The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

PS2's problem is you'd have a hex around every tower. Bundles of fun. And on old Ish' there are more facilities, on Indar we trade raw facility count for spawnshacks and outposts.

As this might sound dictatorial and confining I've worked for years in product management and I can tell you that democracy for a roadmap is usually a quick trip to a crappy product. The inputs need to be filtered and channeled. I also agree wholeheartedly that what makes gaming fun is reasonable restrictions or rules. Chess is fun and strategic because you can only move certain pieces in certain ways. If every piece could move like every other piece it's "great" that we got all that freedom but you just threw the strategy out the window. Fundamentally PS2 did this by allowing every player to great at every role and in every vehicle. This is so core it's probably too late but there was some great strategy and fun to be had by being good at a certain role and spending your certs to get good at a few specialized areas. In short, Democratic roadmaps are perilous.

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I have other things to do.

The HEX system is, arguably, too flexible. This causes dispersal of forces and the lack of a front line. Pretty sure this is pointed out multiple times in the OP. Limiting the number of bases that can be capped is a natural way to prevent this dispersal and maintain a front line. Your tactic of distracting the main force to take another objective is still possible, so I fail to see why you would appose a clearer structure to the capping of bases. The lattice systems I have seen posted around still have options for your kind of desired tactic.

No, limitations breed ingenuity. If you have a limited number of bases to target, you have to use ingenuity to devise how to take them when the enemy forces know those are the only possible targets. Hopefully it will also cause more open conflict, which is a major part of the game, and less ghost capping.

Sorry for the delay again, and if someone else already mentioned what I said.

Buzz plays the game on multiple levels - as a solo player, as a small group player, and as an outfit leader. He has one of the highest played time in the game and is the #2 player in the world even though he is not a vehicle spammer.

We can talk about "equality" and how some are "more equal than others", but the facts are that Buzz has the most popular Planetside 2 Twitch.tv stream - Lendoria's stream pales in comparison even though he's #1, because Buzz showcases the entire game. Buzz influences the playerbase, so SOE should listen to him and give him attention.

best post ever! i really hope the devs read all of this and listen to this whole heartedly and implement it

Firstly.. SCU generators at every base.
Is a terrible idea.
If you think ghost hacking is bad now .. there will be no generators 'up' between your warpgate and the current 'front line'.
It might give outfit squads something to do .. but it doesn't seem like a smart move.

Attack becomes. Plow into base with 100+ people. Hit SCU. Hold for 2mins.
Defence becomes plow into base. Get SCU up. Try to hold a dozen different entry points and satellites against (dispersed force) against incoming hammer (concentrated forces).

Dropping the shields or a Pain field are similar to PS1 mechanics when the generator blew or the spawn tubes got destroyed.
But there was a massive fight to get there in the first place. We simply don't have that style of viable combat. The spawn areas are all far too accessible. I wouldn't want to make that change until indoor/infantry contention had a much better flow to it.



Secondly. On the subject of hex and lattice.
Taking Onatha/Xelas as the reference. being Vanu it's been out turn to hold/take them from TR.

If you hold the northern satellite base - and the enemy has adjaceny only from the north - there is absolutely nothing stopping them ignoring you. They can send two men simulatenously to every other objective in the hex Grabbing the two southern bases. Getting generators and shields down. Hacking all the terminals.

This is absurd.

They have a lattice through the north base. It should stop there.
They can't hack the main base.
They can't hack the other satellites.
The base turrets should actively defend themselves.
Those teleporters will be useless to them.
Only one generators should be vulnerable in each chain.

To get the spawn gen of a base down you should be:
dropping satellite generator (drops satellite: vehicle shields, spawn, terminals)
drop base shields (drops CY shields)
drop inner shields (drops inner/main base shield)
drop main spawn gen.

thats 4 linear points to defend. That's something outfits can't work on an make objectives!
That also makes outfits able to gain adjacent territory and open up a new satellite link very useful.



This means unless they take the surrounding territory it is likely the defenders will retain one of the satellites until the enemy has captured the main base.

I am wondering if this would improve the gameplay and flow for base capture.

