[Video] Construction System Thoughts - New Meta?

Just a heads up, the thumbnail is from Squadside which is like a professional photography collection but from PS2. (with authorisation ofc!) I'd check it out, it is awesome. http://www.squadside.com/

This game was so fun! But we don't have a commander mode in PS2, although, mentioning that...

I'm very excited for this, although I do wonder if it means that player bases will be the best way to win. Hopefully it doesn't turn into a stagnant system where capturing territory isn't incentivized enough. Either way it will be a nice change of pace.

I am also very worried about performance on ps4. It already struggles enough as it is.

I don't know why "MMO" has to mean grindy RPG-like mechanics in your eyes. Yes most MMOs have that stuff but most MMOs are MMORPGs.

MMO just stands for "massively multiplayer online" ie lots of players on a server. FPS just stands for first person shooter. It seems to be Planetside 2 is exactly what it claims to be at the moment, a MMOFPS. It sounds like you want it to be a MMOFPSRPG, which is fair enough but it's not something they have ever claimed the game to be.

Because it makes it less stale?
You only see "Now Sunderers will be harder to get too!"
So?
The attackers as well as defenders can benefit. By adding multiple layers to a base defense you get a much deeper meta between building defenses, replacing destroyed defenses and keeping damaged one's repaired, as well as players that will try to bypass these defenses and get through. This is the update that will give tanks and aircraft the vital importance in the meta-game it needs. Sure the automated AA guns need a nerf to be less accurate and/or reduced muzzle velocity so that aircraft can dodge the shots if they keep moving and dodging (maybe that's already in there? Joshino wasn't moving fast and was flying in straight lines). But otherwise this adds much, much more depth to the game. Up to and including players targeting these shield generators and turrets to allow aircraft to enter the area for instance.

Keep in mind, this game doesn't really revolve around base capture or Sunderer destruction, these are just parts of the tools to keep people entertained. So what if Sunderers are harder to destroy? If you have much more depth and varied gameplay in that extended time it takes to destroy it, it's a better system!

What? This would be the best update for tanks ever. You really think those walls would stand up against a full tank platoon? These things would be the strong points in taking these bases out, mauling walls and obstacles. With proper coordination a group of tanks can shell the AA turrets and shield generators, after which a Liberator or air squad can bomb it to oblivion.
You should also not forget that these bases need to be build first. You assume that an Ant shows up and bam instant-base. Of course not! These things take time! Resource gathering, picking a spot far enough away to be safe while building yet close enough to be useful, planning out the base structure, building things in phases so that you stand more chance of your base surviving attacks during the early base building periods etc etc. Aircraft and tanks can utterly obliterate any player with base-building in mind by destroying their Ant's while resource gathering or building, or by destroying walls and pressuring the Ant to leave or lose his precious resources. And even if that base is completely build, what better way to destroy it than with powerful tank canons and bombing runs?
Infantry would take so long to get there that the base is completely build.

There you go.

Deeper meta, more interesting and varied combat, players are capable of solving long-standing problems in base design by plugging the holes the developers left and create much deeper strategies than "ram 90 people into this chokepoint until it breaks", since the defenders would now have the options to protect themselves against it and force the attackers to try different approaches or bring in specialized equipment.

Because this would encourage coordinated play more.
A small group of players can have a much, much larger impact on the game by using coordinated tactics to either build or breach a base. Imagine a Zerg beating his head against a well-coordinated defensive base where they crawl slowly through each defensive perimiter, if they even get through it because the defenders managed to build some powerful turrets and walls to stop them. Now imagine how a small group can work together to spot the weakness in a defense and exploit it by tactical assaults on things like turrets, walls, shield generators, the Ants that keep building them or killing off the engineer crew that is keeping a wall repaired. Zerging will still be powerful, but this system encourages tactics in small squads more.

You could say "but Zergs can use everything!"
Well yes. It doesn't matter if you build a new tank canon, machine gun or grenade, Zergs will always be able to build and use more of them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, otherwise we might as well scrap the entire game!

I suppose it is a risk, but tbh the old capture mechanic is becoming quite a tired one.

The Devs already told us that subscription numbers were PLUMMETING until the AI tank nerfs. You guys think you're playing some World of Tanks nonsense, but you need to accept that FPS players in general hate the concept of instant death by vehicle.

You are freaking out over one of the coolest conceptual updates I've EVER seen in a game of this magnitude, because players might actually find fun and creative ways to counter your tank. OH my goodness!!! NOOOOOO

Everything you said is just wrong. Comically so.

By insane you probably mean - what AA should have been from day ONE in this game.

I know after 3 years a hard counter is a foreign concept. But there's nothing "insane" about it.

And we have to deal with "random" tanks all the time. What's wrong with tanks having to adapt to random turrets?

I wouldn't be so worried about static defences, against any sort of concerted push they should be blown apart pretty quick. Look how long existing base turrets last for instance.

I think the AA turrets won't be that big a deal either, if they're in one spot its not that hard to avoid them. It will be nice as a pilot to be able to set some up to protect landing pads as well, the roaming pilots who just go about looking for kills outside warp gates and such will have a much more horrible time.

