WIP: Meta game proposal: Outfit Base Capture Expansion

GeoGnome · 2013-10-18, 12:59 PM

This is a WIP and I will be working more on this to provide images and examples as time goes on.

Mission Statement [Goal]: Provide some kind of overarching reason for outfits and the factions as a whole to work together and/or care about the accomplishments of the outfit.

Rough proposal considers outfit base capture as a starting point. Going by a suggestion I read on PSU that was authored by evilpig, every step in the ladder should influence the step in the ladder above them: People > Outfits > Leadership on continent > empire.

The idea, is to give bases a value to organized groups, so that they care to defend them against aggression. Outfits holding the base will mean greater bonuses for the troops running around on the battlefield. Leadership on the continent will be able to use these assets to better take the continent. The empire will benefit from those actions.

Broad strokes:

Bases are rewarded to whichever outfit contributes the most to the capture.
The bases can be sold or exchanged between outfits, so outfits have a choice in whether or not they want to use the base or just sell it to someone else.
The bases provide some kind of benefit but also have some kind of upkeep.
The benefits of the bases can be shut down by commando action, but it requires cooperation of multiple people, and will alert every member of the outfit on that continent instantly.
The upkeep will be in the form of missions that can be carried out by the outfit.
The outfit can improve on the base.
Holding the base longer means that the benefits to the outfit and to the empire grow
The benefits to the empire are in the form of tangible advantages or disadvantages.
More powerful benefits require more upkeep and can be more easily disrupted.

Working Example:

This will use a tech plant as the example, though ideally this will apply to All bases, not just the facilities (Though in a pinch it could be applied to facilities, with smaller bases as support structures for them).
The tech plant has a purpose: To produce vehicles.
The vehicles produced at a tech plant require resources, so an outfit that holds the tech plant will be pushed to get resources for that tech plant
the tech plant can also be used to bolster vehicle output from other bases
The tech plant can be used to push certain types of vehicles to vehicle pads around it (You can only pull a couple vehicles at bases, but you can upgrade the tech plant to upgrade those vehicle pads, so that tanks can be pulled at other bases).
The tech plant needs resources and power, there is an outlying power station 30 second cap point base that is disconnected from the lattice that can be disrupted.
The tech plant can be overcharged to produce vehicles faster for more resources, but at the cost of higher resource amounts being needed at the plant

What this will do (Hopefully):

Outfits will be invested in bases, as accomplishing things with the bases provides outfit XP, player XP, and benefits to their troops
People will want outfits to do this work because it will mean people in the battlefield will benefit
Leadership chat has something to talk about (You can ask an outfit to execute X kind of upgrade or benefit).
Because the world is more influenced by the action of the players, people will be more invested in holding bases
This merges Outfit base capture, outfit advancement, outfit ratings, all under one umbrella to benefit the gameworld as whole.

Questions, Comments, and Criticism are all encouraged.

I am proposing this now, because after the optimization changes we are getting into a territory of development that is all about meta. Resource Revamp is considered a forgone conclusion in this, as is the continental lattice. Also this does place responsibility in the hands of people, but in the hands of people who contribute to base capture. This can be made to be larger more responsible outfits. Also again, this can be opted into or out of by trading the base to other people (If you just want to take bases and give them to other outfits, that is entirely possible). This ties outfits to defense as well (They will receive special notice when a base is being attacked) so that people will be there to stop base caps... the defense rewards people with the continued operation of the base. And, the longer the base is held, the better the benefits become.

kubacheski · 2013-10-18, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

the defense rewards people with the continued operation of the base. And, the longer the base is held, the better the benefits become.

Careful with this type of thinking. The differences between elite and newb was originally intended to be only marginal (but is large in implementation) and now you're suggesting to expand that even further.

I do have a couple of points on the suggestion:

The base benefits from PS1 were similar to what's suggested here, but were faction wide and only on the continent. I do like the idea of linking the benefits to the active participants in the taking of the base, but how do you calculate that? Go back to the SOI implementation from PS1? Only allowed to outfits, and not lone-wolf participation? Or do you envision it as more granular (soldier, squad, outfit(if applicable), faction)?

The problem with outfit-based is you "urge" (force is too strong a word) players into joining larger outfits (presumably with more controlled bases) which offer greater possibility of more benefits and offer little to no reward to non-outfit squads that could have been pivotal in a base capture.

Also, with the low number of continents and limited intercontinental activity it can easily tip the balance so that the underdog factions on any given continent cannot surmount the benefits supplied by one faction (or more extreme one outfit) controlling the majority (or all) of the facilities on a given continent. The benfit of having many continents with many intercontinental connections is that these powerholds on a single or mulltiple continents would spread the holding faction across multiple locations while the attacking force trying to break the foothold can focus on one or 2 locations to penetrate and break the continent lock.

