Jump to content
wrecker

Asset And Resource System

Recommended Posts

Hello guys, 

Been a long time since I suggested anything new, I like to comment on others' ideas more but anyway.  I had an idea, and I know it may be waaaay out there for an FPS.  The idea I have is very similar to the concept that Wicca created for PR's War of the Factions Tournament http://www.prtournament.com.  The basic premise is to sort of bring a RTS type gameplay into the commander role, while still having the PvP battle going on.  The way this is done in PR is through a lot of work for the tournament players in the BFeditor prior to each round.  But I can see things being a lot easier to figure out on UE4.  The commander is given a set number of tickets to purchase assets with.  Things like jets cost a ton of tickets while things like humvees or comparable vehicles cost next to none.  

There are clearly issues with this idea, and they may far outweigh the benefits, I just want to see how much interest there might be in making this a separate game mode.  The issues I can foresee on public servers are having an incompetent or troll commander purchase useless assets, having a commander unwilling to purchase anything and therefore ruining everyone's fun or just the general restriction of having to ask someone to give you something before you can go have your fun.  It would also take a ton of strategy and thought that I think some newbies and pubbers could struggle to get a hold of (but hey we all start somewhere).  Obviously there are solutions to this problem such as the ability to mutiny a commander.

The positives I can see brought to Squad by a system such as this are an infinitely customizable battlefield each and every round, the ability to create a more cohesive team (for instance a commander would be able to keep those times when there is only 1 infantry squad from happening by simply not spawning jets, tanks or apcs until the infantry needs are met), and the ability to allocate resources on when-needed basis (like if enemy CAS was ripping up your ground forces, you could spawn in jets and have some of your guys take control of the skies).

Try not rip me a new #$%hole in the comments because I know it would be a struggle to implement and some would not enjoy it.  Just let me know whether you are interested in it or not, and what you would want to see in a system like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a mode on ArmA too where the commander can build a base, build factories, and upgrades for the factories in order to get better equipment and vehicles etc. players can then buy these vehicles with their money. However, im not so sure if this would work in a game like squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a mode on ArmA too where the commander can build a base, build factories, and upgrades for the factories in order to get better equipment and vehicles etc. players can then buy these vehicles with their money. However, im not so sure if this would work in a game like squad.

Yeah I wouldn't go far as to make factories and stuff, just spawn in vehicles for a cost.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys, 

Been a long time since I suggested anything new, I like to comment on others' ideas more but anyway.  I had an idea, and I know it may be waaaay out there for an FPS.  The idea I have is very similar to the concept that Wicca created for PR's War of the Factions Tournament http://www.prtournament.com.  The basic premise is to sort of bring a RTS type gameplay into the commander role, while still having the PvP battle going on.  The way this is done in PR is through a lot of work for the tournament players in the BFeditor prior to each round.  But I can see things being a lot easier to figure out on UE4.  The commander is given a set number of tickets to purchase assets with.  Things like jets cost a ton of tickets while things like humvees or comparable vehicles cost next to none.  

There are clearly issues with this idea, and they may far outweigh the benefits, I just want to see how much interest there might be in making this a separate game mode.  The issues I can foresee on public servers are having an incompetent or troll commander purchase useless assets, having a commander unwilling to purchase anything and therefore ruining everyone's fun or just the general restriction of having to ask someone to give you something before you can go have your fun.  It would also take a ton of strategy and thought that I think some newbies and pubbers could struggle to get a hold of (but hey we all start somewhere).  Obviously there are solutions to this problem such as the ability to mutiny a commander.

The positives I can see brought to Squad by a system such as this are an infinitely customizable battlefield each and every round, the ability to create a more cohesive team (for instance a commander would be able to keep those times when there is only 1 infantry squad from happening by simply not spawning jets, tanks or apcs until the infantry needs are met), and the ability to allocate resources on when-needed basis (like if enemy CAS was ripping up your ground forces, you could spawn in jets and have some of your guys take control of the skies).

Try not rip me a new #$%hole in the comments because I know it would be a struggle to implement and some would not enjoy it.  Just let me know whether you are interested in it or not, and what you would want to see in a system like it.

