[Suggestion] [Warning: Long-ish Post Incoming] Resource Harvesting System

But with smed saying we will actually be going and harvesting resources, what is your actual point?. You're entitled to your opinion but it goes against what smed said.

I think appealing purely to the current fanbase is the problem and we can expect a lot of cool new stuff and actual meta coming to draw in players rather than going round in circles with buffs and nerfs.

Also you're talking about the server doing things in a different instance as opposed to doing it in the same instance and somehow that will be better for the server. How does that work? That is more workload for the server.

We're also getting a new game mode as well.

Because what a dev actually says and what we end up getting are two very different things. It is, it really is.

- The "balanced" liberator buffs/nerfs, the resources revamp going pay to win, the valkyrie, the blackhand, the flightcontrols etc etc.

You know this. It sounds good to begin with, then comes overhype, forumside and we end up with garbage.

I disagree here. Planetside 2 holds a genre of its own. But the majority sees it as a big Battlefield 2142 expansion or simply just as another FPS with domination as the objective. The point here is that Planetside 2 is already extremely complex so what exactly is the current meta? Well.... Zergs are. What we should be focusing on is how to counter/prevent massive zergs.

With the implementation of new game modes which I assume will take place in other instances, I believe that a server will run that on it's own sepperately from the current live servers. Or at least that is what seems logical. Otherwise we will be adding more "continents" to the current live servers which I have big doubts about them being able to handle.

One thing for sure is that it is not complex and it tells us on screen what to do now step by step now. Regardlesss of what you would like to believe most of the playerbase see the game as, the meta and harvesting of resources should be coming so expect more than "a big Battlefield 2142 expansion or simply just as another FPS with domination as the objective".

I think the issue here is that you're salty and i'm not, I have hope and you don't.

If smed is saying we will be going and harvesting resources then i will believe that will happen until such a time as to have been proven to not be happening. It could just be another smed hype but to just palm it off as such because of salty inference is a bit like assuming god exists because i can feel jesus inside me.

TBH I think I'd rather see resources tied to players doing things that benefit their empire. Kind of like exp rewards, but less generous. Revive a guy? Nanites. Repair stuff? Nanites. Participate in a successful base cap? Nanites. Etc, etc. Season to taste, bake, and serve. You want to fart around in a MAX? You gotta earn it. Forget harvesting, do something to earn the right to wear MAX armor, drive a tank, whatever.

Just a random thought.

There's actually another game that implements a resource gathering mechanic in a FPS... Command and Conquer Renegade. It's an old game from back in 2002 and wasn't super popular, but it did have interesting resource mechanics.



The Harvester was an AI-controlled unit that would leave the base, travel to a resource field, harvest the resources, and return to the refinery buildings. Once it dropped off its load, those resources would be turned into credits which would be used by players to buy stuff (advanced infantry classes, expendables, vehicles). In fact with no resources you could only spawn as a rifleman, grenadier (light anti-vehicle), or engineer.

This meant that resources were important, and if the Harvester was destroyed repeatedly then you'd have resource starvation. So one side would be stuck with nothing except basic infantry and the other side could pull in all sorts of goodies.

In a sense this created a two-front situation in the game. You could go defend the Harvester, but this would create an opening for the enemy to directly attack your base. On the other hand turtling inside your base would result in the enemy having free access to powerful heavy tanks and artillery. A good team would be able to balance these demands.

Implementing this system would drastically improve PS2 because it would prevent those crazy meat-grinder base assaults. If the enemy had a Biolab locked down, you could starve them out with this new resource system by destroying all their Harvesters. No need to go in and dig them out; eventually they will run out of HA/MAX kits and possibly even respawn tickets.

This means that controlling the inside of the base is not enough; to avoid defeat the defenders and attackers must control both the inside as well as the perimeter. This promotes true combined arms, where air, armor, and infantry each have a critical role to play in taking a base.

There is a lot that is wrong with your post.

Much of it represents exactly what went wrong with this game from launch. What we need is more complexity, not less. The overall strategic depth of this game is very shallow. That is the #1 reason why you see zerging from place to place. Zerging did not magically appear with the advent of the lattice or alerts, it's been part of the game since its inception.

Zerging exists BECAUSE this game is strategically shallow, because there is little to do but farm kills, and because players are treating this game as a giant Team Death Match arena, giving them nothing to do but race from one zerg fight to the next.

Here's my post from another thread discussing the changes that Smedley has proposed:

The fact is, PS2 is not doing as well as it could be. The fact that Smed made his post, regardless of whether or not you believe he can follow through on his promises, is an indication that he, like many of us, has realized this.

