The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

Too late to read all of it, but agree with spawn camping. I didnt know smaller bases had SCUs before, but I have been saying they need them.

Disagree on the deploy choices. The Outfit I play with always chooses a specific point to fall back to, once the spawncamping ensues. We know when to pull out and set up a defense at the next target. Less savvy Outfits and all the Pubbers may not do so; but why cater to them?

Not only that, but some of those smaller bases hold key assets like tank terminals and air terminals. Assets which may be used in a counterattack instead of a defense, or perhaps even in a defense of a base with no such assets. Forcing everyone to the same hex or only giving a couple choices will handicap smaller outfits which specialize in grabbing territories surrounding a larger base to support the offense, or defense. It also ensures I'll get 20fps wherever I spawn, which I am not fond of.

I'll have to read the rest tomorrow as I just had time to skim most of it, but most of it looks good.

I giggled because of how true that is

Oh T.Ray, don't know whether he's truly just honest or stubborn x)

TRay's solid, the only guy on the team who worked on PS1. But he's an artist not a game designer.

The painfield idea is quite interesting. However, what's the point of base capture? You destroy the CPU and the defenders go away. You then have to sit for another 8 minutes while the base caps. The defenders are scattered over numerous other bases (as you said, non-outfit members make up the bulk of players so co-ordination can't be expected). However, I'm not sure how much people scatter in the first place. If you're trying to defend against a huge zerg there's no point in staying, so if you have to spawn somewhere you're more likely to spawn somewhere there's a chance to actually defend. Giving people fewer options to spawn would simply mean they snag a vehicle and hit the road instead of being dropped straight into the battle at another base. If the defenders aren't outnumbered and still lose a base, in my experience on Miller, they still spawn in the same area as each other and more often than not counter-attack. It just happens, more often than not due to sunderers whether they're at another nearby base or behind a rock. As a result I don't see the second bit as crucial. which of course ties in to your points about sunderers, they really are crucial.

The first bit though, I don't know. It just seems a bit cheap to lose a base long before you've actually lost it. I feel as if I get your point, I'm just not sure I agree with this method to accomplish it. Personally I see battle lines drawn up more often than not. In fact, I can't remember any time logging on and getting involved in heavy fighting without seeing clear battle lines and people naturally gravitating in the same direction, likely following a smaller outfit group or something. I feel that there are two other issue instead. Nr 1, there's rarely any point in trying to defend against a zerg. Nr 2, there's no natural force of gravity pushing the zerg in a certain direction. I realise the last bit is something you're trying to remedy by forcing people to spawn in a certain area, but as mentioned, in non-zerg situations it seems to be that it happens anyways.

But even if it isn't happening, I feel it would be more important to make the bases worth fighting for. You have some good ideas there and I'm all for making resources matter, but rewards need to be tweaked as well. If there are enough incentives to defend then the zerg might be met head on and you'll get a solid fight. I really don't mind the hex system at all. But perhaps making the bases more synchronised would help in creating battle lines and flow. Base A is a bio lab, Base B provides an X% buff to the output of all bio labs. Of course, for all of this to matter, again, the rewards must be worth it. If the bio lab does virtually nothing then buffing it might be pointless. My point is to create bases worth fighting for and bases that depend on each other to produce output. So if you take Base A it's natural that you'll go for Base B in order to fully utilise Base A. There should be some kind of dynamic XP system for capturing/defending stuff as well. Pretty sure I've seen you mention that in another post.

I suppose, writing it out, your idea about forcing people to spawn nearby isn't something I'm completely against. I'd certainly be willing to give it a go. I just feel that I might feel robbed by two scattermaxes who can succesfully obliterate two platoons on their own, get to the SCU and simply hold it, meaning a base will be taken 2 minutes and 30 seconds after the attack begun. Or really, any small force. So maybe I'm more worried about the design of the SCUs than the principle itself. I don't know exactly. But the base worth/reward thing definitely seems like top priority to me.