I guess I just figured this was where we were heading already. :blink:I think this element adds a profound impact to the role of a commander in that his primary role is not that of a combatant, but as a facilitator and coordinator of his units. You know... a Commander.I went into some elements in the Questions > "Opinions on a Ranking System?" thread that would factor into the role of the commander, including his abilty and reason to requisition certain assets. If there were stats collected on win:loss ratios while operating in leadership roles, it would make the selection of commanders much less prone to getting trolled by a random. I think for public, non coordinated matches where a commander has already been selected, Commanders should be elected by the team, based on a visible metric of previous performance (Training Hours/Gameplay Hours/W:L ratio), and if they fail to perform, they could be replaced with someone else willing to try and do better.I think that instead of "bleeding" a fixed number of tickets, that a commander should have resources for requisitioning assets for his team e.g. Field Artillery, CH-47, HMMVs, IFVs, JDAMs, Radar assets, AA assets, Spec-Ops unit, Airborne drop of a squad, etc etc.The income of tickets for requisition could be based on territorial control, similar to WH40K "Dawn of War". Want an Apache? Sure, but it means that you cant afford that Abrams for the next 30 minutes. Or a JDAM strike, etc.In short, YES. I would LOVE to see a ticket based commander asset requisition model for at least the more involved servers. If there need to be "run and gun" trench warfare Pub Servers, fine whatever. But this is the type of strategic coordinated team-play environement I would like to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just figured this was where we were heading already. :blink:

snip (although good stuff)

Along the lines of preventing "randoms" what if each commander asset purchase (or transaction for plural assets) had to be approved by a majority of squad leaders?  Somewhat like the reverse of how the US gov. works (ie. in this case the president proposes the bills, and the congress approves them).  

Other things like airborne drops, howitzers, radar, spec-ops, JDAMs, tomahawks (tactical nukes?  :P ) would totally fit in to this system.  I'm not sure if I like the territorial control type reward because it would just give the winning team even more of an advantage, unless you mean that the losing team gets more assets (think about how a military would react to losing a battle, they'd send in more reinforcements).  I think it ought to be just a set number of tickets, with a cap on the number of each type of asset.  You lose some tickets for spawning the asset and some more for it being destroyed, as well as the typical ticket loss due to flag bleed and player deaths.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is nice because it would bring a lot of variation to maps, but balance and wrong asset buys will be a problem. Before any of this happens there needs to be some kind of a mechanic implemented that would disable troll commanders, teams only buying 5 CAS choppers etc.

 

A good approach would be a system where each map and layer would have X tickets available for armour, Y tickets for CAS, Z tickets for logistics, Č tickets for light vehicles etc. This would prevent major balance issues. Exact purchases shouldn't simply be chosen by the commander either - I can't see this working in regular games. Instead, something like having predefined squad roles where squad leaders would choose their assets would be better. But then the commander would be powerless there...

 

My point is that this idea has great potential to bring variety, but it will require a lot more ideas to make it viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I'm not sure if I like the territorial control type reward because it would just give the winning team even more of an advantage, unless you mean that the losing team gets more assets (think about how a military would react to losing a battle, they'd send in more reinforcements).  I think it ought to be just a set number of tickets, with a cap on the number of each type of asset.  You lose some tickets for spawning the asset and some more for it being destroyed, as well as the typical ticket loss due to flag bleed and player deaths.  

Makes sense.By eliminating the "resource aquisition" element like I suggested, you negate the defacto victory premise of every RTS; economic dominance. This would reduce the territorial "zerg-rush" at the onset, and would make the prioritization be "budgeting" your resources. You could still in theory spend fast, equipping up for something of a Blitzkrieg, but if the tactical operation failed you would be left at a significant disadvantage. 

As for the approval of SLs for purchase, I think thats making a snake with 4 heads. If my squad could benefit from an IFV, but another needs a CH-47, of course I'm going to disapprove of the expense of the CH-47 (OK, I might be understanding, but many will not). The job of the C.O. will be to make the priority choice determining what is going to benefit the team as a whole the most, and communicating that compromise to his team as a result. I'm gunna be honest, there's gunna be times that shit hits the fan, and as a squad you dont immediately get what you need, but this is a pretty realistic analog. The ideal is that if the other squad gettin a CH-47 means the first gets an artillery barrage to assist, then that would be the strategic choice.

More than anything, this is going to make the role of the Commander truly that of a battlefield commander, coordinating assets, and facilitating the successful operations of his squads, doing all he can to mitigate the losses in-between.

