Resource distribution, whats right and fair?

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by SteinB

A point that I think has been missed here, correct me if I just overlooked it being mentioned, is that specific resources are not locked to a specific place. They stated that they will migrate around like was done in Star Wars Galaxies in which every so often the resources will be randomized and we had to go find "the good stuff" all over again.

I do remember them saying that, but forgot about it, we did sort cover it somewhere in the ramblings, making an incentive to attack and all. This method would do the same, but also change the way battles flow, a rare resource could be out on a distant plane so you could see more tank and aircraft battles where you don't normally see them because there's a resource there. I like the idea.

I have herd people talk good things about SWG in its randomisation of say where "rare hide" or whatever could be found, 1 week it would be found on bathers in XX location another time it would only be on..some other star wars character in another location...lets go with chewbacca.

hopfully they have some people from the intial SWG design team still around(except the NGE people) since SWG is regarded as one of the best sandbox games of all-time.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

I do remember them saying that, but forgot about it, we did sort cover it somewhere in the ramblings, making an incentive to attack and all. This method would do the same, but also change the way battles flow, a rare resource could be out on a distant plane so you could see more tank and aircraft battles where you don't normally see them because there's a resource there. I like the idea.

I have herd people talk good things about SWG in its randomisation of say where "rare hide" or whatever could be found, 1 week it would be found on bathers in XX location another time it would only be on..some other star wars character in another location...lets go with chewbacca.

hopfully they have some people from the intial SWG design team still around(except the NGE people) since SWG is regarded as one of the best sandbox games of all-time.

I had never heard about it. It sounds interesting and would go along with a no home-continent, no sanctuary set-up, faster gameplay.

So PS2 would be more like a constant tug-o-war over different continent with not long-term strategic planning needed except the acquisition and control of short-term resources ?

Tug-of-war location would just follow up the resources and there would always be 3 empires fighting for those rare resources on all continents at the same time (since each empire gateway is a mini-sanctuary).

Double-team empire wipe-outs would not be an issue anymore.

While totally different than PS1, this is a very interesting concept. The closest thing I could compare it to PS1 is the Rabbit event where all forces converge to the newly appeared rare resource.

The whole purpose of bases is to secure the territory to stay in the game on a continent then.



I must admit I never imagined PS2 so different from PS1. Very interesting concept to say the least.

[sylphaen]

Bumping for a good cause.

You guys must have some input about this other than the 3 of us !

Higby, any extra details about the randomization of resources ? It seems like it could be a large factor on how PS2 is played.

[Tasorin]

Originally Posted by SteinB

A point that I think has been missed here, correct me if I just overlooked it being mentioned, is that specific resources are not locked to a specific place. They stated that they will migrate around like was done in Star Wars Galaxies in which every so often the resources will be randomized and we had to go find "the good stuff" all over again.

Star Wars Galaxies pre NG still holds the top spot in my book for the best hands down resource system ever in a AAA title MMO. If SOE was smart they wouldn't reinvent the wheel on this one and use a similar system and make sure that a "rare" resource required for the top tier items we know we all want doesn't ever spawn someplace that is unbalanced on a global level.

[SteinB]

Originally Posted by Tasorin

Star Wars Galaxies pre NG still holds the top spot in my book for the best hands down resource system ever in a AAA title MMO. If SOE was smart they wouldn't reinvent the wheel on this one and use a similar system and make sure that a "rare" resource required for the top tier items we know we all want doesn't ever spawn someplace that is unbalanced on a global level.

SWG also had one of the best crafting systems I've ever seen, the experimentation, blueprints and factories were all awesome ideas. It actually mattered what quality of resources you used and how skilled you character was when you made something. There was a real demand for quality, custom made items.

[Miir]

One question I have is:

Will it be possible to starve out an empire completely from resources to the point they won't be able to purchase any upgrades or swap weapons or whatever else resources will be used for?

Here's the scenario in my head.

Empire X is doubled teamed and pushed back to its safe zone on every continent. They try and try to fight their way out but they are losing on every front. It's late...it's a work night...it's 3 am. People start to abandon their posts and log out. Eventually all land is lost for Empire X.

The next day they log in see the damage and start to try to take land back. However because they had no land over night and they spent most if not all of their resources trying to hold the last continent. They are put into a situation that may be hard to get out of.

Wait a second... is this a win condition? Sweet!

[sylphaen]

This is not a win condition. It's a loss condition.

You got fucked up by 2 empires attacking at the same time with overwhelming numbers (skill not required) and snowballed all over your land because they kept getting more resources from fucking you up as your empire got weaker.

I do not call that a win condition but bad design because it breaks the auto-balance of having 3 empires and once you start losing, your disadvantage increases and prevents your empire from coming back if the double-team situation is maintained indefinitely.


Just my perspective on the issue which is obviously much different than yours.

IMO, the further the winners extend their territory, the harder things should get. Not easier.

If your 33% pop empire vs. even populations against the 2 other empires manages to control 40-45% of the whole word (taken from both enemy empires at the same time), then you are truly a winning empire. Why ? You control more with less people against even odds.

Playing a 66% vs. 33% game is not fun. Maybe it can be acceptable on a 6 vs. 12 small map game if your team of 6 players is a lot better than the other twelve. But playing on a 600 vs. 1200 players map with all odds stacked against you as you accrue less resources by losing territory to the 1200, there is a lot less things left to chance for the 600.