The game seems too small right now (in landmass and connectivity) to effectively implement this large of a facility-based benefit structure. Not to mention the low pops that people keep posting about. Maybe start with continental benefits once more conts and intercontinental lattice are added, but this may be too over-reaching and near impossible to balance with no counterweight for under-powered factions on any given continent.

GeoGnome · 2013-10-18, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Careful with this type of thinking. The differences between elite and newb was originally intended to be only marginal (but is large in implementation) and now you're suggesting to expand that even further.

I do have a couple of points on the suggestion:

The base benefits from PS1 were similar to what's suggested here, but were faction wide and only on the continent. I do like the idea of linking the benefits to the active participants in the taking of the base, but how do you calculate that? Go back to the SOI implementation from PS1? Only allowed to outfits, and not lone-wolf participation? Or do you envision it as more granular (soldier, squad, outfit(if applicable), faction)?

I think it would be easier to do it by outfits.

Here is the thing, you need a group that is willing to hunker down and take the facility, defend it, look after it, do the little missions... while this can be accomplished by a random platoon, if a random platoon is banding together to do this on a regular basis, why wouldn't they just take that extra step and become an outfit? Easy solution would be to make the general missions, the kind that can be farmed out to people... so a pub can come up and take on a resource mission for the base if they so desire.

Thing is, outfit base capture is something that is coming up. I would say straight up: commanding the outposts, if you want to do that, you are just going to have to join an outfit. Again, this is somewhat about advancement, which is something the game is sorely lacking in the game as is. Since the abilities to kill people needs to be kept relatively constant, something that is less "Killing ability" and more "Power to influence the world" leveling up, could be a good way to have that advancement in the game without unbalancing BR 1 to BR 100.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

The problem with outfit-based is you "urge" (force is too strong a word) players into joining larger outfits (presumably with more controlled bases) which offer greater possibility of more benefits and offer little to no reward to non-outfit squads that could have been pivotal in a base capture.

This is actually the opposite of what I am trying to do. The solution is simply to make it so that platoon leads or squad leads are the only people who can "Command" the base, and the people who take the base have to have contributed to the battle enough to count as the conquering force. This isn't about having the most people there, as it is easy to see IG: because a zergfit has 90 people in a base, the base can still (And often is...) taken by 7-12 people acting in a more aggressive fashion. From what I have heard, the system that is being considered to put people on the outfit leaderboard is considering things outside of numbers of outfit members as the rating for an outfit, and similar thinking would be needed to decide who contributes to the taking of a base. Furthermore, the hardcap on who can command the base, will mean that your platoon is limited to 2-4 bases. This means no one large outfit can take a whole continent without a TON of organization (Something, with but 1 or 2 notable exceptions, you just don't see in larger outfits), and about 10 platoons (Of which there is no outfit in Planetside that is that large). This again is balanced out by: "Outfits can sell or trade outposts to other people" thereby letting the large groups go point to point to point taking everything and selling outposts to other outfits, who then can use the outposts to recoup their losses and potentially gain much more. Selling the bases should be profitable enough to the larger groups that they want to do it (And thereby be encouraged to push down lane to take more land they can give then to other groups), and the potential to gain resources so great that smaller groups are encouraged to do it.

At least that is where I am going with this.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Also, with the low number of continents and limited intercontinental activity it can easily tip the balance so that the underdog factions on any given continent cannot surmount the benefits supplied by one faction (or more extreme one outfit) controlling the majority (or all) of the facilities on a given continent. The benfit of having many continents with many intercontinental connections is that these powerholds on a single or mulltiple continents would spread the holding faction across multiple locations while the attacking force trying to break the foothold can focus on one or 2 locations to penetrate and break the continent lock.

Such things can be taken into consideration. As I said above, this is a WIP. Thinking of it real quick, an easy way to balance out underdogs factions and the stronger faction, would be to make resources more scarce as you advance... or just make the best resources closer to the front line at all times. That means that any resources you need to run the base, would mean risking yourself everytime you run to get gas. This also increases the weight of people shutting you down, because you run the risk of straight loosing the facility. Also the larger an area one group controls, the more difficult it will be to prevent people from sneaking in and sabotaging things.

The big problem, and something I need to put a lot of thought into though, is a system by which you can sabotage the operation. My initial thought is that it should require like a squad of people (Thereby reducing the ghost capping, because once you get to about a squad, it requires some organization on your part, whether you like it or not). The issue is, coming up with something that justifies needing that many people. Which is something I need to work on.

