ANTs and NTU Silos - Page 4

Ludio · 2003-02-01, 03:13 AM

Heres another quote from SmokeJumper:

It will eventually, yes, Mike. But we're talking hours. I shouldn't say "hours". The time is being determined, but is intended to be long.

I know that it isn't yet finnished, especially because he said he shouldn't say "hours". However this does give us an estimation of the time that a base would take to decay. If it is in hours I think that it is far too short a time. I think that there should be no decay. It can be completely eliminated from the current design. If they can't do that for some reason then at least make it a day or more.

I have complete faith that the devs are making a wonderfull game and anything they put in is great, but it can be improved upon. That is why I hope that SmokeJumper sees this thread and learns/comments on it so that we can understand and possibly improve this game mechanic.

This is basically what I would like to see:

1. Decay thrown out, we dont need it unless there is a good balancing reason for it.

2. Relatively fast loss of resources in battle. I would like to see bases fall because of lack of resources for respawn and such. This means about a one hour limit to the resources in a battle, maybe less.

3. When the resources run out don't make the base go neutral. The base may be useless, but at least it still belongs to them. This prevents any accidental base loss in any non-combat situation. In a combat situation then I assume the base is about to be taken anyway.

And I wouldn't worry about it being ahead of its time PrivateMonkey.

TerraxNovae · 2003-02-01, 03:34 AM

I believe the reason for decay is threefold:

First, if you (as an empire) aren't committed to holding what you have, you should lose it just that much easier. A base that declines slowly in available... well it isn't power, more like raw resources of some kind... would be easier to seige into submission than one that is filled once, and stays that way until the battle comes to it. Having no decay harkens back to the nonpersistant world FPS's, and would lead to a "Find, Fornicate, Forget" type of resource management. Basically, hack it, fill it, forget it.

Second, you have the situation where you hack a base behind the lines with a low NTU Silo (most likely becase of neglect)... you have to have an ANT run done quickly, most likely under fire, to be able to hang on to that base.

Third, when NTU neglect gets BAD, and bases go neutral, the enemy will be able to hack them and cap them WITHOUT a warning message to the empire that owned them. Sneak capping. Makes recon an actual possiblity and possibly a profitable option for outfits. Say you cloak around and discover a base about to go neutral... you call in the guys with an ANT strapped to a Galaxy, wait for it to go neutral, hack the base, fill the Silo, and there you go, a fully operational base, possibly far from anywhere the enemy expected one.

People keep arguing that "people will not want to do this because repetative stuff like this gets boring." Ever watch someone play Evercrack, with a "fabricator" character (IE someone who makes stuff to sell)? I watched someone I know make and sew squares of cloth together to get practice so he could make better stuff... and he did this for a couple of HOURS. I hear there are other examples of this, mining ore in UO, Resource gathering in SWG (believe that it's something similar). There will be those that will like the fact they can be the gas man and get experience for it.

Mazelmavin · 2003-02-01, 03:37 AM

This is one of those things that will be continually tweaked for years. Even when the devs find the perfect balance, somebody won't like it. Trust me on this.

People keep arguing that "people will not want to do this because repetative stuff like this gets boring." Ever watch someone play Evercrack, with a "fabricator" character (IE someone who makes stuff to sell)? I watched someone I know make and sew squares of cloth together to get practice so he could make better stuff... and he did this for a couple of HOURS. I hear there are other examples of this, mining ore in UO, Resource gathering in SWG (believe that it's something similar). There will be those that will like the fact they can be the gas man and get experience for it.

You better believe it. The hardcore gamers can scream R-P-G a until they passout, but the fact is this:
The behavior described above is NOT RPG behavior, its MMO behavior. This is a persistant game world; and it will make people do things that, to you, seem very strange.

Headrattle · 2003-02-01, 03:40 AM

I have the same fears you do Ludio.

If an unused base drains in less then a day, I worry. That is just too many milkman deliveries. I think maybe one to two days. That way a small force can resupply entire continents every day for twenty minutes and then go out and do something more usefull. Like resuppying those in need.

While I can see the need for this drain. I don't see the need for Locked Down Continents to have drain. Because who is going to be there except to run off to another Continent. It will just be a waypoint. That is a place that will have 17 resupply spots. And every day you will be spending an hour or so resupplying stuff that isn't being used. And if you don't? The continent is not locked down anymore. Mundane as all hell.

