camp freely even now, difference is - you don't waste fuel on dodging enemy shots with the latter.

Itsatrap · 2013-01-21, 06:52 PM

As I see it, there are two problems. The first is that I earn vehicle/aircraft resources faster than my cooldown timers allow me to actually pull them. The second is that I can always hop to a faction-controlled continent and play for 15 minutes to restock on resources (but this is boring).

I wonder what would happen if base defenses were the primary way to get resources?

bpostal · 2013-01-21, 08:08 PM

Fuel, I dunno. I like the idea, I will say that, but I would think changing the vehicle reloading to something more classic Planetside and then charging for the reload like an ammo/maint tax. For example:

-I pull a A2G Mosquito, fly to Mao and blow up an AMS and maybe a Vanguard. (because NC be creepin)

-Out of Hellfire's I fly back to the WG and land on a pad where a prompt pops up just like in Planetside. (I can't be arsed to find a picture of the interface but I know you know what I'm talking about) For each box of ammo I load up it costs X number of vehicle resources.

Ideally this would allow for a bit more customization for your load out, As well as meaning that we'd get our trunks back, so we can put shit in them. (but that may be outside the scope of what you're suggesting anyway)

Chewy · 2013-01-21, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by bpostal

Fuel, I dunno. I like the idea, I will say that, but I would think changing the vehicle reloading to something more classic Planetside and then charging for the reload like an ammo/maint tax. For example:

-I pull a A2G Mosquito, fly to Mao and blow up an AMS and maybe a Vanguard. (because NC be creepin)

-Out of Hellfire's I fly back to the WG and land on a pad where a prompt pops up just like in Planetside. (I can't be arsed to find a picture of the interface but I know you know what I'm talking about) For each box of ammo I load up it costs X number of vehicle resources.

Ideally this would allow for a bit more customization for your load out, As well as meaning that we'd get our trunks back, so we can put shit in them. (but that may be outside the scope of what you're suggesting anyway)

How would ammo sundies work then? Have the driver pay a lump sum for a mass stock of ammo? Or maybe give its resupplies a limit, like any weapon, and then pay to refill it at a reduced cost?