The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

But as I see it what you propes in this aspect of your OP will make active defence of a location less likely to occur. What you will get is and exacerbation of the faction zerg rolling around the map capping bases pretty much unopposed (since the changes make active defence less likely to succeed).

Occasionally these zergs will meet resulting in (possibly) a large battle, but mre likely it will mean that one zerg or the other will simply fracture away and go form up somewhere else, since the proposed changes make it easier for an attacking force to capture only moderately defended bases.

Something that might help lengthen (and add a little drive to push base defence to a higher priority for the player) would be to reduce the XP reward for the attacker the longer it takes them to capture the base. If the defender can hold the attacker out of the base long enough then the attacker has less incentinve (XP-wise) to continue that attack.

From the defenders POV, provided they keep the attackers from capturing the base they should be rewarded with the XP linked to that base.

Say an AMP station has 1000 XP linked to it. If the attackers capture it within 10 minutes of reaching the "flag" they get 1000 XP. If the defenders hold them off for 10 minutes the defenders get 100xp and the pool of XP relating to that station is reduced to 900. For the next 10 minutes the attackers would get 900 XP on capture.

This kind of effect would make defending a location a way of earning XP and would also mean that those squads who are organised could maximise ther XP gain as they would be able to either cap a location quickly or defend a location effectively.

It would also mean that platoons would need a more reasoned approach to capture, since you don't want to actually trigger the capture timer until you are pretty sure you have the forces in place to do the capture quickly to force the faction switch of the location.

This does all need connecting more tightly to the resources linked to a location as well as what I can do with those resources. If losing Zurvan AMP meant I could no longer get my main battle tank immediately I am more likely to try an defend that location.

Currently I really don't care if an opposing faction hold certain points, so I have less drive to push them out of that location. I think that this idea was in the OP and putting in a stronger link to resources and player options would improve the tactical element of the game greatly.

Thank you for a good read Buzz. Some great ideas as usual.
+1

I posted again based on Nekkryds feedback and comments about linearity being a bad thing.
I can see that. I tried to cover how 'bring back lattice' is about simplifying complexity.

With regard to being predictable. I believe that restrictions are important.
If the enemy at any time can be at (A) 1 of 3 places compared to (B) 1 of 10 .. you have a more stable predictable gameplay.

Consider in chess:
The difference between a piece on a chessboard being at the edge of a board or being in the middle.
If every piece was a Queen.

You must be able to arrive at the same destination whether as A or B
However the choices made earlier as A commit you.



As for 2. "a flanking maneuver from east hills to shadesppire is just taken off the table".
The 'links' I've draw are only for the satellite bases.
It's a three way fight. Assuming the NC want the northern satellite neutralised - tehy have to take Shadespire.

It does the absloutely opposite of take it off the table! It makes a definite option. Yet it means the satellite is only vulnerable at one location. It means organise players have options

The problem I have with current satellites is that they are hard to keep track of even when you know you should and remember to check every half a minute or so. I think we should get rid of them in the current form; where they present significant strategic opportunities (like the air tower south-west of Hvar), they should have their own territory to control (in the case of this specific tower, adjacent to Quartz Ridge, Hvar and Sandstone Gulch).

As much as rather leave this thread be now, your being reasonable and constructive.

Well, your just removing complexity from the game mechanics, that what this reduces to.

Well yes, but im not sure chess is really a good model here. Indeed. Given that its a abtract simplification of a battle. Something the game is also trying to simulation. Its a fundamental choice between a simplified or a complex representation of combined arms warfare. As such, I don't think Chess is a good example of a paradigm.

But this comes down to aesethetic preference really, I like complexity, and I think therefore the more complex the tactical, operational and strategic space we play in is. The more involving battles are the better, I think should be an aim of the game design. Here I think people should devote more thought to the question is a larger linear battle, really automatically a more involving one?

You mention predictability being something good and something more of would improve the game. I just don't see why the move in terms of 'chess is good, chess has predictable moves - therefore, predictability is good ; therefore PS" should have more predictability' even despite the first two premises being quite well developed, had a valid move from premises to conclusion.

As I think, giving people space to innovate on a tatical, operational and strategic level. where or not they use it. Is worth 100 boring fight, for the 1 that blows you away. Its also a fundamental problem with the game design atm. People are boring cert farmers, this is resulting in a lot of boring play. where does the problem lie?

Ok yes, there are larger issues to dicuss with the larger point of taking any objective, the grander strategy and how things might relate to a larger game about the game or metagame (I think people confuse the two). But, I think its fairly obvious that by limiting options on the operational level, you reduce the bredth adn depth of possible approches to game design in these two concepts. Something I think on a longer term the game BADLY needs.