Continents under dispute however. You might have two or three bases that aren't used that much. And they will most likely be in the same area. Zip, Zap, done. On to taking calls.

In the chat they did talk about being able to see how much NTU each base has from the main map. Which is handy because you don't have to be asked you can just go where you are needed.

I have been enlightened about the galaxies though. There might not be that many ground convoys. Why have ground convoys when a galaxy can do it quicker and safer.

Also. When a base is hacked I think it should have the same amount of NTU's as before it was hacked. so you will have to have a ANT next to the AMS. (A side question, can the AMS's be picked up by a galaxy?)

When they are neutral they should slowly regain NTU because there is nowing to power. There won't be anything to power untill someone claims the base.

These things will create more use of the ANT's. I don't think they will be a hated hendrence though. Just a certain logical problem that has to be delt with. I am just throwing these ideas out there because these questions have been raised and this seems like the most logical and fun way to deal with these problems.

I am standing by my delivery force however. That seems like a job that will make sure you see lots of action. But you aren't required to only fight. Once you deliver the base an ANT. You can hang out and fight, as long as you aren't needed elsewhere.

TerraxNovae · 2003-02-01, 04:33 AM

As of last info, no an AMS was not airliftable.

As for the locked down continents, I'm not sure about decay. Possibly an even lower rate, perhaps half of what is normal. This would still allow for a sneak hack if they were neglected, let people get easy BEP for filling them, and such.

Ludio · 2003-02-01, 04:39 AM

TerraxNovae,

First Issue: This is a valid point. Maybe Headrattle's system would be the solution to this. If you control all the bases on a continent then you dont have to deal with decay. Or the more bases you control on a continent the less decay there is. If they wanted to make it really cool then perhaps a system where bases that were closer to enemy bases or most likely to be attacked would have the fastest decay rate. This would mean that people would have to maintain bases on the front lines in preperation for an attack.

Second Issue: I dont think that the bases will ever be drained for long periods of time. The only problem with this is if an empire did it on purpose so that it would be hard to capture any bases on the locked down continent. This would be difficult because some well meaning, but uninformed person could fill them up. Maybe a system so that locked down continents have auto replenishing bases would be good.

Third Issue: If bases could go neutral then I doubt they ever would except for rare situations. As I have stated in a previous post I know someone will always resupply bases, and bases about to go neutral would get top priority. I still don't think that they should go neutral though.

The comparison to Everquest is very good. This is the type of compulsive behavior is exactly what I think Planetside should avoid. I once read an interesting article on Slashdot how many people playing Everquest get to the point where they hate the game, but keep playing becuase of all the effort they have put into it that would be wasted if they quit. I know Planetside is very different, but people would keep on filling up NTU silos not because it was fun, but because it would be neccesary to keep their bases. I think that is the key issue.

shadowwolf · 2003-02-01, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by quiet

Off topic but, quiet from tw?

Navaron · 2003-02-01, 07:45 AM

From what I know and have read, I tend to agree with Afex. It's something we'lll have to play to figure out though. I don't know 100% what to think because I haven't played it, but for right now, I think they are overestimating the desire for team work of the average player. I'm sure large clans like CDL will develop a "resource squad", but thats about as much fun as checking the mail. Joe Blow is gonna wanna jump in, hes gonna slap up that looking for squad sign, and run around shooting things like a chicken with it's head cut off till someone grabs him.

My real issue with this decision is not that it is a bad one, but more of a perplexing one. I kinda like the feeling of housekeeping on the homefront - doing your duty. But these are the same guys that took out prone for "a faster gameplay". It seems like their left leg is going north and the right leg is going east. What are they shooting for? Fast or engulfing? Don't say both, because grocery shopping isn't engulfing.

"<SmokeJumper> It will eventually, yes, Mike. But we're talking hours. I shouldn't say "hours". The time is being determined, but is intended to be long."

This scares me, he doesn't want to say hours, but everyone here is saying, yeah it'll be ok if it's like 10 hours before you have to refill again. It's not. He's not even comfortable saying hours.

"This is one of those things that will be continually tweaked for years. Even when the devs find the perfect balance, somebody won't like it. Trust me on this."

