| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
| Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2013-10-18, 11:59 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
|
First Sergeant
|
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:
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. |
||
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 12:19 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #2 | |||
|
Staff Sergeant
|
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. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 02:15 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #3 | ||||||
|
First Sergeant
|
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.
At least that is where I am going with this.
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).
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. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 03:51 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #4 | ||||||||||
|
Staff Sergeant
|
I don't want to shoot this full of holes, but:
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. Last edited by kubacheski; 2013-10-18 at 03:53 PM. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 04:44 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #5 | ||
|
Corporal
|
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.
|
||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 04:48 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #6 | |||||||||||
|
First Sergeant
|
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.
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.
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.
This can be worked around I think.
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:
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. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 04:52 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | |||
|
First Sergeant
|
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. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 06:34 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #8 | |||
|
First Sergeant
|
Last edited by Carbon Copied; 2013-10-18 at 06:36 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-18, 07:19 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #9 | ||||
|
First Sergeant
|
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:
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. |
||||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-19, 08:53 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #10 | ||
|
Sergeant Major
|
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). Last edited by Taramafor; 2013-10-19 at 09:42 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-20, 01:31 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #11 | |||
|
First Sergeant
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-20, 02:09 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #12 | ||
|
First Sergeant
|
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. |
||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-21, 01:37 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #13 | ||
|
Staff Sergeant
|
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 |
||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-21, 08:30 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #14 | ||||
|
First Sergeant
|
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.
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. |
||||
|
|
|
|
2013-10-21, 10:55 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #15 | ||
|
First Sergeant
|
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
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