I don't pretend to have easy answers to any fo these questions, im working them, but its hardz. Also there is no easy parraell to PS2 with its 2000 people per map, so jumping to analogies (indeed what i might term the ps1 was a utopia fallacy) has so far nearly allways been too quick.

I don't want to just keep repeating myself, but I maintain these problems that we are hitting on in this thread, are largely emerging due to low population on servers. Too many options are only a problem, when there are not enough people to population all the possible sites that are choices.

To use a technical term, its population thats the ultimate problem.

I've had threads closed on me for this, my sig deleted on it. But i'll keep saying it because its true and SoE needs to deal with it and stop scuffing their feet on it. Clearly behind the sceneschoices and factors are committing them to have loads of empty servers with peoples characters they have invested money it. Its time to bite the bullet and address this, paid transfers, in short. Monetizing the issue. Will. Not. Do. Why? Its not a universal option and generating some revenue from shuffling people around, won't thereby make population distribution conducive to gameplay. Also snowball effect, etc etc.

As i'ev noted, I also think contingent upon that. Funnel zergs towards each other, won't make for better fights. Larger prehaps... but quite possibly linear, predictable slideshows.

Fair enough, but most of the concrete proposals

The fact is, as things stand with the Hex system, there are allready bases ruled of being able to take, and therefore are pointless to attack.

Its hard to imagine a lattice proposal, that involves more not less options in this regard.

This is an excellent compilation of terrible ideas.

flak armor reduces damage from explosions so explosions can't kill you as easily, while nano weave increases HP and a grenade can still kill you depending on your current health levels

using them is situational
if stuff is being blown up around you flak increases survival more than nano weave which only lets you survive an additional 2-5 bullets

those walls aren't useful for defending just attacking,

I don't know who in their right minds would put massive gaps in defensive walls and not put any additional defenses there, whats worst is they're right near the generators

And to lose. This game needs to be more "clear" about things. Especially when it comes to when a base is lost or not. Since the average Joe probably dosn't understand this, if it's not bent in neon, they will probably just be frustrated. This is why PS2 needs a better way to funnel these players from base to base if they are overtaken/overrun. This can be done by bringing down the spawn room sheilds/painfield activation as soon as the SCU is destroyed and furthermore funneling them by limiting their respawn options.

Because if you read the entire OP's post you'll see that a lot of the points he makes have integrated meanings in other subjects, thus giving more weight to the overall idea. If you took the time to inform yourself you'd see this. That if you disagree to a point, you might not do so in context to a point further down the post.

So again, my point stands.

Yeah, I understand that, but isn't that why GU02 added the tunnels and extra "defender exit options" from the spawn rooms?

The OP seemes to suggest that the SCU getting taken out is the end of the battle, and as such should force any remaining defenders to suffer the consequences immediately.

Taking out the SCU should merely be the start of the final phase of a capture.

We all want (I think) more of the fun-type larger battles but some of the proposed changes in the OP won't offer that at all, they will in fact tend to make the zerg the ONLY thing that can get anything done in the game.

Currently a small force can move about and almost direct an enemy zerg by capping certain locations that either cut off the zergs advance (ie mean the locations the zerg rolls over don't materially benefit the zerg faction, albeit for a short time) or provide a different route for the zerg to take (ie a different target to camp about wating for the XP to roll in).

What would add spice to the game would be if the loss of a specific location have an immediate effect on the forces involved.

Imagine this, a TR zerg is rolling around capping at will anything that falls in its path. Let's also imagine that the holding of a specific location allows the purchase of Prowlers.

Now the VS are not that happy about matters as they are currently, so they gather a force and fight their way to take the location that allows TR to buy Prowlers and the capture it.

Once that happens the TR zerg loses it's Prowlers, they run out of fuel or the computer net allowing control of these nanite created artefacts stops working.

The VS have effectively neutered a great deal of the TR zerg in a single action.

That's a very simplistic thought process, and it would need a great deal more work to even balance what benefits territories could offer, it might even be as simple as reducing a vehicles accuracy or range and not neccessarily the players ability to spawn the vehicle in the first place.

Provided SOE make it so holding specific territories has a real and immediate benefit to the faction that holds them we will see big and protracted fights over these areas of the map. The "front battle lines" will be drawn, and everyone will know roughly where to go to find a fight.

As it stands PS2 is flawed because players really don't care if it's their faction or their opponents who hold terrotories, it's way to easy to just pick somewhere else to fight when a zerg arrives. Simply making the possible locations a player might choose to move to won't alleviate the problem either, they will just be in a new location waiting for the enemy zerg to reach them again, they have no real need to even stay there and offer to fight again against a force that has already beaten them once, why should they stay at the new location and let that happen all over again?

Give the players more capacity to harm an opponents ability to create an unstopable zerg force and you will see more fun fights and less zerg pwnage.