I would also say that the whole thing should be restricted to continents. With runaway effects of taking the continent... this would balance by the fact that in order to keep the whole infrastructure running behind the front, it'll require people to run resources and do other things, while stopping people from disrupting operations. People seem terrified of the idea of having to do something that isn't about participating in a deathmatch fight.... while complaining that the deathmatch arena fighting is meaningless slog. Putting objectives (resource nodes and what have you) close to the front of fighting, will mean that resources grow gradually more scarce, which means operations on the continent will grow less effective the more land your faction owns, which means that the whole thing balances itself out. The Better run bases will be able to provide bonuses, but the closer you get to the enemy warpgate the harder you should have to push because you'll be stripping away all the things that got you to that point, so that it will be easier to be stopped. Even then, if you invest a lot of resources into a fight at one place and are stopped, it could mean loosing enough to get pushed back 5 territories before regaining the power to push back.

This is all theoretical right now, and again, I'll work out details as time goes on (And make it in a more presentable format to boot).

Originally Posted by kubacheski

The game seems too small right now (in landmass and connectivity) to effectively implement this large of a facility-based benefit structure. Not to mention the low pops that people keep posting about. Maybe start with continental benefits once more conts and intercontinental lattice are added, but this may be too over-reaching and near impossible to balance with no counterweight for under-powered factions on any given continent.

Well this is the thing, you can't hold back development because of low pop. This is one of those systems that would attract people to the game (Resource revamp, continental lattice, outfit advancement, etc. being other examples). And, if you plan everything in the game right now, for the game being the size it is now, if the population were to grow, you would kneecap future populations. You can't develop things in a reactionary way like that, because you'll constantly be developing to try and put out the latest fire. Example: OMFG. This is not for the 5-12,000 players you see on PS2 now, as much as it is for the 20-30,000 players they hope to attract in the future.

Furthermore, I'm on Waterson. Off the top of my head, I can think of... 10 outfits, for one faction, that are of sufficent size to own 4 bases at one time (Were it squad leads that hold bases). For 1 faction. Now considering groups that could hold 1 base... It's almost endless. Giving outfits something to Do also? You are going to swell the ranks of outfits by doing that, because people are absolutely begging the devs for SOMETHING to provide meaning to their game, that they can feel like they are independently contributing to.

kubacheski · 2013-10-18, 04:51 PM

I don't want to shoot this full of holes, but:

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

why wouldn't they just take that extra step and become an outfit?

Because they don't have consistent playtimes and/or much time to invest to always coordinate with the same people.....

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

commanding the outposts, if you want to do that, you are just going to have to join an outfit.

Only applicable if outfits leaders are required to "command". Later in post you indicate squad leaders can command outpost. No clear definition of who would be able to command.

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

Since the abilities to kill people needs to be kept relatively constant, something that is less "Killing ability" and more "Power to influence the world" leveling up, could be a good way to have that advancement in the game without unbalancing BR 1 to BR 100.

Like CR in PS1? if not, the ability to pull tanks twice as often is directly linked to more killing ability.

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

would be to make resources more scarce as you advance... or just make the best resources closer to the front line at all times.

Like ANT runs in PS1. The further away from WG you were, the more difficult it became. Once halfway across cont, it was closer to run to opponent WG for nanites.

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

The big problem, and something I need to put a lot of thought into though, is a system by which you can sabotage the operation.

Ghost hack anyone? PS1 utilized multiple ways like break lattice or drain power to 0% or destroy gen or plant virus to allow for disrupting facility control.

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

I would also say that the whole thing should be restricted to continents.

Agree 100%.

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

People seem terrified of the idea of having to do something that isn't about participating in a deathmatch fight.... while complaining that the deathmatch arena fighting is meaningless slog.

I don't see people terrified of it, there's just not much xp gain outside of it, unless you like to repair turrets.

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

Well this is the thing, you can't hold back development because of low pop.

No, but you can due to low revenue. the ROI isnt' there. why do you think they're doing optimizations right now? to get PS2 installed on more PC's and raise the pop. the gamble is that the time not spent on further development of lacking content will be compensated by sheer numbers.

The flip side is that you need to develop something for both low and mass populations and you don't achieve high pop, then it will need to be feasable at low pop. or it will be even less attractive. Look at PS1 when pops took a nosedive because SOE messed up the content (BFR's anyone?). It became near unplayable when you lost the "massively" in MMOFPS.

In the end, is there anything suggested here that was not implemented in PS1 in some form that Devs chose not to implement in PS2, and the PS2 playerbase feels is now lacking? with the one exception, that outfits get a tier of benefit, between individual and outfit bonuses for continent lock or facility control.