I'm all for victory conditions but I wouldn't call such a situation "Sweet!".

Edit: even for the 1200 because soon enough, there will definitely be a lot less players in the game.

[Miir]

There is no winning in Planetside 2. That "sweet" was an attempt at being sarcastic :P

I really hope you can't starve an empire out. But that gets me thinking how would they prevent this? Perhaps giving everyone some resources regardless of what land you have? Like a minimum set point based on your current population?

So if your empire had a low population and not a lot of land your base starting resources would be higher to help balance things out.

[sylphaen]

Oh sorry, I misunderstood you.


I'll try to formulate a guess about your question.


Some generic thoughts
To be honest, I'm still trying to get around the idea that will no such thing as "home" continents. There would just be continents where fights can occur and where each empire has a starting spot and where random rare resources could randomly appear.

Of course, we will need to know more but to me, it seems like the medium-long-term strategic aspects of PS are being taken out in favor of a more short-term strategy and simple tactical game approach such as "how should my empire act in order to get hold of important resources it needs (which just appeared at location X) as directly and fast as possible in the most optimal way."

The response for each empire is "should we let them get what they need (or not) or should we focus on getting our stuff".

The good aspect of things is that fights will be more evenly spread between continents instead of cycling between repeating similar scenarios (like those we saw on Cyssor/Forseral with PS1 sanctuaries, home continents and lattice system).

We could consider the random spawn factor of rare resources as a frequent "reshuffle" of the lattice: each time you log on, there would be a new situation which will require new short-term strategy/tactics/adaptation. This could be a fun and challenging aspect for commanders.

If warpgates are mini-sanctuaries and each empire has a spot they can safely start from on each continent, then there could be fighting on every continent at the same time (limited by population quota) with players trying to join the important fight on important resources while those who are locked out of a continent would go for another one.

PS2 could be like a large round based FPS where a round starts on a continent map with the appearance of a rare resource your empire needs. That continent could either be already contested or enemy-controlled or friendly controlled. So randomly, you could be on offense, defense or already fighting on the correct spot.

There may be no need to "create" a battle in PS2 like we have to currently in PS1 with low populations because the fight in PS2 would gravitate immediately towards specific continents at the appearance of resources on it.


A more specific answer
Now concerning your question about resources and what would prevent an empire from being zero-based, I don't know of a mechanic that would prevent 2 empires from wiping out the 3rd. Making a double-team hard and unrewarding would go a long to no incite such a behavior. Rewarding an empire from going against 2 empires at the same time could also encourage trying to go for challenging situations.

The way I see it, the more an empire gets bashed into dust by the 2 others, the less resources both of them should get (ie. penalty from breaking the balance by playing 2v1).
The more an empire wins against both others at the same time, the best rewards they should get (but not in such a way that would allow it to steamroll the other 2 empires by accumulating so many resources and getting so many good weapons to become unstoppable).

So if resources are accrued from resource nodes at a tickrate, I think a multiplier could be applied in such a way that it penalizes imbalances and rewards good empire.

e.g.: Assuming all empires are at 33% population and 33% of total land mass, penalty factor would be -0% and bonus factor would be 0%.

Penalizing unwanted behavior: Should 2 empires become far stronger (eg. 40%/40% vs. 20% of land mass), the 2 empires dual-teaming would get exponentially decreasing returns of resources.

Rewarding good behavior: Should 1 empire become far stronger than the other 2 empires (eg. 40% vs. 30%/30% of land mass), this empire should get some reward from performing marginally better against even offs vs. the other 2 empires. To avoid a snowball effect, this reward should not give them too much of a combat advantage though.


In the end, those are just ideas that may not relate at all with PS2 since we know close to nothing about the game yet. I does allow to spend some time since I can't sleep.



Extra thoughts
Edit: I just thought that basically, this would promote focusing your 33% of troops to control the 33% of resources your empire needs. If resources are need by 2 empires, you would get those 2 empires sending their forces for that resource.

In addition, some extra rare resource could be needed by the 3 empires and there we would get our huge 3-way Gunuku battles.


The key of making the game fun and balanced would rely on wisely choosing the locations and randomness spawn cycles of resouces.

[Figment]

One thing I'm a bit confused about with the descriptions given officially so far, is whether the denial of resources is going to make sense to players? As in how is this denial communicated to the players? Does it have an immediate (visual) effect on the battle? Does it immediately remove the acquisition of certain new units or does that take a while?

In PlanetSide or Command & Conquer, you could have an immediate effect on production by removing a particular type of base or building from the enemy. I wonder if this is also true for PlanetSide2 or that there will be a "lingering effect", where after removing the source from the enemy, resource attrition sets in: meaning you use your stockpile and after that it's gone.


Personally I presume there'll be a maximum resource stockpile per player which is just enough for a couple of heavy vehicle units. After you use some of it to create vehicles, it will be slowly replenished again until you reach your quota.

How exactly the stuff is distributed over the population (as in how fast your personal resources are replenished), I would imagine that would depend on the moment you play. Basically the global state of the empire you are in at that time (or over the past three hours) determines your replenishment rate.

There might also be a Main Empire Stockpile of resources, which is where all surplus resources are stockpiled. This would then be used to replenish the personal stockpiles of people. Once it's used up, it's used up.


Possibly you get a bonus for being on a continent where you have more access to resources or if you were in the vicinity of a resource as it gets conquered or held. I would imagine this would be represented by a replenishment rate multiplyer.