SOE's problem is manpower related. Most of the PS2 dev team is working on other projects by now and relying on PS2 to pay their salaries.

Everquest cannot be completed on schedule and to the satisfaction of the MMO community without the sacrifices of Planetside 2 players. Please sacrifice now.

No , I read the first part , and posted in reply to that .
How about you don't comment if you cannot understand the posts you are quoting .

I disagree.

Surrounding a tough collection of hexes happens, is fundamental, and is fun. When we're stuck and going to take an amp station and there are hexes surrounding we'll break off part of the platoon to put pressure on the flanks. This works because it softens up the base by exerting influence and facilitating speed to cap (I guess you dislike influence and variable cap concept too so perhaps that's part of it) Now I do take your point that often the enemy force is too stupid or slow or small or not paying attention and they don't defend the flanks making for a "ghost cap" but is that a population driven problem or is that the hex and influence system problem? Don't get me wrong I think 90% of your post is right on target. I do believe that the hex system can be effective but it's gimped by other factors. Another side effect you may be underestimating is when you create the mass concentrations you exacerbate the render distance scaling issue. Push folks too much into the funnel and they will only be rendering 15m in front of you. I've seen this happen at the crown and it's a game breaker.

SOE should hire BuzzCutPhysco.

Spawn room camping isn't the problem it's a symptom ... The real problem is lack of incentive / reward to leave and defend the base ... Fix the problem and the symptom is removed ... Weird how so many people don't understand that

Some good points. However, the problem with the whole "front line" thing is that this allows large outfits to dictate the location and flow of battle. Yes, it would channel fights to a limited number of possibilities enhancing the large slugfests where numerical superiority conveys a clear advantage, but that is not a strategically good thing. This makes moving the map and strategic thinking secondary to brute force.
You do not attack a numerically superior opponent head on. That is attacking their strength. You hit them in their weak points. You flank them and cut them off from their support severing adjacency. You don't try to outzerg the zerg. Just because defenders lose a facility does not mean that they are cut loose on the winds of chance and wander about like lost puppies until they find the zerg again. When you lose a facility and you know you don't have the numbers to do anything but pad killcounts you have to have an option to be able to remain effective, or else there is nothing to do but log off. Respawning in time to defend another facility just guarantees the zerg another buffet from which it can feed.
Feeding the zerg makes it larger, whereas dispersing the zerg by pushing back on other areas makes smaller squads effective. For that matter, large squads that internally coordinate simultaneous attacks on multiple facilities make the flow of the map dynamic and require players to focus on more than one target at a time. So, the suggestion that spawns be restricted to only limited adjacent facilities only really benefits two constituencies: large outfits that flood a facility with their numbers and solo players who want to join that fight.
I am part of a large outfit that typically fields anywhere from 3-6 full squads each night. We often divide up our squads and assault different facilities, with an overall goal controlled by a command structure created for this purpose. This is one of our strengths and what makes us effective. The suggestion made regarding limited spawning would be a detriment to our play style and frankly one of the reasons people come to our outfit. People join a squad, often, because they want to become part of an organization that allows them to accomplish more than they could by themselves. This has been the case with us since the launch of WWIIOnline many years ago. Having the largest outfits flood a facility just creates the nucleus of the zerg and then feeding it by forcing spawn choices is a limiting mechanic that would make this game exclusively tactical and remove the strategic aspects of it.
I agree that the original posts would go a long way towards creating the kind of game envisioned by the author, but this would limit the game in ways that are not necessarily good. If there were options to allow the kind of consolidation of forces he suggests, without forcing it on those who do not want to by use of limited spawn points, then that could be seen as a positive development.

The idea itself, sure its great. In practice it's not working at all.

Universal weapons are ruining it. It's that simple. They utterly mutilated variety.

I've used all 3 types. The game would've been better off without HEAT and other such garbage.

It wouldn't be so obnoxious if more of them actually required aiming at your target rather than littering the area with explosions. Which is why screen shaking is such a problem.

Baseline Flak is making options that don't explode have more value. I don't see that as a bad thing. You are worried about this imbalancing things. I would like to know how rather than "it's imbalanced".

You can still splash them to death, just not as efficiently.