Yep, I agree.

Sputty · 2003-02-01, 08:49 AM

I think this could ruin defensive gameplay. Making if it looks like the defense could last more than an hour or so people will just try to run into friendly territory or need to set up an AMS in their base. They are probably going to look back and decide some of this new system is contradictory to their original statements. Exactly like Nav said:

But these are the same guys that took out prone for "a faster gameplay". It seems like their left leg is going north and the right leg is going east. What are they shooting for? Fast or engulfing? Don't say both, because grocery shopping isn't engulfing.

They better pick engulfing and realistic simulation-like or fast-paced fighting. I bet some people's statements calling PS close the Quake in gameplay wanted them to add something in new. Seems like they just want to create fast paced Fed-Exing. Seems like this could turn it into BF3000 rather than MMOT2.(Sorry for the comparisons, jsut nmoting the gamestyle chnge this could lead to could become a radical change like those two, no "Don't compare games" flames please)

Ludio · 2003-02-01, 09:16 AM

Navaron, well that is a new angle on the whole "hours" quote by SmokeJumper. I (and I think others) interpreted it to mean 3-6 hours, and a possibility of making it more in the 12-24 hours range. But I suppose he could have meant less time. That is really scary if that is what he meant...ugh, hourly resource runs.

Joe Blow is gonna wanna jump in, hes gonna slap up that looking for squad sign, and run around shooting things like a chicken with it's head cut off till someone grabs him.

Sounds like what I'm going to do

Unknown · 2003-02-01, 11:25 AM

I think this adds an interesting aspect to the game. Whether it's for the best or not is anyone's guess at this time. Really guys, have a little more faith in the devs. They've been making this game for around 3 years, I'm sure they know what's best for the game. I for one will trust that if this does not enhance the overall experience of the game in some way, then the devs will trash it. If this turns out to be bad for the game then I doubt it's gonna make it through beta.

Ludio · 2003-02-01, 11:38 AM

I dont like to quote myself, but:

I have complete faith that the devs are making a wonderfull game and anything they put in is great, but it can be improved upon. That is why I hope that SmokeJumper sees this thread and learns/comments on it so that we can understand and possibly improve this game mechanic.

I agree with you Unknown, but we should still discuss it. I remember SmokeJumper saying that the community was great because they were like a couple of extra developers who helped with the game, thats what this discussion is trying to do.

Airlift · 2003-02-01, 12:11 PM

I really doubt it will be as boring as we're making it out to be. For a couple years, I played a persistent state space simulator. While combat was the main draw to the game, it included features like mining and hauling commodities in transports and towing vessels. This game had an economy that drove people to use (and abuse) these systems quite a bit, and it attracted the less capable (or people who just weren't interested in fighting) to keep the space stations supplied with the base commodities needed to produce equipment and high value produced commods.

The quasi-real physics engine made a loaded tow fly like a loaded tow, needing great distances to accelerate, decellerate, and correct course. The only excitement was in trying to avoid pirates and/or not slam into a gate or docking tube. Civilian protection schemes reduced the pirate danger to isolated corners of space and that made it boring (combined with the poor likelihood of escape should you encounter a fighter when loaded).

There are a lot of traps to a system like this, but they are not insurmountable. First and foremost are the handling characteristics of an ANT. If it doesn't drive like a loaded tugboat, people won't be too opposed to driving it. Escort missions are fun, especially when there is a good chance of interdiction.

There's always danger (though it is lessened if your continent is locked), so that isn't a huge problem. The reward scheme is such that it shouldn't make ANT driving the focus of the game (unlike the earlier example where you could exploit the economy to make billions).

All in all, I fully support a well-implemented restocking solution. We don't know enough yet to make the judgement on how it is implemented.

Navaron · 2003-02-01, 12:24 PM

SO whats to keep me and my clan, to link up with another clan for 15 minutes, get 15 of these harvester vehicles, have the other guys provide protection, and just drive them to each of the sources that are far enough away from the bases. Just park 3 of them there inside a base, and then just warn people when you are going to change rides or log off. Or whats to stop me from leavin my character logged on all night so my vehicle stays till they need it?

Airlift · 2003-02-01, 12:34 PM

Nothing. What's your point?