Zadexin · 2013-10-18, 05:44 PM

Guild Wars 2 has something similar to this concept in its World V World (V World). Guilds can purchase a captured settlement and it displays their banner design on its flags and walls. I'm not sure how much of that would carry over directly but it could be interesting to have your outfit able to carve out a little empire within the empire.

GeoGnome · 2013-10-18, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by kubacheski

I don't want to shoot this full of holes, but:

Shoot away. I actually prefer people be critical of things, I may not agree with you 100% of the time, but when someone tells you they disagree, they tell you why. People who gush and blindly support things aren't very helpful.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Because they don't have consistent playtimes and/or much time to invest to always coordinate with the same people.....

Only applicable if outfits leaders are required to "command". Later in post you indicate squad leaders can command outpost. No clear definition of who would be able to command.

Sorry about the ambiguity. I was kind of iffy on this, but I would say the best bet would be to let Squad leaders take it. That way outfits/others can lead 1-4 per platoon.

The reason to run a base, is that you are building up the base, this should be something that keeps you active. A larger group that is zerging around wouldn't be doing this, because the base would simply tie up their numbers. So I am not seeing zerg-like groups really taking this on that much. And if they did, if they would have to divide up their numbers to do so, because the presence of more people in a base (According to the new resource system) will drain that bases power faster than smaller groups.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Like CR in PS1? if not, the ability to pull tanks twice as often is directly linked to more killing ability.

Honestly, I played PS1 for about all of 2 hours, so I can't tell you.

Yes and no. Again, this is all being filtered through what I have read about the resource revamp. In that, tanks can be pulled quickly, with no acquisition timer, but the larger groups wont be able to pull as many from the same base... in fear of running it dry. That kind of balances out the fear of this unearthly army of armor crawling over the battlefield... also, what can 400 tanks do, when they come to a wall, other than kind of sit there? You may dominate the battlefield with tanks, but it's rather commonly accepted that tanks can't take points. So you have to leave them eventually.

If there are too many tanks, go indoors and wait for the drivers to come to you. Or get AV up and tear them to shreds.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Like ANT runs in PS1. The further away from WG you were, the more difficult it became. Once halfway across cont, it was closer to run to opponent WG for nanites.

My understanding again, of the incoming resource system is that there will be resource nodes. These nodes will be everywhere. I would say the ones closest to the front should be the most profitable, and require the fewest men to draw from, where as the ones behind the front get progressively more useless.

you then reach a tipping point, where the nodes at the front, that support the upgraded bases are far away and less numerous. So sending someone to get resources there will be much more of a risk. There are a hundred smaller nodes, but collecting from them means more manpower, and more for a lesser reward.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Ghost hack anyone? PS1 utilized multiple ways like break lattice or drain power to 0% or destroy gen or plant virus to allow for disrupting facility control.

That is why I am going to consider this very very carefully. It will require help to disrupt the operations, and should probably take sufficient time that someone can return to respond. Or maybe it can involve LLUs or something a small tower-esque base (Like the towers in PS1) that can be flipped outside of the lattice, so that removing the threat and noticing the threat are easy.

This can be worked around I think.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Agree 100%.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

I don't see people terrified of it, there's just not much xp gain outside of it, unless you like to repair turrets.

And that is why this is there, to frame a larger network of tasks, that will push people towards the front line, encourage raiders to pursue those resources, etc. etc. It wont just be waiting in a base where no one will ever show up, you have to actually worry about enemy forces now. Hell, that could be the use of Comm Arrays, provide a clear picture of every enemy in your bounds in 30 second or minute intervals on the roads. That way people can anticipate combat and it leads to less sitting around.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

No, but you can due to low revenue. the ROI isnt' there. why do you think they're doing optimizations right now? to get PS2 installed on more PC's and raise the pop. the gamble is that the time not spent on further development of lacking content will be compensated by sheer numbers.

The flip side is that you need to develop something for both low and mass populations and you don't achieve high pop, then it will need to be feasable at low pop. or it will be even less attractive. Look at PS1 when pops took a nosedive because SOE messed up the content (BFR's anyone?). It became near unplayable when you lost the "massively" in MMOFPS.

There are currently 3 major problems with PS2: Population imbalance (Which is being dealt with by redirecting people for rewards), optimization (Which is being worked on through OMFG), and a lack of depth in the game mechanics. Each one of them, as they are fixed, shows the potential to draw in more people. Making the game deeper, adding strategy back into the game so that there is something to consider in your actions has proven a winning formula for MMO games, see Eve. If you fix all of optimization so everyone playing on even a 25 year old computer only suited for Pong... and yet there is no Reason to do anything besides get shot and shoot people... the game will not do well. This is why they are going to do the resource revamp and the intercontinental lattice. That is what I meant.