My opinion is it will be very good for the games re-playability, I don't think it will massively effect most engagements but people will find ways to heavily abuse the defences initially until its been iterated a few times.

Is there also a hard counter to infantry and tanks? If so I'll build all three in a base and no one will be able to get within sight of the thing. Or, is attacking player-made bases supposed to be an infantry-only feature?


Also, it was kind of the base in the video to have entrances. I figured that players would just wall-in the Sundy/ANT, place shields and AA turrets to stop any air drops, then shoot any LA while repairing the walls. Turtle up with the turrets, shoot through windows, etc. Exciting gameplay.

Regarding AA turret spam: I've tested this on PTS, one person can only place a grand total of two AA turrets. Old turrets will be despawned when you try to place a new one.

The AA shield is capped at one per person.

If you want to really "spam" these things you'll need to throw a whole squad at it. And you know... a whole squad of Skyguards is pretty damn scary too!

Another interesting tidbit: the turrets in AI mode only react to horizontal movement. Which means they're only really a threat if manned AA is around to force you to move, because otherwise you can just drop in from above their range with no retaliation (they don't respond to vertical movement at all).

Wait? 1 person can put down TWO automated powerful AA turrets AND a shield to cover them? 2-3 people can literally counter 2 dozen pilots simultaneously with "drop and forget" mechanics?

Worse than I expected RIP air game for set up bases. And RIP dedicated ANT drivers because Air is going to spend its time doing nothing but hunting ANTs to prevent said bases from popping up.

A lot of the complain that ground makes against Air is that they feel that they can't fight back. Even though this is false in serious fights in that Air is kicked out of large fights FIRST due to G2A scaling in numbers -- in small fights I can totally see this as true. So let's not fix the G2A and A2G game interplay (even though lately some good ideas on changes in AA have been popping up on the forums) and just make it so that Air has the same problem as ground -- but worse as they literally will be unable to even attack. Even with the current unrewarding and unhelpful AA systems in place ground can, at the very least, do so damage and push air out of a hex for 30-60 seconds before air reps up and comes back. Air doesn't even have that for player bases?

Ok. I like the ANT system. I love the idea of player bases. I'm thoroughly disappointed in the upcoming mechanics.

I believe the idea itself is cool and it might be very interesting.
My concerns are:
1) We often do not have enough space between bases.... now we're going to have even more structures! Maybe it's time to get rid of some small bad designed bases?

2) The VP generators story seems dangerous even if it depends on how easy it is to build a defensible VP gen. I expected the construction system to give us tool to help with taking control of the existing bases. We're instead moving fights for VP gens in random places.

3) The auto turrets seem OP.

The greatest battles in this game are the ones out in the open, away from bases. Two sides hammering away at each other over a patch of land, using the terrain for tactical advantage. Am I in the minority with this sort of thinking?

Remove half of the useless, boring bases, fix the massive amount of bugs that have accumulated over patches, get back to basics and then start adding content, maybe new vehicles, weapons, improve continents with some interesting features.

While this sounds kind of cool on paper, I am concerned that it will actually add less depth to the game because of poor implementation... plus the sheer boatload of new bugs that will come on top of the others.

I think they are redesigning continents to have fewer small bases between large bases.

Seems to me that this is going to be quite fun and different.
I'm not worried about a few people building some walls that will somehow 'change the flow of the whole game'.

Doomsayers are always there. If I had a cent for each time I've read " This will kill the game" now I'd be rich and living on my own private island.

To people wondering about Victory point generators, on PTS currently they generate one 'credit' per generator, per second, and it takes 10,000 'credits' to generate a VP. They're also, as far as I can tell, extremely touchy about being next to other generators, and demand a decent amount of space between one another. (approx on par with the average distance between 2 bases as is with what little testing I've done.)

On top of that, they're fairly pricey to build in the first place, and you're gonna want some defences around it to ensure a gal drop or rogue harasser doesn't just EZ munch it. These take a decent amount of time to set up, need maintenance, and the generator has an large 'come kill me!' indicator on the map. It's pretty easy to see people amassing generators and learning where you need to push for prizes.

Even ignoring the 'need' of taking territory to push enemy VP generators, the more territory you have let's you set up more of your own generators, so there's still going to be plenty of emphasis on the existing bases as reliable spawn points, bunkers, and general tacticalfullyness that the current game is living off of.

As for people complaining about the AA turrets... they seem to have a pretty minimalistic response range if they're automatic, and if they're manned then they're taking up pop. About the worst case scenario I see personally are 'Battle Ants' rushing past the front line into your territory to set up a sort of 'reverse' base, which I think sounds like an awesome strategy and hope it happens a couple of times in big fights.

No, there have been many discussions about how epic PS2 is when 2 sides are slugging it out between bases. It seems that they will be removing smaller bases and perhaps leaving small bases with no cap points as staging areas, which would be very cool as well.

No they are just removing a few boring bases on Indar. No big project to wipe all small ones. Its like 3 bases removed from the 90+ on Indar.