Also, the instant action thingie. There needs to be a cooldown, absolutely no doubt about that. I genuinely can't see how this is a big issue in any fight but small ones, so it doesn't feel like a particularly crucial aspect to fiddle with. However, I agree that there needs to be more rhyme and reason to dropping in. I agree with not being able to drop straight into a base but still get to maneuver yourself into beneficial positions around the base. However, I'm not sure the game needs to force you to go to one point and one point only. Perhaps make it so there are never more than 2-3 IA points on one continent and that these IA points are where there is an actual fight. So the same principle as you're advocating, just ensure that there's a few options. But with a cooldown on IA it is crucial that the map information is accurate. Right now we can find out where the enemy is, but finding out where we are is a bit trickier. Or at least more confusing. The flashing dots system doesn't seem to work all that well so why not just add a "friendly platoons detected" underneath the "enemy platoons detected". Doesn't need to be more complicated. The key here is keeping the information up to date and relevant!

The rest of your stuff I'm more or less on board with.

Hey Buzz amazing post, think you we could get your thoughts on Empire balancement someday soon? Primarily on infantry and Empire benefits.

Firstly, great post BuzzCut. But I disagree with lattice being required. We need information not just being forced into a zerg.

Mark enemy blobs on map and most of the "flow" problems are solved.

I'm not talking about marking individual enemies, or including enemies inside vehicles with radar cloak equipped...

I'm talking about marking "blobs of enemies" (say 20+ in 150m of each other) on the map for EVERYONE to see (Even if you are across the map, you can open map and see "oh, there's a huge enemy zerg approaching zurvan.. maybe we should do something about it"). See, orders chat shouldn't be about relaying basic information, it should be about strategy and acting on that basic information. The basic information should be there for everyone to see and act on their own way. Pubs will gravitate towards the largest blobs available. However outfits will use the information to do more productive things (like flank, draw attention, etc.). And the enemy outfits will know that and setup ambushes.

This is the simplest change that will develop meta-game practically overnight. As people see blobs... counter, then people counter the counter... etc.

I will.

You know. You are also absolutely right.
It would be wonderful if game mechanics supported the importance of individual hexes.


I don't mean that when I talk about lattice.
If you modeled the old PS1 maps as hexes, you'd have maybe 10 hexes per map.
Simplistically .. each base had a single tower.
There were a total of perhaps 16 vertexes (links between bases).


Looking at PS2 in the PS1 model:
Right now we have 20 'towers' in their hex.
Every base has 3 towers.
There are so many interconnect hexes, that have no individual purpoes, we have 100+ vertexes per continent.


Whether its a line or a hex - the cries for "bring back the lattice" are I believe a call for a revamp in the simplicity.

Ignore certs. Those of us playing the territory control and domination game will turn the map purple.
Yep putting a reward in for that will be nice and a motivator.
Right now it's very hard to do because the complexity of hundreds of vertexs makes managing a stand or defensive position difficult.
Because every base is made of swiss cheese with a hundred holes
Because game design


So yes it would be lovely for each hex to matter.
For each hex to have a purpose.

But until the loss or lack of any individual hex really impacts directly on the major fights nearby - "bring back the lattice" is the rallying cry for what players saw do this in PS1 without realising what it is they are asking for.

You couldnt not afford to leave the nearby tower in the hands of the enemy.
There was only one tower rather than a 3 satellites on most bases.
Bases were vastly more complex and defensible.
Base benefits and cave benefits were channel by the significant lattice links and truly mattered.
Generators shut down both the base and lattice benefits.

These are the issues "bring back the lattice" fixes. Don't bring back the lattice - but work towards fixing them.

Yes.

Please.

and,

Thank You.

Keep the attention on this one.

Awesome post BCP, despite your reputation you certainly are trying to do good here. The only thing I might see causing an issue is the where to Respawn. You should be able to spawn *Back* or *Forward* in the event of a death. You should also be able to spawn at a base nearby with Vehicle terms. Not being able to spawn an MBT because the Tower is two territories away would be annoying. Just as long as you always have a chance to spawn at a Vpad base (Assuming you own one) I'd love it.

Damn that was a long read, but totally worth it. I think BuzzCut explained everything very well and should be listened to as one of the major organized outfit leaders and active players, this guy knows what he is talking about.

Everything seems to tie into each other very well and it sounds like the game I initially wanted to play, I can not wait till PlanetSide 2 is at this point.

