The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

1 day... 1 day and 34 pages

Wow

I agree with this. Grenades, prox mines and C4 are needed in the game to prevent turtling. A concentrated group of HAs with medics dug in can become almost impossible to crack without explosives. They need to be able to forced to move or broken up by explosives.

30k of views and 34 pages, i cant agree more with this guy. He has said everything. Please listen to him, he's the messiah.

Uh, lets not get carried away by personality worship. A lot of what he says is excellent, some needs modification and some wouldn't work. Radical changes can have unforeseen consequences.

Comment 666

...

After reading a few more posts, I have to echo the fact that cert grind is horrible. 1000 certs for most weapons... 1000 ******* certs! That takes around 25-30 hours for me to earn when in reasonably sized battles. And making things more universal is a brilliant idea; I would've purchased C4 long ago if it was.

But the main point I want heard is that character's shouldn't be locked to one server. I can't emphasise that enough. It would fix so many problems.

Spot on. Exactly this is the problem with battle flow. Add "told you so" if you want to be mean lol.

If you have these long overload times then the SCU just becomes a variety on the capture point. Nothing has been gained. The SCU idea might be OK at the large fortresses but for small bases and towers it would either 1) accomplish nothing, or 2) be a negative effect.

The whole SCU idea BCP is advocating strongly favours dash and smash maneuvers by organised outfits and would increase the rate at which a large outfit can conquer territory. Because they no longer have to "besiege" a base until it flips they can leave a ghost staff of half a dozen to guard the capture point against solo ninjas while the bulk of their forces blitzkriegs on to the next objective. Small bases usually don't have the geography available to them to hide defensive sunderers. While the time to flip each base might still be constant a large outfit would now be able to take 3-4 bases almost simultaneously.

The current mechanic slows this down and I am pretty sure there would be some significant negative consequences of changing this.

Dude, where have you been!!!? I thought you died...haven't seen you since beta.

I really think sanctuaries and the lattice need to come back (Ignore Nekryyd, who is not too bright, and LordMondando, who keeps parroting the wrong point- population being large only masks the problem, it does not fix it)

one of the other problems that i find is that you cannot spawn at a base if its not under attack, you should be able to spawn at any friendly base at any time, it gets very annoying when your trying to stop an incursion force but you have to go all the way back to the warpgate to spawn. other than that, this OP is amazing, i really hope the devs listen to this and use it, or give this guy a job immediately

1+

UNSPOILER'D: There is NO AVOIDING moving from Point A to Point B. According to your logic, ANYTHING that requires players to Move out of A, on to B, before proceeding to C is OMG LATTICE!!!

These are very fine questions, but there are BETTER alternatives that could be explored rather than a return to lattice.

What's the point of defending Territory A? Perhaps it's a key territory in your supply line. Perhaps maintaining hex-link from your Warp Gate to all of your main facilities becomes a matter of survival? Perhaps Territory A has a unique benefit to it that you prefer to keep out of the hands of the enemy. These are all several possibilities that could be examined, but no... You guys want to shoehorn everything back into the lattice. You want the whole REASON to do anything to be "BECAUSE THEY ARE CONNECTED BY A LINE." At which point, you extinguish branching out into a possibly more deep and involving metagame concepts. We don't even have CONTINENT LOCKS and you guys are demanding a return to lattice! If any mechanic needs to be brought over before anything else, it ought to be that!

Why attack in a large mass when you can cover more ground with multiple smaller groups? I'm sorry, but I believe that both of these tactics should have a place in Planetside. Ideally, large forces of players are constantly colliding - be it at a main base, lesser outpost, or out in the middle of nowhere -, being drawn like a moth to the flame by chasing after selfish rewards granted by deviating from the usual Crown grind. In the meantime, smaller outfits and squads are playing their own way, and getting involved in unpredictable skirmishes all over the front line as they get involved in flanking, counter-flanking and recon missions. Meanwhile, the huge zerg force in the Biolab isn't abandoning ship because they are now in an XP multiplier feeding frenzy. The attacking force at the same time is also being egged on because the longer a base is held, the sweeter the XP bounty is going to be. The XP rewards we get for players that are high value targets should also apply to territories. This all of course requires a lot of careful thought and planning, a HELLUVA lot more than "Oh, just lattice the damn thing", but it's worthwhile in the long run.