 

This also moves toward what I think is the best thing that this game could do for innovating game-play mechanisms and cultivating a diverse playerbase, that is, it will cultivate "true-skill" role optimization. There will be some players that make more capable commanders. There will be some that make better Pilots. Many will just want to shoot shit with machine-guns and throw grenades etc. As long as there are some reasonable metrics which can be tracked on players regarding their previous performance in certain roles and training, picking your SLs and Commanders should be pretty doable, and the commanders ability to pick assets that will help his team would be facilitated as well.Not to toot my own horn, but you should read the thread I mentioned above, in the "Questions" sub about ranking systems. I feel like this and that go hand in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I have with rank determining whether or not a player can be a commander is that it will quickly become an elitist roll, when it really doesn't need to be. You just need to be a sensible, tactical player in order to be successful as a commander.

I don't think squad leaders would act as you mentioned because they realize that they are not the only part of the team. Also Ban's idea about XYZ tickets for different asset groups would help to eliminate any of that kind of problem.

Basically the way I see it now is the commander has a certain amount of tickets for each asset group (armor, air, logistics). He observes what his team has organized themselves into (ie infantry squads, APC squads, CAS squads, etc) and allocates the assets accordingly. If he sees that there are too few or too many of one type he can either convince them to switch to a different asset group, or just deny them their asset. As a check on the power of the commander the squad leaders have to vote in a majority to approve the purchase of an asset, regardless of what asset group they themselves belong to. This would remove infighting for assets, commander trolling and unrealistic proportions of assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, you guys are really putting in some effort here, someone should compile all this into a google docs as a design document and send it to the devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the first thing about game design but I bet the devs could catch my (our) drift by just reading this thread. I honestly didn't expect so much positive support for this idea. I thought people would immediately rule it out for being too complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on mobile now, but problem with pre-categorized asset options is you are constraining the available strategies. what if I have no qualified CAS operators? do I forcesome to learn in the field, simply beacuse I have the predetermined funds? thats a little too reminicent of beaurocracy for my tastes. I think that If a commander has a team of skilled vehicular combatants, he should be able to make that his primary asset purchase including AA vehicles and the compliment... Forcing XYZ ratio means the opfor knows "ok, they bought 2 apaches, they cant afford more airpower now so lets not buy any more AA vehicles." Leaving it completely open with a range of options makes the game a challenge of action and reaction. posing force and matching opposition effectively and dynamically.making a commander subject to his subordinate squads is just a really backwards chain of command. were on the same page on the rest, but the "check" for a shitty commander should be nominated replacement, not a purchasing committee.removing the experience stipulation opens the doors to catastrophy regarding Commander roles. I think that any leadership position would act as a qualifier for being commander too, so the metric would be hours leadership, with a win:loss in that while in that role. If someone has played SL a lot, and with good success, their capacity to lead as a CO is much more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfrail touched on it a bit, but one of the things an Asset-buy system does is create fog of war. In PR:BF2 if you kill an infantrymen that has an HAT kit you know that that's their only one. If you kill a supercobra on muttrah, you know they won't have another for exactly 15 minutes. Shedding this aspect from the game goes a long way to making the most out of the content created. Every time you play a certain map in PR:BF2 you know for sure what the enemy has, how long it spawns and so forth. Eventually this becomes very boring, and a map that doesn't have to be stale becomes stale. Having this lack of information about the enemy's assets makes recon much more valuable too.

 

However I will say that if it is possible for this to become too disorienting, being completely unaware of the enemy's capabilities would necessitate a lot of early game intel, which might not be the best thing for gameplay.

 

There's a lot to be said about this kind of game mechanic, but one important facet that I think will help mitigate potential situations where an incompetent commander ruins the game should be the base for this system. All teams should have some "base-assets". No matter what, maps that have the option for teams to buy lots of air or armoured power should include a number of anti-air, and anti-armour kits and assets by default. For example, I can imagine that it might be a problem if a commander underbuys anti-air and air-to-air capabilities and the opposing commander spends all his resources on multi-role fighters. So on maps where similar situations can occur, some AA weapons are always available by default. Other necessary things such as a small number of unarmed light transport and the most basic logistics vehicles being available by default should be standard as well. In PR:BF2, if your team has absolutely no logistics vehicles, you have lost the game already.

 

I am really keen on the idea of buyable assets from heavy kits to fighter-bombers, it gets rid of the predictability that staleates a game faster than it should, it makes recon more valuable. It just gives the players more ways to play, without adding complexities.