But point taken: It can be made to work for smaller pops easily enough I suppose. The base bonuses can be supported by fewer people. It's just a matter of scaling, which is something I'm not quite ready to address... because this is a WIP.

A little more off topic on this next one:

Originally Posted by kubacheski

In the end, is there anything suggested here that was not implemented in PS1 in some form that Devs chose not to implement in PS2, and the PS2 playerbase feels is now lacking? with the one exception, that outfits get a tier of benefit, between individual and outfit bonuses for continent lock or facility control.

You are making a rather massive and proven untrue assumption here. We have heard time and again, that the game was released with Very Little dev time on purpose. It was more of a "What can be put out" more than "What do we finally want" otherwise do you think the game would have been released in the unoptimized state it was released in?

The Devs like LLUs, but they weren't added in at release. The devs like the Thrasher (It's one of the next vehicles we are reportedly supposed to see coming out) but it wasn't in at release. Just because it isn't In the game, doesn't mean that it wasn't intended for the final product.

I can't find the article now, but there was an article done when the game was released that said that the purpose of the game being released in the state it was released in, was so that the game could undergo a lot of development after release, to better fit what the playerbase wanted. We have seen that in numerous features: Implants being the best and easiest go to example of something the community did not Like the way it was implemented... and now it is being reimplemented in a way we -do- approve of.

Just because it wasn't stated as being in the game as of this very moment, doesn't mean it can't be considered and as community members, I think we should promote and express the ideas we think would be best for the game's future. Hence this post and the others that will follow.

GeoGnome · 2013-10-18, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Zadexin

Guild Wars 2 has something similar to this concept in its World V World (V World). Guilds can purchase a captured settlement and it displays their banner design on its flags and walls. I'm not sure how much of that would carry over directly but it could be interesting to have your outfit able to carve out a little empire within the empire.

There would need to be controls on "Empire Building" inside of your empire.

As I said in another post, maybe limiting to Squad leaders of platoons, so each platoon gains 4 at most.

Also there needs to be some kind of check and balance in place to prevent abuse and people straight neglecting their stuff. Small outfits need to have the ability to contribute as much as large outfits (And as the other big poster has said, and I'm starting to warm to) potentially even let non-outfits a chance to do something.

Carbon Copied · 2013-10-18, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by GeoGnome

Working Example:

The vehicles produced at a tech plant require resources, so an outfit that holds the tech plant will be pushed to get resources for that tech plant
the tech plant can also be used to bolster vehicle output from other bases Increased reward for holding - good.
The tech plant can be used to push certain types of vehicles to vehicle pads around it (You can only pull a couple vehicles at bases, but you can upgrade the tech plant to upgrade those vehicle pads, so that tanks can be pulled at other bases). Increasing value these main POI's provide is good - agreed. However I think there needs to be the added layer of it affecting the individual: assume player x loves vehicles he's motivated to play his part in capture, sustain and defense of these facilities. Player y however doesn't care about vehicles and rarely uses one save for flash A-B transport; tech plant capture, sustain and defense doesn't have him invested. Now you introduce something where not owning a tech plant (as the working example) affects him and you've encompassed both solo, none outfit and outfit players alike across the board; loosely thinking here - maybe swapping classes and resupplying costs resources (talking even at a base level of ammo and consumables alike) outside the warpgates.
The tech plant needs resources and power, there is an outlying power station 30 second cap point base that is disconnected from the lattice that can be disrupted. Is this an objective that can be disrupted at any given time? If so while it does give players in general a vested objective to maintain this just sounds very much like the hex days of ghost capping where you were forever playing whack a mole. Players need to be allowed to play the game without having to think they're on guard-sim. So yes I like the mechanic however it needs fleshing out - its a too simple risk/reward that would create more annoyances than making it "fun" I think.
The tech plant can be overcharged to produce vehicles faster for more resources, but at the cost of higher resource amounts being needed at the plant. I like the risk/reward aspects in the example of engaging "overdrive production" to the tech plant - however who would dictate that the plant goes into overdrive, could it be easily abused to flat-line the base by the fourth faction griever.

What this will do (Hopefully):

Outfits will be invested in bases, as accomplishing things with the bases provides outfit XP, player XP, and benefits to their troops I would like to see a move away from the carrot on the stick xp rewards of any systems used I know you don't mention what reaps the xp (e.g if you filled up the base power you get an xp per tick) but it will bring enough conflict for existing ways of xp gain to not have to worry about additional means. I'm thinking back to the mission musings that were posted of "get xp for going here" - enough with additional xp it's time for "you fucked up, now you're going to be punished for it, learn what to do or not to do next time to avoid the same outcome".
People will want outfits to do this work because it will mean people in the battlefield will benefit Is this not putting the onus on outfits too much? Being in an outfit isn't a "job" - you support the empire yes however equally that doesn't mean players who can't be bothered get a free ride - more risk/reward/punishment for actions or lack of, just need to find the balance between extreme and non-existent across the board.