Amazing post Buzz keep it up

Two things

1) things don't need to be predictable for stategies and tatics to form. All that does is limit the number of possible ones.
2) In many ways your proposal illustrates my point exactly, in virtue of funneling zergs towards each other, a flanking manuver from east hills to shadesspide is just taken off the table. You might as well just put a giant wall between the two. Hell you might well turn the entire map into a giant cooridor system convering on each major base.

No matter how many times I look at this problem, I can't but come away with the position that the lattice system is a band aid for population issues that turns the game into a corridor shooter.

I can appreciate people are frustred but more linearity and making the entire game zergfets will not make it more involving, people will get as bored of that as they did the crown, quite quickly.

and server population needs to be looked at.

Hopefully they realize this, PS1's player base was tiny. Most of forum side now appears keen to bring back PS1's least attractive element, the linearity.

I do hope its a case of them just blindly ignoring the player base, most of them are accepting this range of proposals (again other stuff like the quicker shield regen and flak as standard, to coin a term are just bad and would almost certainly unbalance the game by making things like HE largely pointless)with the lattice at its core completely uncritically.

Nay.

Amerish disproves that theory. The terrain compensates the lattice and it's very easy to predict where the bulk of the enemy forces is going. While you open the cap for 5 surrounding outposts there is at most 2 you can attack by the ground, and again the zerg always picks the closest base.

Does that mean people defend ?

Absolutely not; I've seen the most absurd situation on Amerish where our VS zerg left a base west entirely missing the TR zerg capping the base by the east. Even by shouting in my mic, ranting in /y and /re and /orders, no one cared. It was not a small territory either, it was Splitpeak pass.

Territories having no value remain valid though.

Hell yes. Anything to make tactical positioning of Sunderers better. Personally make a happy little noise whenever I see a cleverly hidden Sunderer.

Maybe have it so that to FRIENDLIES the camouflage outline is semi-transparent / outlined in some sort of mesh from any distance, and for enemies it becomes more and more transparent / digital looking the closer they get to the AMS?

Besides, deployed AMS sundies can still be tracked by paying attention to how the enemy forces move - if they're all consistently coming from one direction, that's a big hint.

Simple answer to that is make spawn room door sheilds impenetrable from either side to weapon fire.

Initiating a pain field to force defenders out of the spawn room gives too much advantage to the attacking force. Defending a location should have some advantages (or the whole history of warfare is somehow wrong).

Until a base is actually captured the defenders need an area where they can organise. Remove this area and you are shortening the possible battle at that location. As others have noted, how many times during big battles have you seen the defenders push out the attacking force?

It happens very occasionally when a small force tries to cap a location without sufficient manpower at its disposal, but only when it meets a defending force that decides to make a stand defending. Decrease the usefulness the one advantage the defending force has (sheilded spawn room) and there will be a shorter battle, since as soon as the SCU goes down in your method the defenders simply bug out.

Offer XP as a result of successfully defending a location and you provide an incentive to the defenders to actively try and push out from the spawn room to retake the base. Currently the only thing a defender gets rewarded for are the cheap kills he can make by firing through the one-way sheilds. Why should he risk leaving the spawn roon to try and defend a base if, should his squad succeed in doing so, all he gets as reward is a "Base Defended" massage.

The attacker gets an XP reeward for capture, surely the defender should get an XP reward for keepiing them out?

This defence XP reward should not be the same value as the attacker XP reward, or players will tend to defend only and we won't see the big contests, but without an actual incentive to defend a location strongly you might as well sit in the spawn roon and hopefully pick up a few free kills before the sheilds go down.

Would make them even easier to camp than they were pre-redesign ... Apart from that you are 100% spot on with the rest of your post

Deal with the problem not the symptom
Offer incentives and not penalties

I like many points raised, but I feel that stationary turrets need more of a buff. They are far too vulnerable, I think barriers behind them could be raised somewhat so engineers aren't quite so much fodder for snipers. I also feel they could use a buff to their damage resistance. Lastly I think the AA could use a slightly tighter CoF and a small projectile speed buff.

Also, in regard to the auto fire: there is an AI turret in the game, they are rare but they do exist. This turret type would need the ability to lock on to infantry.

Also, I feel that that engineers could perhaps gain a MANA turret variant that can have autofire (after they gain an AA turret). However I am unsure how to balance such a turret, though I feel they were balanced in PS1. Perhaps lock them out of their main weapon when it is deployed, and have it auto destruct if they change class.