The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

I like the influence system, at least in a broad view. It means a base fight isn't completely isolated from the rest of the game world. The surrounding territories matter. If everything is uniform, just control 2 points and you win no questions asked. With the current influence system, you can make capture progress only holding a single point even if the other side fully mans all the other capture points, if you have enough influence. NW Bio Lab on Indar is a good example of this due to point D being down on the ground instead of inside the main Bio Lab.

I've also seen a lengthy, 3 way tug of war at Esamir Munitions (Tower Base with 3 control points). Each faction held a point for probably close to half an hour or more, not making any headway at kicking any of the others out. What finally captured the base (while only holding a single point) was the winning faction taking many of the surrounding areas to provide their faction with the most influence.

Not all bases (and certainly not all fights) really make much use of the influence system, but it's noticeable and interesting when it happens.

Oh I think they do, just they are poorly implemented .. The exit's should be ramped with a door at the end rather than a " Tele lift into the unknown doom " it is now

Awesome post. Lattice is what is really needed.

Also SOE, rework your base designs. They are too open and boring. You only need to look as far as PS1.

You're not alone. Frankly a lot of the changes BCP is proposing here would be redundant if ALL the changes were implemented. Several fixes for the same problem when one would suffice.

There are a few things I agree with in the post(s) and a number that I don't. What concerns me is that people will start showing their support for the whole thing, rather than really considering the impact of each change made. Every separate idea has to be taken on it's own merit.

Edit: Perfect example below.

/Signed - Read it through and through. I agreed to all of it - The community is the life blood of this game. 'We' need the outfit tools to build with.

Really great reading BuzzCutPsycho.
I really agree with restricting spawn room camping by defenders, it's plain stupid. If they are surrounded inside they should be forced to leave. Pain field or just dropping the shields of after SCU fails is needed. Also ACU in every facility would be nice.
One of the main problems is, that defenders tends to stick in alrerady doomed facilities. They should fall back and regroup earlier, secure next facility, lay some mines, repair turrets etc.
With SCU mechanism and restricted redeployment it can work. Now most of defender arrives when it's too late, base is already overrun, enemy sunderer parked in good place etc.
I'm also up for restricting vehicles more. Resources are too plentifull as for now. The thing wasnąt mentioned in OP was tank spawning panes in outpost of big facilities. It's nonsens. Attackers should have longer way to drive new tanks. It's the biggest fail in design of bigger bases IMO.

What is the challenge of camping the spawn room with no new enemies spawning there? Just taking potshots at the 4 or 5 leftovers inside makes no sense. I don't agree that it makes the life harder for the defender, since the battle is already lost at this point. Make the SCU take longer to overload and once it blows the battle should fade out quickly, thus forcing defenders to relocate insted of camp inside. I do this too, only to set up traps for the attackers once they flip the base. Nothing productive comes out of it other than the potential 8 kills from mine+claymore combo.

Re-read his post, it's about overall battleflow and it makes sense.

Bump for great justice! Server transfers don't belong in a game that depends on players alone. Server transfers will make this game suffer like no other game. This game is going to die faster than an ant if they decide server transfers (cash grab) over the health of their game (longevity).

The idea however is that the can stall a sizable force in there to secure the spawn room, giving the option for a sneak recapture of the satellite bases. Quite a few "guaranteed base captures were turned around when people realised that the had lost their entry points, left to resecure and the people in the spawn pushed out and fixed the SCU. If you take that away, the zerg that camps the spawn point will just leave at that point for the next objective, or will only have to worry about losing the satellites, instead of both the satellites and the spawn room.

At some point the community will need to decide whether we want easier to defend bases or a joke to defend bases and every base to become a mini crown with only zerg vs zerg groups colliding.

Good post so adding my +1.

Many of the people arguing with the points made by the OP are simply arguing because they haven't read the OP properly. Which I totally understand because it is very long but it is worth your time before hitting the reply button as one point leads onto another.

But on the other hand .. Those 4 or 5 people left in the spawn room tie up attacker's to camp .. Those attackers are then not in a position to defend both the spawn room AND a counter push from outside the base ..
Any outfit with common sense will redeploy most of it's forces for a counter push while leaving a few stragglers inside the spawn room to tie down the attacker's ..
Removing that option just makes it easier for the attacker's .. Which is wrong .. Bases need to be harder to take not easier

Epic posting, Buzz.

Agreed 100%.

Although I do not agree fully (but with many things) of the initial post, it shows one thing painfully obvious: the lack of competent game designers at SOE.

Sorry guys, but if you fail at so many things at the same time, I cannot consider you to be skilled at what you do anymore.

It's not about the potential threat these leftovers pose, because they don't pose any threat really. It just (as stated) employs for unintelligent gameplay. Camping these people, who actually are just staying inside the spawn room to get cheap kills, (They most likely wont venture outside before the base flips) makes for boring gameplay - This leads to people rushing back into the spawn room or just staying in there, before the SCU blows so they can camp.
I'd rather force them to push for the SCU in an attempt to stop the attackers from blowing it up, because this WILL result in them losing the base ect - They won't have the option to retreat back into the spawn room, just to score cheap camp kills.

Dont even need a Pain field. Just make the shields on doors drop once the SCU is down.

I dont like the idea of being forced out of the spawn room. I expect a fight.

Good post though, But The majority of it though has been talked about since Alpha so don't expect much from the devs.

Not really, the ideas pretty much either force you to join up in mega zergs and smash against each other, in one base. Then another base, then another base.

Its essentially turning the game into a series of crowns.

Or, well its not entirely clear how you'd play the game otherwise if they proposals were adopted 100%.

As i've said a few times, more linearity as a solution to population distribution issues, might work if having large battles at any cost is your goal. It'll also destroy any level of flexibility at an operational or strategic level across the map.

For anyone in an organised unit that tries to do interesting stuff, this should really stick out.

There's also as myself and others have noted, a lot of stuff like the shield and the cloaked AMS snuck in there, which would just bias the game heavily towards infantry combat, which given the amount of debate about lock ons atm. Is not something people should really sign up to without some critical thought.

I actually don't think most people (as has been noted) are reading that much of it.

The idea is that defender stop campid those idiotic spawn room and go to next base and prepare some serious defence (lay mines, spawn defensible sunderers, tanks, don't let senderers deploy in bes places etc.) If you would have SCU very close to spawn room, with long enough explosion time this would be good indicator - if fight is even SCU will never blow. If defenders cant stick their noses outside spawn room they will be forced to leave. Those changes would have close to none diference in bases with SCU already, will just make those lousy moment with few guys inside spawn room quicker. But this would be a great changes for small bases, with buch of people geting farmed at spawn rooms, instead of regruping at next base in line of attack.

Also with the SCU and other 'flow' proposals. It seems to turn every base contest into a win or loose battle, making it more like most other FPS's and thus, if your side wins they win, loose vise versa, then onto the next base. Which will

In essence turning PS2 into a progressive series of maps in a fairly linear hierarchical tree (so if you win at Jagers crossing, you can either choose to fight at Jaegers first or the traverse or advanari biolab or something of that ilk) in which going to and from becomes a travel mini game.

The only real space for innovation then, is how you place your cloaked sundies exactly. Trying to effect the battlespace by flanking manuvers that exploit the hex system to affect major battles, is basically ruled out.

Nothing about this proposal stops camping, it might move the camping away from the spawns, but by making the game more linear, your just going to encourage camping other travel lines.

Don't agree with the lattice system at all. The last thing we want are restrictions on where to attack etc.