Excuse the responding in quotes I did edit out points that I didn't really have an opinion on - I know you've touched on some areas of response with kubacheski this was just an initial gut reaction response to the given example.

GeoGnome · 2013-10-18, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Carbon Copied

Excuse the responding in quotes I did edit out points that I didn't really have an opinion on - I know you've touched on some areas of response with kubacheski this was just an initial gut reaction response to the given example.

That is fine. Kubacheski really pulled a lot of points out, so overlap is expected and the more people critical of single portions the more I know I need to look at that. Again, Please please please... Tear this to pieces if you feel a need to. I am under no illusions that this is the perfect idea.

I will say the working example, I was spit balling there, so if people have a problem with specifics therein, those aren't final details just something I came up with in about 5 minutes that put across the concept.

Point 1.) Increasing value these main POI's provide is good - agreed. However I think there needs to be the added layer of it affecting the individual: assume player x loves vehicles he's motivated to play his part in capture, sustain and defense of these facilities. Player y however doesn't care about vehicles and rarely uses one save for flash A-B transport; tech plant capture, sustain and defense doesn't have him invested. Now you introduce something where not owning a tech plant (as the working example) affects him and you've encompassed both solo, none outfit and outfit players alike across the board; loosely thinking here - maybe swapping classes and resupplying costs resources (talking even at a base level of ammo and consumables alike) outside the warpgates.
Well with facilities I think there is much more room to play around with that kind of idea. Having facilities affect more things makes sense. Single point bases, not as much. So facilities and large bases, I can agree with you, but a single point base, I think those should be focused on a single task or boost or what have you.

And again, this doesn't have to be JUST boosts to something vehicle or loadout. It could be special things like, a sensor sweep that shows all enemies in your territory free of charge for one ping. Or it could be 1 free drop of people sans drop beacon. We can really play with some original ideas here, it doesn't JUST have to be constrained to: +25% shield or +1% Chance of getting implants. They could actually be things that have utility because people could use them.

Point 2.) Is this an objective that can be disrupted at any given time? If so while it does give players in general a vested objective to maintain this just sounds very much like the hex days of ghost capping where you were forever playing whack a mole. Players need to be allowed to play the game without having to think they're on guard-sim. So yes I like the mechanic however it needs fleshing out - its a too simple risk/reward that would create more annoyances than making it "fun" I think.

Agreed. I am really putting a lot of time into this one. Ghost capping was a problem (Despite people denying it ever existed for some nebulous reason) and stopping it you have to tread a fine line. I think the key is to require a certain number of people and resources present. The key here is this: People Have to have a way to shut down bonuses. People want to go behind the lines and have something to do. Otherwise ghost capping wouldn't have existed. Otherwise commando squads planting viruses in computers in PS1 wouldn't have existed. The issue is, there needs to be a check and balance in there, where a single person can't do it. One thing would be to have a system by which the time it takes to deactive or disrupt was tied to the number of people present up to a point. So it takes 5 minutes to do it if you have a squad there. It takes 30 minutes, if you have 1 person. So one person can do it... you know... if they aren't really busy and want to go take a wee... and the outfit who owns the base has all fallen asleep. This would also mean that you knew what you were dealing with. If the timer on this was 5 minutes, you knew to throw a squad back at the base. If it were 30, you knew you could maybe hurl 2 or 3 people back to dispose of the problem.

Another idea, would be that you have multiple things that need to be done at the same time.

Or you could have some kind of safety protocol in place, so if you want to disable the X, you have to shut down Y... so people would see: "Oh the shield is contested, that means someone is trying to get to the generators." Multiple layers of warnings and it gives people time to wrap up what they are doing and send a group at their leisure.

Trust me, I am going to put a lot of time into considering this. Look over what I wrote and please respond if you have additional ideas, or like the ones posted.

Point 3.) I like the risk/reward aspects in the example of engaging "overdrive production" to the tech plant - however who would dictate that the plant goes into overdrive, could it be easily abused to flat-line the base by the fourth faction griever.
So, someone who is a griefer would need to join an outfit. Be part of the outfit who contributed the most to taking that plant. Be a squad leader. Be the squad leader who is given that the leadership of that plant. Then active the overdrive. Then he would need to block everyone from coming to the plant with resources to supply the plant with additional resources needed to do an overdrive.