Yes, a lot of players treat this game as a giant team death match. No, that is not how the game should be. Put away all the FPS garbage in your head, this game has been presented as a Combined Arms Sandbox. Look at how the game was marketed, at all of the game's money shots, they all share something in common, which is the implied emphasis on combined arms strategy at a scale no other First Person perspective game can offer. It implies epic fights between coordinated teams attempting to take and hold objectives. What the game does not present itself as is generic Team Death Match simulator #12358934.

Unfortunately, it does not live up to the promises that it made to draw players like myself into it.

This game needs more depth. It needs those RPG elements. It needs to give people a reason to hold bases and defend instead of redeploysiding away like mist. It needs to give vehicles a meaningful role, because right now they have zero meaningful interaction with control points. It needs a lot of things.

We should not be helping new players by dumbing the game down. We should be helping ease the learning curve by bringing them up, by giving them greater access to knowledge and more in depth tutorials on crucial aspects of this game (minimap use, teamplay, situational awareness tips, etc...). When students test scores are down, we do not dumb down the curriculum, we have to figure out why the students are not learning.

Saying the game does not need these much needed changes without proposing meaningful alternatives is nonsense. Too many players have made these same arguments, and I fear they have been listened to for far too long and much damage has already been done to this game because of it.

ants are modeled

I don't know why I haven't downloaded this thing yet by now.

I get your point, I really do. But I would also like you to understand mine.

This isn't about right or wrong. It's about opinions and different perspectives in regards to a game that we both enjoy and love to play.

Yes, Planetside 2 was meant to be a combined arms game, with in depth strategic plays. A place where hundreds of players could be in the same world and make moves that would tactically influence gameplay.

But... that made it a MMO. Now think any MMO out there, they are all grind machines. due to the massively low income of certs players are forced to grind. Let's also acknowledge that a lot of players like that. In fact, the biggest majority of gamers currently sit in MMO(RPG's) aka Many Men Online Role Playing Girls.

The thing is the way to get certs/xp is to kill/revive/repair/resupply crap. Where as strategic and tactical gameplay has never been rewarded. The reward for capping a base or defending one has always been so small that it never mattered. Right from the start Planetside 2 has been a massive 3 faction team deathmatch open world arena with vehicles.

That also means that it attracted some players that wanted just that. Myself included. I hate games such as Arma, AA, Natural Selection etc as they don't appeal to my type of gameplay in terms of what I enjoy in a FPS.

Is it really so hard to accept that some players that have been with the game since BETA have actually grown fond of it being a massive 3 faction open world team death match arena?

Again, I am all open for new game modes and improvements or even revamps of the game entirely.

My point is that I would simply just like for it to remain optional. Make 1-2 continents super tactical and strategic, but please not all. I really like the fast pase of this shooter and I prefer to play alone or with some close friends.

Yes, I am skeptical. Because if the entire game is going to be revamped with this design a lot of players may end up not liking it.

Yup. I've played Renegade and it was the exact thing that came to my mind after seeing Smed's post. If something similar would launch in something as big as PlanetSide2 I'd be excited. And the part of my idea when I said that resources should only spawn on frontlines was based on Renegade gameplay - Renegade was small and had only two bases close to each other and that's why it worked fine. It could work in PS2 too.

If players could stand playing a game where they have to fight back with only a slow and low xx / xx / xx resource income while the their opponents have 1xx / 1xx / 1xx, enough that some people are even asking for that wholey unfair system to make a comeback, then players should be more than fine in the end.

Yep. Your post points out one thing (even if it's the only one ) that my idea does good. Since resources should spawn on frontlines, that means the less terrain you have, the quicker you'll deliver the resources back to your warpgate (and that's why I've proposed "refinery" base type - so you'd have a few outposts to dump resources, closer to the center of the map). So when your empire has less terrain you won't have more reources, but you'll get them faster. In my opinion it's pretty balanced.

Check out a post I made almost 3 years ago.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...toria-the-ant-and-auraxium.67117/#post-835678

The more territory/owning you would own, the less and less resources you would get.

In SinsSolarEmpire you get less income the larger your fleet etc,.. space owning/army expenses/space coverage.

The smaller the enemy is the more of a comeback they are doing, if they haven't upgraded their army to much already, which is irreversible of a research.

Every time I see your sig with that ******* hat...I rage...**** THAT HAT!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee I wonder what we'd call it.
http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=ANT

HMMMMMM

It is some dank kush lol.

A lot may or may not.

There will be a new game mode for generic fps type action.

The actual game is going to become more like it should have been.

thsi was the ANT from PS1 - i would love adding it again, ANT soccer was great, than we just need to re-add the BFRs for our kickers/goalies