Pay attention to his criticisms at the end, he really nails it (Max cancer, lack of lattice flexibility, stale fights due to few Sundy deploy options and bases with only one way to fight in them, segregated construction, UI info is lacking...). But he's overall optimistic, and I agree that we're seeing some great changes. The #1 thing I'd LOVE to see at this point is a rework of the lattice system that would end the redeploy meta and force open field battles between and around bases before, during, and after a base capture. I've been focusing on the Hybrid Hex, but maybe a triple ladder with rungs of quick Vehicle capture points leading up and around the next base would work, and you can't cap the next base with a cutoff before you finish the siege on the previous base? That would be easy enough to program.
When lattice system was first floated, it was warned that contrived gameplay leads to unintended consequences. Introduction of lattice is proof that the forums can not handle creative play. Calling something "cancer" is proof that forum posters are not interested in anything other than their own interests. No contrivance will save poor players from themselves.
Ofcourse you are correct Trigga. Personally I can't watch Moukass because of his infuriating mannerisms and giggling like a child. But that's just personal taste. Much like Wrel's attitude to vehicle play or anything not infantry side, calling Maxes 'cancer' is a rather shameful internet habit (used for many differing things obviously) that should have never started in the first place. I've heard the so called reasoning from logic to excuse this behavior; but cancer remains one of the world's most prolific killers. It's not a trend word to be used in the manner racism and the word 'bigot' seems to now be. Lest it be rendered cheap and meaningless. Max gameplay was present from the start of ps2. An established unit that thousands spent upgrading or equipping with cosmetics. As a so called 'sky knight' style player, I mostly received my experience of burster maxes through the years - but ofcourse I'm familiar with all three factions regardless of encounter type. It seems like habitual infantryside complainers do indeed want this to be an infantry only game. Where a max should be as effective at its job, as a infiltrator is on open ground with no cloak against a MBT... What utter nonsense. MAX units have a high cost per life as it is. Die so effortlessly, often in their own area of engagement (peaking and c4) that the only grounds for complaint are the exact same as those against vehicles - QQ I DONT LIKE COMBINED ARMS ME ME ME. Usually this is the point where some biased brainchild plugs '% chance of encounter types in the game' to force the agenda. If you don't like it, piss off and play something else instead of ******** on other peoples investments. The new 'flash' update, is a great example of what happens when people listen to whiney little people like this.
I apologize for the language. You guys are right. As for the "infantryside" remarks, I've spent considerably more time in vehicles. I just call out unbalance and bad gameplay where I see it. I supported the thermal nerf as a primarily air player, and called for a Striker nerf as a TR main. I just don't see Maxes as healthy for the game. Sorry again for my choice of words.
Some people are satisfied with unscrewing the light bulb. Others consider the merits of modifying the rotation of the Earth to counter the effect of friction upon the threads of the light bulb.
I dont see how lattice reworks would help. It would solidify Galaxy drops and redeploy to get around. You need objectives like shield generators outside bases that protect against gal drops and generators that allow large redeploy influxes (and disallow when destroyed/taken) to encourage vehicle fights outside bases. Along with that just having a nearby safe vehicle spawn(s) that cant be easily be camped so defenders actually have a good chance of mounting a vehicular defense. What I want is the segregation between vehicles and infantry gone in most bases, which means giving infantry ways to go toe-to-toe with tanks but also giving vehicles incentives to fight in CQC rather than having all the reason to just spam shells from afar. Just a co-ax gun that doesnt work well at range. Aircraft have been needing an overhaul since 6 years. It needs to be easier to get into and have a normal skillcurve instead of the inverted one we have now. Expanding the amount of viable combat maneuvers and allowing all aircraft to have an effective AA loadout would do wonders. Immediately solve the issue that aircraft are either OP as hell or incapable of functioninf by adding skillful G2A weapons and viciously gutting all deterrents from the game. Start simple by giving Lightnings access to ESF noseguns (not AI one's) and work from there. Also give all vehicles and infantry at least something to combat, avoid or escape aircraft even when not having an AA loadout, since aircraft can escape any ground regardless of loadout as well its only fair and would again do wonders for the game. Change up the capture mechanics. PS2 is suited for several unique variations of VIP and CTF and a few "ordinary" one's. Switch them at each continent capture and you are golden.