That is one dedicated and lucky griefer. Honestly he'd be much better off just blowing up Sunderers... because we're talking about a Considerable investment of personal time. And, as I said, there needs to be some kind of leadership veto to prevent the wrong people from getting a base.

Point 4.) I would like to see a move away from the carrot on the stick xp rewards of any systems used I know you don't mention what reaps the xp (e.g if you filled up the base power you get an xp per tick) but it will bring enough conflict for existing ways of xp gain to not have to worry about additional means. I'm thinking back to the mission musings that were posted of "get xp for going here" - enough with additional xp it's time for "you fucked up, now you're going to be punished for it, learn what to do or not to do next time to avoid the same outcome".

With rewards that are themselves more tangible and things that people can see the effects of, I think that they reward themselves for the most part. Plus you get the added bonus of actually, you know, feeling like your contributing on a macro scale to things. This is something that I just can't state enough... people really just want to feel like something they are doing is going to make a difference. They want to work for a few days, get something and use it, and watch results. This is why you have large groups owning Titans in Eve. That is why people try to own cities in Age of Conan. They do pay out the more tangible "Here is a bell tone, now eat your food" kind of things that XP and WDS scores give... but I really and truly believe that if people are fighting over something that gives them an edge on the battlefield that needs to be fought for, used, defended... it'll drive people much more than just any other score system. And these things will be fought for, defended... they can be shut down by shutting down resources, so resources will need to be guarded... This is a system that will beat the crap out of you if you let it... but it will also be Very rewarding.

Point 5.) Is this not putting the onus on outfits too much? Being in an outfit isn't a "job" - you support the empire yes however equally that doesn't mean players who can't be bothered get a free ride - more risk/reward/punishment for actions or lack of, just need to find the balance between extreme and non-existent across the board.

This is why the purchase system is in place. On the main forums Masonstl brought this up. He said:

Originally Posted by MasionSTL

One question: I a small outfit takes a base but then decides to stop playing (work, sleep, school) what happens to the ownership of that base? Can the base be claimed by a different outfit that is currently online to be upgraded or does the ownership remain the same, keeping it from being upgraded to help the faction?

same answer applies with both questions, and this gets back to what Kub said above about people outside outfits contributing. I am willing to shift things to say that a random squad can purchase a base as well. Outfits will have an easier time, as they will have more resources to draw from, but squads can, sure.

Thing is, that if your squad or your outfit is offline... you loose the base. It isn't going to sit inactive. The big thing is making that Fair to people, because if someone again, goes to take a wee, and misses 1 resource load because his/her significant other was shouting about getting the trash taken out while they were up... that can annoy someone. So you need to say, if a base is inactive for X amount of time with no interaction from the original group that took it... then it goes up for auction, or maybe it is just open for free claim by the first group to get there and claim it.

The reason I initially said "Outfits only" is because there was the whole, outfit base capture system discussed.. and I am in a small outfit. By nature I tend to say: "Small outfits need more to do" but, if people would prefer anyone do it... it carries the same penalties (Perhaps somewhat harsher of penalties) as an outfit holding it... but anyone can do it if they have what it takes.

Taramafor · 2013-10-19, 09:53 PM

Interesting ideas. It would certainty get the game into the longer lasting/hold bases that mean something instead of them just being there scenario. Just one question.

What's to stop an outfit from hogging a base all to themselves? I don't deny that an outfit that makes an effort to keep a base should be much more likely to hold onto it but if an outfit makes it their soul purpose to hold that base and no one else gets to play with it then it does present something of a problem. On the other hand, if mobile bases existed, small outposts that can place a single weapon/vehicle terminal... Hmm... But then that would just be suns again I suppose.

Edit: Obviously what I mean by this is an outfit simply holding onto a base and never selling it. Suppose a system could be put in place where one outfit can only hold it for so long before becoming available for another (the current outfit not being allowed to claim it for a certain amount of time).

GeoGnome · 2013-10-20, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Taramafor

Interesting ideas. It would certainty get the game into the longer lasting/hold bases that mean something instead of them just being there scenario. Just one question.

What's to stop an outfit from hogging a base all to themselves? I don't deny that an outfit that makes an effort to keep a base should be much more likely to hold onto it but if an outfit makes it their soul purpose to hold that base and no one else gets to play with it then it does present something of a problem. On the other hand, if mobile bases existed, small outposts that can place a single weapon/vehicle terminal... Hmm... But then that would just be suns again I suppose.

Edit: Obviously what I mean by this is an outfit simply holding onto a base and never selling it. Suppose a system could be put in place where one outfit can only hold it for so long before becoming available for another (the current outfit not being allowed to claim it for a certain amount of time).