 

This kind of game mechanic requires extensive testing for balance, and can have a lot of potential problems in itself, but it's definitely worth thinking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe to counteract a commander picking the wrong units, you can get a refund be returning an asset to a certain area of the base where the commander can return it and get their points back so they can spend them on other assets. Commander A picks a ton of jets for his assets and Commander B picks a ton of helicopters as assets. Commander B would realize that they're outclassed and have the helo's RTB so they can get jets instead. This could also come into play in an Omaha Beach kind of scenario. Once forces are off the beach, they don't need the boats anymore so they can return them to get points to purchase tanks and what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very impressive, guys, all of you.

 

i'd like to modify biceps' idea; instead of having 4 subsystems, we should have just 2, 1 for heavy "fighting" assets including jets, tanks, armed choppers, AA vehicles  and IFVs, and 1 for utility assets including utility trucks, logistics trucks, trans/utility choppers and lightly armed vehicles as humvees and APCs. that would solve unfrail's issue.

 

as for kits, i'd like there to be 3 heavy kit slots (HAT & AA) that the commander could allocate, either 3:0, 2:1, 1:2 or 0:3 depending on the map and the enemy's capabilities.

 

so as a commander you would have several ways to go about it, you could go for a balanced well rounded team as in PR, you could go for a full armor team and blitzkrieg your enemies, or you could go for air superiority and pummel your enemy's defensive positions for your infantry to advance.

 

and maybe add a mechanic that allows a commander to sneak a peek at the enemy commander asset choices every 10 minutes or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfrail touched on it a bit, but one of the things an Asset-buy system does is create fog of war. In PR:BF2 if you kill an infantrymen that has an HAT kit you know that that's their only one. If you kill a supercobra on muttrah, you know they won't have another for exactly 15 minutes. Shedding this aspect from the game goes a long way to making the most out of the content created. Every time you play a certain map in PR:BF2 you know for sure what the enemy has, how long it spawns and so forth. Eventually this becomes very boring, and a map that doesn't have to be stale becomes stale. Having this lack of information about the enemy's assets makes recon much more valuable too.

 

However I will say that if it is possible for this to become too disorienting, being completely unaware of the enemy's capabilities would necessitate a lot of early game intel, which might not be the best thing for gameplay.

 

There's a lot to be said about this kind of game mechanic, but one important facet that I think will help mitigate potential situations where an incompetent commander ruins the game should be the base for this system. All teams should have some "base-assets". No matter what, maps that have the option for teams to buy lots of air or armoured power should include a number of anti-air, and anti-armour kits and assets by default. For example, I can imagine that it might be a problem if a commander underbuys anti-air and air-to-air capabilities and the opposing commander spends all his resources on multi-role fighters. So on maps where similar situations can occur, some AA weapons are always available by default. Other necessary things such as a small number of unarmed light transport and the most basic logistics vehicles being available by default should be standard as well. In PR:BF2, if your team has absolutely no logistics vehicles, you have lost the game already.

 

I am really keen on the idea of buyable assets from heavy kits to fighter-bombers, it gets rid of the predictability that staleates a game faster than it should, it makes recon more valuable. It just gives the players more ways to play, without adding complexities.

 

This kind of game mechanic requires extensive testing for balance, and can have a lot of potential problems in itself, but it's definitely worth thinking about.

There we go. Thats exactly what I am talking about. The dynamic chess match and strategy of what asset to use and where should be a huge variable. This will in-turn built the importance of intelligence aspect as you mentioned. There are however, existing real-world analogs to this conundrum and they have been solved by Recon.

 

How does recon get done?

 

Few relevant ways.

  • Tier1/CIA
  • Satellite/Drone
  • Active Patrol (Land/Air)

Not all of these opportunities are going to be available at any given point in time. I have been a proponent of a spec-ops commander asset in other threads, one that would facilitate photo-recon. But there may also be people who want to fly drones for the CO. or maybe your AH-1s can go on combat patrol. Or you send squads in various combat patrols along key ridges. They dig in FOBs and establish comms with centcom and report on activity, perhaps a tracking map.

This makes things as you said, potentially really complex.

 

Here's the thing. If things get stale, all you gotta do is attack. I mean really. If you want a fight in this game, it should never be hard to find one. Buy a bunch of HUMMVs and send your team up the road. Get them some FOBs and artillery, and say F-all to the rest. That may work too. But as players get more acquainted with the game, and as they settle into roles that they enjoy and excel at, the facilitation of these kind of assets would take this game into a completely new combat-FPS realm.