Currently faction zergs appear to avoid each other, only very rarely have I seen "zerg vs zerg" fights happen in PS2, but changing things fundemental to the game to FORCE faction zergs to go head to head is not a fun gametype I would look forward to UNLESS there was an underlying reason for the meeting.

If it meant I had to defend my capability to even spawn a main battle tank I can see good reason to go head to head against an opposing zerg.

Agreed with most points except being forced to land somewhere where I am needed rather than landing where I want. I play this game because of the scale and freedom that comes with that plus the options on how to approach something. Don't force me to do something just because you want more cannon fodder. I actually like that the players create the flow instead of some artificial god like system forcing it. I think once servers merge, populations grow & continent locks happen, battles will naturally be big and lengthy and in more areas of the map.

Are you thinking as an attacker or a defender here?

Do YOU want to be limited to your spawn locations when on the recieving end of an opponents zerg?

Would YOU be happy to be simply plopped into another adjacent base (that you get NO BENEFIT from actually defending) just so the opposing force zerg has another target to shoot at when it arrives?

An easier fix to the spawn room instead of adding a SCU would be a spawn room timer.
Once the cap point begins the conversion the spawn room gains a timer for players in it or spawn in it... say 20-30secs before they receive a pain field. This would give the player ample time to decide what to do.
They can continue to spawn there until the base is captured but will be limited to how long they can stay in the spawn room. The balcony on the spawn room could extend the time limit.
This would deter medics and engineers who just sit in spawn rooms not helping defend and push back and just gaining XP from heals, revives and ammo kits. Biolabs are a fine example of this, when you have 20-30 players jammed in a spawn room.

It's about creating clearer boundries for the battle flow. If half the defending force lingers in a lost base and the rest is scattered across the continent because of the multiple spawn options then the next base will not even be close to defendable (As it is now) the Zerg just gains more momentum as they capture each base. If YOU get pushed out of the base after losing it (SCU is destroyed and the base is more or less overrun) by forcing you to get out of the spawn room, then the answer is yes. Because if this happens as a part of the battle flow, people wont feel like they just were kicked out for no reason, they get it as "The base was lost and we have to go elsewhere". This combined with restricted spawn options will make the next base a harder target for the zerg and it wont automaticly give them momentum to stomp the next base easier and easier.

But the other side of the coin is "Why bother to defend at all?". It will definately NOT make the next base harder to capture because the guys who just got deposited there after the first battle know just what's coming over the hill towards them so they will simply log out or choose to spawn at the warpgate and join a zerg of their own. That's why the OP want's the PS1 lattice system back, he wants to then force these zergs into head-on collision, at least that's what the result will be of the proposed changes.

It will hapen like this because...

Defender gets no "defence" bonus.

Defender gets less spawn options.

Defender gets killed whether he stays in the spawn room or leaves it.

Why even bother to be in a defensive battle at all? I just need to find where MY faction zerg is at and go stay with them mindlessly capping facilities against minimal defence.

To have a good battle you need both the attackers and the defenders to have a reason to be fighing at a specific location, not be simply dumped somewhere because they lost the last battle.

In PS2 currently, there is no reason whatsoever in trying to defend a point. If an attack comes in your best option is to simply leave that area and go find a place where YOU are the attacker.

Decreasing the time and effort it takes to cap a point, and then limiting where you opponents can actually spawn after the event will simply drive your opponents to spawn at the warp gate and join a zerg of their own or log out of the game an do something that's fun.

What does that do for your battle flow then? You see fewer targets and have more one-sided battles where you grossly outnumber your opponents on the one hand, or you suffer a series of massacres on the other, where your actions have no discernable impact on events, until you join your own faction zerg or give up on PS2 as a flawed game.

You will have zerg vs zerg eventually, right outside one anothers warp gates, but it will be the same fights on the same terrain over and over again.

Does anyone really enjoy the fight against a warpgated opponent? Fish in barrels might put up a better fight as generally by this point the vast majority of your opponents have gone to another continent or simply exited the game.

Getting to the point of warpgating an opponent can be fun, but once you get there it stops being fun. The proposed changes would make warpgating a very common occurence because it would be so much easier to complete, and would reduce the number of medium and large scale battles and replace them with constant warpgate battles.

By definition in the OP, the battle lines would be clear, and as such hold no surprise, players could simply avoid the enemy zerg until they HAD to fight against it outside their own warpgate.

The only way to end up with a different outlook is to make the intervening territory matter to both attacker and defender, then you would get bigger and more protracted battles since it would matter a great deal whether you won or lost that individual contest.

bumpcutpsycho

Server merges.

Is there a short version, that isnt 5 posts long? You know a TLDR version.

since when is Chess predictable??????? lattice is nothing like Chess. Checkers is actually more predictable because each piece only has one move.