I would rather see more Shredders than Zephers and Daltons if they want to farm infantry. I rarely ever see the Shredder being used and its pretty dumb. Direct hits are still instant death. It even makes AP more useful.

7.5s shield delay lets you have to derp around for 2.5s less which can be an eternity in PvP. It mostly becomes a problem when someone else finds you before its recharging. Tanks are very likely going to kill you anyways because that delay is 2-3 shots worth.

Specialization has been entirely gone for quite a while. What we have isn't specialization, its whatever is class restricted. I've been at zero disadvantage using a SP SMG and Flak full time on an Engineer. I even harassed away a pod ESF with it last night.

We're still in the situation where anything that isn't Nano and Flak are going largely unused. But everyone wants to ignore that one.

The entire game has far bigger issues than population or it wouldn't have dropped to these levels on majority of the servers. Are you actually denying that? Are we just supposed to not be able to enjoy the game outside of prime time?

This is clearly what he's angling for and I can't think of a worse idea.

While he has identified some of the pervasive issues with PS2, his solutions are uninspired and, possibly, awful. Being misanthropic and long-winded doesn't make you a game designer.

Then he should (and has) put together a cohesive point. If he has that experience (he does) then he should be able back up his claims with evidence (again he has). Nobody is denying this. I am not denying this.

My point is that I am appalled by the fact that if Buzz wrote the exact same piece under a pseudonym, SOE would have swept it under the rug like so many other equally well put together posts made by otherwise unknown posters.

THAT is the issue. Not that buzz is popular, but that SOE has effectively said "you must be this popular to have your input seriously considered". It's a dangerous precedent.

Because, let's face it, if SOE wants to make money, they need to appeal to a far larger audience than Buzz and his fanbase. From a pure mathematical standpoint, there simply are not enough of them to fund PS2 on their own.


so again, my problem with this whole thing is not buzz's popularity. Good on him, good for him, and I honestly wish him the best of luck. My issue is that SOE is saying that people like Buzz, TB, and LevelCap are more equal than the rest of us without Twitch TV followings.

I think it's self evident that the number of followers a person has on twitch should have no bearing their input on the forums. Their followers do not somehow make their ideas superior or more correct than another players. I could have a billion subscribers. If I say the skies of Indar should be neon green in order to fix the air balance issues, those billion subscribers won't make me any less wrong.

I just hope SOE see it that way (and by their reaction to this thread, I have little hope for that)

Holy **** fire... I just read so much and SOOO many pages (And I agree 100% with you Buzz) ...

But... you.... could.... have... said...... Make Planetside 2 like Planetside 1. (and there is a point to that, not being a smart ***)

Everything you have said and everyone that played Planetside 1 agree with you, it's obvious and everyone wants it. The thing that sticks out the most to me is that SO many great ideas and breakthrough's with Planetside 1 were completely and utterly ignored when designing Planetside 2.


This sincerely seems intentional and I cannot figure out why they are not moving forward on this type of game-play when E V E R Y O N E is wanting it. The guys who enjoy meatgrinding will still get to meatgrind and the guys who enjoy long large battles will get that too...

Fixing these issues first would also solve a lot of the render distance issues. With the LLU system you would have at ANY given time three large scale battles. Multiply this with map design that allows for two bases to be linked and you have six. six / 600+600+600 = 50 vs 50 battles and 100+100 battles give or take 25 (rough estimate) and then you don't have to render 340 people.... Win Win....


We'll stay on them long enough and they'll do it. If they don't and we all stop buying stuff... THEN they'll do it... Either way, being community driven and sticking it to the developer the way we are doing it will work, it will just take time.

Now go die you TR Scum, Great post

So far his game designing concept is better than SOE's.

Excellent posts, Buzz. You asked for thoughts, so here goes...

Agree completely with:
Influence system needs to go, Indarside sucking, Server merger, Removal of screen shake/flinch, flak armor/flak spam, and Turrets being automated to some level.

Now on to specific discussions.