 

Maybe to counteract a commander picking the wrong units, you can get a refund be returning an asset to a certain area of the base where the commander can return it and get their points back so they can spend them on other assets. Commander A picks a ton of jets for his assets and Commander B picks a ton of helicopters as assets. Commander B would realize that they're outclassed and have the helo's RTB so they can get jets instead. This could also come into play in an Omaha Beach kind of scenario. Once forces are off the beach, they don't need the boats anymore so they can return them to get points to purchase tanks and what not.

Makes perfect sense. I would say at a return cost. Maybe 75% of purchase value? 60%? something like that. I mean, what are the statistics? Attack helicopters loose something like 30% of their value the minute you drive them off the lot? :P  Fortunately the resale market is booming.

 

 

very impressive, guys, all of you.

 

i'd like to modify biceps' idea; instead of having 4 subsystems, we should have just 2, 1 for heavy "fighting" assets including jets, tanks, armed choppers, AA vehicles  and IFVs, and 1 for utility assets including utility trucks, logistics trucks, trans/utility choppers and lightly armed vehicles as humvees and APCs. that would solve unfrail's issue.

 

as for kits, i'd like there to be 3 heavy kit slots (HAT & AA) that the commander could allocate, either 3:0, 2:1, 1:2 or 0:3 depending on the map and the enemy's capabilities.

 

so as a commander you would have several ways to go about it, you could go for a balanced well rounded team as in PR, you could go for a full armor team and blitzkrieg your enemies, or you could go for air superiority and pummel your enemy's defensive positions for your infantry to advance.

 

and maybe add a mechanic that allows a commander to sneak a peek at the enemy commander asset choices every 10 minutes or so.

This is also cool. Dig this. Maybe even offer a level of pro-Bono resources, but with cool-down timers. So Transport trucks, HMMVs and small-arms and grenades are unlimited in that, you dont need tickets to purchase them, but they come in at a fixed rate.

Love this discussion. Obviously much of this would be a long way down the road if the devs moved to implement something like this, but its fun to dream. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we could have this whole thing as the map "alternative layout", with the standard layout being pre-allocated as it is in PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I love all of these ideas and can see how they would all be possible! I like obaamas refinement of the XYZ ticket idea into 2 categories. That does certainly solve some issues. Even as I was writing my last comment I could tell that having the asset groups would limit the creativity and customizability a bit.

Also there are obviously a ton of anti-troll methods we could implement, I think all of the ones mentioned should be tested and in the end it will probably be a combination of some of them. Ranking, voting, committee, mutiny, and returns all sound promising to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more power you give a single player to dictate the game's outcome/pace. The easier it will be for people to grief or simply screw up the game through incompetence.That being said, this feature would be amazing for organized events and clan wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However as you'll see in the comments there are many ways to give checks and balances on this one player's power so as to minimize griefing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been seeing this notion that Squad should feature an assortment of assets for the Commander to use as he sees fit. I'm also seeing some people visualizing each match as some sort of chess game between the two commanders. While these ideas are pretty badass in theory, I would never want Squad matches to revolve around each platoon's commander to that extreme. There should never be ANY assets that directly affect the battlefield that are EXCLUSIVE to the commander. Currently in PR, the only asset the commander has available are area attacks, and even that's pushing it too far since teams without commanders are locked out of that asset (I don't count the UAV because that doesn't directly intervine with the battle).

 

As far as I'm concerned, the commander seat should ONLY be for someone who issues orders and gives and receives intel, not for someone who hands out toys to squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However I will say that if it is possible for this to become too disorienting, being completely unaware of the enemy's capabilities would necessitate a lot of early game intel, which might not be the best thing for gameplay.

 

Just skim-reading, I want to respond to this; In the thread I linked, I mentioned that a certain threshold of numbers, be it time elapsed, teamwork points or whatever, should be reached to "unlock" each "weight" of assets. That'd mean no spawning in 20 tanks at the very beginning, and encouraging people to focus more on FOB building, flag-capping and infantry combat until each team has a decent backbone before all the heavy shit rolls in to break it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i really like this concept as a whole. It will obviously need tweaks and testing, but if the commander is relegated to intel and orders (like every other game commander) then itll be as useless or used less as every other game commander. Anti troll mechanisms are solutiins we can find, incl democratic selection of CMDR and votekick of trolls. better ideas likely exist as well. Worth the investigation if no the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think there is certainly a place for that in squad. Just as I think there is for a more comprehensive commander role. It would probably have to be a different server setting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×