So, this is basically Hybrid Hex, but a little easier to grasp and implement. Imagine quick cap points leading up to the next base and around it. You can't just Gal drop from base to base, you have to fight towards it with armor, capping open territory on the way. If you fully encircle a base, you can double the defender's respawn timer (or something to help the siege), but you can't continue to cap past that base till you take it. Maybe holding half the territory around a base opens up a spawn option for the attackers, or maybe that's how some base defenses go down. Aside from creating fights between bases, it let's construction be a direct benefit to holding a lane, and gives friendly/enemy vehicles a fight around bases so they have something meaningful to do besides camp spawns. Maybe the more points you control around a base speeds up/slows down the timer as well as controls shields so both sides would need armor constantly fighting on the front line. Edit: I absolutely agree that some bases need work as well, and I really like your ideas, but I think a lattice change would fix more and be substantially less work to implement.
See that part I just highlighted with bold font? That particular line of logic is precisely what landed us in this state of 'balance' in the first place. Changes with 'less work' and 'less thought' put into them, with messy results. So-called 'quick fixes' have repeatedly proven themselves to do more harm than 'good' in this game. Enough is enough.
I totally agree with you. For example, there's no sort of tuning current mechanics to make missiles fun in this game. They need a rework to behave like real missiles with limited turn rates. This lattice proposal, I think, is as good of a solution as any. I also think think Demigan's base change proposals are top notch. All I'm arguing is that of the two changes, the lattice would be fairly easy, and have a huge benefit in every aspect of the game. I'm a big fan of doing the job right the first time, as well as realistically possible anyway. That's why the dev team choosing the hard programing path now, give me hope for the future of thge game.
So between each base you have hexes, and as example you can cap the individual hexes to complete the link to the next base? These points need to be both out in the open but also have a bunch in places easily accessible and defendable by infantry so the defenders stand a chance. Attackers by default have a vehicular advantage or they wouldn't have been able to place their Sunderers so if defenders can only use vehicles to defend their outer territories they would always have disadvantages like the spawn timer reduction. Also what about those defenders? What do they get for holding on to that territory around them? It's unfair if the defenders don't get advantages for holding on to as much outer territory as possible. I would switch it around: Holding the outer territories does not nerf the opposition with for example longer respawn times but it offers advantages for the owners. For example every minute a pulse spots all (visible) enemies in the area, access to a small vehicle spawn, teleporters into and out of the base, control over base features like lightbridges, jumppads, gravlifts and more. I don't think the hybrid hex would be that little work to implement. You would still have to look at every single base in the game and place micro territory controlpoints in positions that are logical and don't give massive advantages to one team or another, IE make sure the defender can retake some of them even if the enemy is camping their vehicle spawn and holding the vehicular advantage like they are almost guaranteed to do. That's a monumental task. I would say it's easier to add many small things. ESF noseguns for the Lightning? It's probably not that difficult to do but it would still have a great potential for the game. CQC Co-ax guns for tanks? We even still have the placeholders for the co-ax guns on the Vanguard and the ESF already shows how you could handle multiple weapons. Considering the weird stuff they managed with the PTS versions of the Rocklet Rifle it wouldn't be too hard to link the co-ax gun to the ctrl, space, X or B key to fire it.
There are two goals. One is for vehicles to be ever present on the battlefield on both sides, with more to do than farm infantry. These capture points could be worth as much as the base they lead up to. So there's the benefit to hold them. You want a real reason for construction to be in the game? Holding open terrain that mattered would be ideal. With more vehicles fighting over this open terrain, fewer would have the luxury of farming infantry. The other thing this would solve is the redeploy meta, basically the whole reason zergs get on a role and stay on it. You either lose your *** on that lane by ignoring it, or you have constant pressure n a moving front that doesn't skip from one base to another. Gal dropping here, then redeploy, then gal dropping there wouldn't be a thing because you'd need to work your way up to the next base. Fights also wouldn't just leave as fast as they develop, because you have all that easy to cap territory around the base to keep putting pressure on. If base defenses were tied to amount of territory controlled around the base, last minute gal drops out of nowhere wouldn't be as effective. As far as zergs go, they're only effective because they can take bases from out of nowhere and redeploy and defend bases out of nowhere. Those zergs that waste 96+ camping empty spawnrooms lose the continent for their faction. Also, if lanes did have micro lanes, it would give smaller forces a chance to outmaneuver mindless zergs. I really think something like this is what's missing from the game. Nothing will be perfect. I don't really see a problem with a hill that's hard to take. And in my OP I suggested that each lane could be subdivided in to three lanes, keeping ground battles from being camp fests between two armor columns. Tanks could hit the front, while Harassers and Flashes work the flanks. This would be more of a problem on Hossin, but it would be epic on Amerish or Essamir. This is the core problem of the vehicle/infantry game. As long as vehicles and infantry have the same exact goal, help to cap a little point in a room, you can either have OP vehicles that cost a ton, or spammable vehicles like Daybreak went with. This proposal would let infantry and vehicles each have their own playgrounds.