1. I disagree greatly with the pain field idea. A better option, IMHO, would be for the SCU to cut spawn and drop the spawn room shields. While I agree that playing "camp the defender" is annoying and such, I disagree that the defender should suffer an overt penalty from having the SCU dropped. Your solution turns "camp the defender" into "camp the defender within 10s of the SCU going down". I would rather at least give the defenders one last alamo style opportunity to turn the battle. If you want me, come and get me.

2. Agree that deployment options are too numerous to provide a reliable front. Not only that, they OFTEN don't make any sense. Completely agree that your base options should be warpgate + adjacent hex territory. Something else I would add would be to tie a single attack and defense point to something commanders (squad leaders, platoon leaders, whatever) can help with. Provide some form of voting system for attack and defense so that commanders can give actual orders to their empire. If a majority of commanders agree that X outpost is vital to the successful defense or capture of a continent, why doesn't the system facilitate easy ways for even Joe Casual to get there quickly?

3. Agree completely, though this should also go hand in hand with improving infantry combat. I've always felt that tanks/aircraft get you to the base/outpost, but infantry should be vital in taking it. Having 4 libs camp the spawn area so 6 troops can twiddle thumbs on a capture point is boring for everyone. TI Alloys is a perfect example. Put a covered roof from the spawn to the capture building, make the capture building bigger and move the capture point further into the building. Put the SCU close to the spawns and now you've got a dynamic, infantry combat oriented outpost that would be fun to attack AND defend.

Agree with the general idea. I've never understood why they didn't recreate the PS1 cloaked AMS. I agree that no deploy zones should be implemented, but I also think they need to promote infantry combat as well. Having your AMS deployed at 150m away is great, but that 150m will be a killing zone for defending vehicles without infantry cover. As an example, Crossroads on the B point side had a huge mass of infantry coming from Xenotech. I racked up 30+ kills in 5 minutes with a lightning, despite most of those infantry having AV rockets. Wide open space (with ridges) + lightning with smoke = your zerg destroyed by one vehicle. With that said, I think no deploy zones go hand in hand with improvement in base/territory design to improve infantry combat.

Wrapping back to my earlier comment about the spawn choices - Warpgate, adjacent hex, commanded attack, commanded defense - I think you could leave instant action as a 15 minute timed thing that allows you to go where you want. With the 4 named above, I think you fulfill the need for even Joe Casual to go where the fighting is. It actually helps the empire in that your commanders are (hopefully) telling you where you're most needed and where the fighting is the best. The important factor, I think, is enabling commanders (however you want to define that...separate topic) to get their troops where the empire needs them. The commanders know this. I don't want instant action to be like PS1 where you would get spawned where some ******* was shooting spitfire turrets at an empty base.

30 pages and 25k views (more then your beloved Roadmap in a fraction of the time) later and still going strong.

This should be a apple hitting you in the head SOE, matter of fact this could probably be a watermelon...

I disagree. Population is by far the biggest issue here. People play PS2 for scale, not gunplay or anything like that. When we have an excess number of servers that spread out a small population in a game where players == content, then you're going to hemorrhage more players, and so a vicious cycle occurs.

We'll stop losing so many players when they finally merge servers. If you look at Steam Graphs, they show a trend. Every patch, people come back and then the population just dips lower than it was before the patch in most cases, with server mergers I would actually expect to retain many of the people that come back to try the game again. A major issue in this game is finding good, sustainable fights to the point I end up giving out to people for ending good fights by killing the AMS.

When SOE finally cops on, gets a bit of sense, and merges the servers, we'll see an overall pop increase and a higher level of enjoyment in this game. It's the biggest, most crippling issue to PlanetSide 2 right now.

While the population drops may have been caused initially by a variety of things(That double XP week and a half where infantry == huge XP loads and 3/4 the entire playerbase couldn't have fun), players can be retained and even bring back more players if we merge the servers while the issues are addressed.

While I don't know SOE's current financials, it would make business sense to merge the servers - they could sell off ones they aren't using or use them for their next big game... You'll also be fostering a larger and healthier playerbase over time and that just creates more revenue. A simplistic view, one that only gets the story looking in from the outside, but as a player and a person with common sense, Server Mergers are the biggest, most important thing in this game's history that will decide if this lives or dies. If they don't merge, this game is dead. Simple as.