Why bother doing X when doing the usual Y results in more certs? Again... MOVE THE CARROT ON A STICK, and let things happen naturally. One of the major problems with the zerg base is that they don't have any cool short term goals to pursue other than grinding for certs - which isn't really all that cool. There ought to be objectives that push the battle along, and encourage the casual players by presenting actual risk/reward scenarios. The fact is that they are ALWAYS going to pursue the selfish goals because THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE. Sure... You can cram them all into the lattice, but this will really make little difference to them in the long run. It is STILL going to be "Zerg rush whatever base for the XPs!" All the lattice does is force the casuals to be corraled into doing what the large outfits want them to do. Not a problem? In the long term this is, because the massive group of players will one day get bored with it. They have no sense of accomplishment other than the now-meaningless base capture and the influx of new certs. Lattice will NEVER fix that. Read that again. NEVER. As a result, they will end up leaving. This is a crowd that is used to playing CoD or BF for a couple of hours, and coming away with a feeling that you totally won out (or lost against) the other guy. This is a crowd that obsesses over things like K/D, W/L, and careful monitoring of individual weapons stats. They need to get some of that same sense of finality and individual merit when they play PS2. When they take a base, they should be able to say things like, "I took it because it was held by the enemy for X amount of days, and now it's ours AND I collected on that fat XP bounty as a result!" Tie in XP rewards with completing meaningful goals - both short AND long term - and make sure to shove this information right into every players face and I GUARANTEE you will end up getting what you want WITHOUT lattice. Concerned about players still not paying attention? Drop the XP earned for doing anything outside of these high value areas. BAM. Again, no need for lattice!

No...

We need less 'Going Around' and more 'I know if I defend here it will mean something, BECAUSE IT MEANS SOMETHING!'

Agree on all of it

Can we get an update on the roadmap? Most of these points need to be part of the roadmap!

Congratulations, you have an opinion. Please don't delude yourself into thinking they are facts.

I know this person is your Jesus figure and you cannot fathom how someone would have the balls to disagree with anything that comes out of his mouth or keyboard in this instance, but simply put I do on certain points and I clearly wrote out why I disagreed. Deal with it.

Mr Smedley, Mr Higby, please hire the OP.

Please re-read that section. BCP wanted Instant Action to function similar to PS1 (but hopefully better), as in the player has no idea where it will take him/her. Not too many organized outfits are going to play the "IA lottery" when trying to move meat sacks around, so that pretty much nullifies your main argument.

I think the vision here is that when a player first logs in they can IA right into to some random frontline. If the action somehow dies off, or they just don't like the fight, they use it again, and hopefully get dropped back into a more active/better fight. When IA is random, that practically eliminates its use as a travel mechanism when a specific location is desired.

So your telling me that instead of changing the maps and/or mechanics, the devs should change the players? I am sure just about any game dev on the planet would kill to have that kind of power over their playerbase. Great game design is not about writing a strict manual on how the game should be played, it's in understanding the players so well that the game design easily guides the players into a specific action.

Take me for example, a classic farmer joe. When the SCU goes down at a facility I hoof it back to the spawn and stay inside for a few extra kills. However, if the SCU destruction only added a delay to my respawn, I would constantly push out to try and re-take the SCU. Yes, I would leave the spawnroom. GASP. Hate me, love me, doesn't matter cause there are TONS of players just like me. You can alter the mechanics in order to change my response, but you ain't changing me.

1. I like IA as it is. I like players having a choice.
2. You really have poor reading comprehension. My statement was quite clear for anyone with an average IQ or higher. For the sake of argument, please point out where I said devs need to change the players. I won't hold my breath.

Honestly that depends on the base layout. If you're speaking of Biolabs yes, because it is insanely hard to push into the center of the lab. If the SCU is a little farther from the spawn building then it becomes more viable for attack. The reality is that it is base specific and that doesn't apply to all base layouts.