That is part of what I am considering. I am thinking it'll be a timer on inactivity or something along the lines of a veto system where command chat people can remove others from a base.

Blynd · 2013-10-20, 03:09 PM

While a good concept I think your over complicating this to be a specific benefit to the owners. It should be just a hat tip or recognition to the outfit who did the most (like the player score per base) maybe when it flips the outfits logo (sent to soe for approval and then put into the game) goes on some of the flags that show the empire emblem.

I do however agree on a unlinked gen or something similar so spec ops outfits can disrupt the benfit.

kubacheski · 2013-10-21, 02:37 AM

Oh, man there's so much to talk about here. But I do have 2 quick points. One is your leadership structure. The mention of Command veto really should be addressed. Who is command? those who cert into it? I don't know if you've read the planetside upgrade project webpages in regard to PS1 where the command structure was outlined as dynamic where you gained Command Rank for leading squads, etc and it decayed over time, that way you had to grind out leadership points to stay at the higher levels of command. (PS1 you could get CR5 and then launch orbital strikes, but once you got it you had it, even if you never led a squad again).

Also, ghost hacking wasn't used just to break a lattice line. It sometimes was orchestrated on multiple bases behind enemy lines so that some opposition forces were forced to go address the issue, thus pulling them from the frontlines of battle allowing the defending force to hold off an offensive push and keep a base.

In looking at the PUP page, it appears that Dave has gone forward with PS2 recommendations. I hadn't looked at it since PS2 beta. You may want to check it out.

https://sites.google.com/site/planet...deproject/home

GeoGnome · 2013-10-21, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Oh, man there's so much to talk about here. But I do have 2 quick points. One is your leadership structure. The mention of Command veto really should be addressed. Who is command? those who cert into it? I don't know if you've read the planetside upgrade project webpages in regard to PS1 where the command structure was outlined as dynamic where you gained Command Rank for leading squads, etc and it decayed over time, that way you had to grind out leadership points to stay at the higher levels of command. (PS1 you could get CR5 and then launch orbital strikes, but once you got it you had it, even if you never led a squad again).

Agreed, this is one I am still trying to figure.

My initial thought was Command Chat owners. My line of thinking was that if Command chat had something to discuss (IE, base owners and operation) then it could maybe push that towards being something positive. The problem with that is obvious, you get people who have no business having command chat, getting command chat and potentially trolling good base owners by constantly shuffling things.

I don't want to throw my full support behind implementing command ranks... but some variation of that could do it too.

I am open to ideas on this one.

Originally Posted by kubacheski

Also, ghost hacking wasn't used just to break a lattice line. It sometimes was orchestrated on multiple bases behind enemy lines so that some opposition forces were forced to go address the issue, thus pulling them from the frontlines of battle allowing the defending force to hold off an offensive push and keep a base.

In looking at the PUP page, it appears that Dave has gone forward with PS2 recommendations. I hadn't looked at it since PS2 beta. You may want to check it out.

https://sites.google.com/site/planet...deproject/home

I will check out the site

And yeah, that is kind of what I am going for here with this. Ghost capping in PS2 was a poor imitator from what I have heard and saw in PS1. The time I played Ps1 I saw a commando raid on the C&C. That is what I am trying to make here. You need it so you have a few people (I'd put it at about 6 and up) that drop in and can disrupt things, but not shut things down. This will be enough people that it will need some help. I really think the easiest way to do it, is to put in some kind of variable timer on these objectives, where if you disrupt something and you are the only one present within a certain area, then it takes an obscene amount of time... and it pretty much requires your presence in order to finish the sabotage action (SO if you hit a gen to cause it to blow, and then leave the hex area, the object will fix itself).

I would say that the easiest way to do it, would be to put a system in, wherein when an object is sabotaged behind enemy lines, you have security to work through, so sabotaging it will start the proceedure, but you need multiple people hacking and breaking things to get past each layer of security, up to 6. That way, you have to have a few people with you, otherwise you quick shut down of a bonus the enemy games, becomes you continually loosing continuously, because it will take 30 minutes for you by yourself to do something.

Blynd · 2013-10-21, 11:55 AM

In ps1 it was referwd to as the " gen hold " where a group would get into enemy territory say a tech plant. We would hack a vterm and get an ams then blow the spawns and hack as much as possible beforre blowing the gen then it would be a case of sitting tight to hold our position for as long as possible so a small 6 man team could drag a full platoon or 2 to ge the tech plant back online giving our empire an advantage. You don't need timers or anything like that because the players if they leave then the base deserves to go straight back online. but you do need a way of disabling the spawns so it makes it more interesting to be able to hold a gen room. I've been in gen holds for over 30 minutes of firefights and they are my favourite thing from ps1