That moment of realization you have carpooling with a bunch of narcissists by accident. So...what's you're Zodiac sign? *grabs door handle*
I'm not sure how having more goals outside a base will make sure both sides have vehicles present. We already see in "empty" bases where you can build a PMB that a vehicle battle is often absent unless people build a PMB there in advance. This simply because the vehicles will cap the point and the lionshare will move on and start besieging the next base early, preventing the defenders from creating a solid vehicle counter. It's a base design problem as the defenders don't have safe area's to spawn and build up their forces. Even at AMP stations where the courtyard is often shielded and a good place to marshal your tanks (although with a chokepoint that allows the attackers to easily keep you inside similar to a spawnroom) and the vehicle spawn itself is safe behind a secondary shield that's impenetreable to infantry and tanks alike it's still hard for the defenders to mount a solid vehicular defense. If at an AMP station it's already tough when you have the tools, how will simply adding objectives between bases suddenly allow for more vehicular combat outside bases? The only truly successful place for vehicular combat I know is between Quartz Ridge and Indar Excavation. It offers enough time for the defenders to spawn vehicles, the vehicles spawned have cover, a bunch of ways out that can't be easily camped until the attackers are almost on top of the base and the defenders can already engage enemy vehicles as they approach across the open field. This is more of what you need if you want more vehicular combat: A place to (relatively) safely spawn, group up, engage and be able to get out of the base's confines. My point is more that if you just dump them out in the open it'll be a cakewalk for the attackers to approach but a hell for the defenders to stave off the attackers. Having a vehicular advantage is almost a requirement for assaulting a base, and the defenders who lose a base are almost guaranteed to have lost all their vehicles while the attakers still have vehicles ready and waiting that took the previous one. This is a disadvantage for the defenders that has to be taken into account when thinking of the meta of the game, meaning infantry needs to be just as capable to capture most of these points or the attackers would just steamroll the outside points and reap the benefits while the defenders get mercilessly slaughtered when they attempt to spawn new vehicles. Multiple lanes won't stop that unless at least one lane is designed to give infantry a way to counter the vehicles. But the problem is that infantry and tanks don't have the same goal. Infantry can have as goal to cap the point and with it the base, vehicles only purpose is to be a murder-machine. If they can't murder they are immediately useless in the base capture. By adding capture points outside you do give tanks more to do, but unless the design of the bases changes it won't foster vehicle battles. We already have examples of things where vehicle battles should ensue if you follow the same reasoning you did but they don't due to the map's design. Just giving infantry resource-costing weapons to deal with tanks and giving tanks CQC-oriented AI weapons by default would already allow bases to have their walls removed and make this idea far more plausible. Infantry could clear the way for enough defender vehicles to spawn and offer the speed required to retake the other points.
Indar Ex to Quartz works, as you said, because there's enough time to pull defending vehicles. That time is because of distance in that example, and now a vehicle capture point on the way. OK, so let's consider a smaller distance. We could give defenders that time, not by distance, but with a chain of capture points in between the bases. Tanks would have to deal with that PMB in the way in order to advance. I'm imagining much quicker capture points, say 20 seconds or so, and there could be 5 or 8 points between bases. Those total points between bases could be worth as much as an entire base, and the points wrapping around a base could be worth the same. I'm a fan of nanite-based launchers, and coaxial guns on tanks, and that could be added too, but even with base design changes there's still the problem of forces skipping that PMB or just gal dropping out of nowhere. And with all those capture points in the open, that encourages vehicles to be continuously fighting over them. When it's just bases, there's zero point to fight in the field because all it takes is a platoon to drop on the next point. And there's not a while lot of point for defenders to pull vehicles because what's really needed are bodies on the point. Then the fight is eventually decided, and everyone warps to fight at some other base. The fight disappears. But with external points everywhere, there's a necessity to keep pressure, for defenders and attackers. That constant pressure is why I think both sides will maintain armor, as there's ALWAYS a need for it. Even with coax guns on tanks, the only goal is that point in a room, and tanks have to find a way to influence that room to stay relevant. I don't think keeping the entire focus on a point in the room is a good direction for vehicles to go. They need something to do outside of base walls.
