[Suggestion] Alternative To Micro Hex Lanes, Visualize Frontlines and Logistics, Entrenching Defense

As a response to Higby's tweet:

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/308044274384138240/photo/1

I would like to give you fellow PS2 gamers a presentation because I am certain lanes will enhance and encourage zerging by the nature of anyone thinking outside the lanes will find their efforts in intelligent use of terrain in the movement with supporting fire, concealed movement, and flanking positions will mechanically be unable to result in any meaningful contribution to a faction's efforts.

Instead, I would like to offer an alternative that uses existing assets with some enhancements to provide a far more flexible solution to finding each other to shoot for points and fun.

This is the map that many are familiar with currently (all images I snapped in the same 5 min period recently on Waterson when Indar faction populations were just about all the same):



So, I've clicked on Hotspots and Allies and we all know if I use Instant Action, I could Deploy. And I know what we currently have flipped to our side. Look carefully, what is missing from this picture even though it is clicked?

I wonder why are the Hotspots on Quartz Ridge and Allatum Bio Lab? Thankfully, the map has my back there too, a few clicks and I get a vague idea of where the enemy currently is:



Got a pretty good idea where the enemy is before I move out from the Warpgate ... even though that could very well change before I get there but can't have the game doing all my scouting for me. Huh, something is still missing, have you spotted it yet?

If you are still scratching your head instead of nodding it, the thing that is missing from understanding where the frontline is the complete opposite of what it should be: We don't know where our own allies are or in what numbers but we know roughly where the enemy is in great and small numbers.

What kinds of situations this results in I think we already know where I am going with this - when I were to arrive at a possible fight with this information, its totally a crap shoot whether you end up with allies or not, let alone knowing if you will have enough to face off against the mouse over indication of Enemies, Squads, Platoons unless you leave Warpgate with a number of other allies. The certainty of the region in which the enemy are moving through but you haven't a foggiest where your own allies are and this is supposed to make sense in finding a good fight?

"But from the first image, that's where our allies are!" We all know this isn't actually the case, because the bases have poor defenses, our allies are far more likely leaving those places as quickly as they can to attack rather than be easily overwhelmed, experience has taught us that in the current available game mechanics defense is only possible when we have the facilities + numbers to man those facilities to do it, so we push onwards instead of preparing for an attack, essentially giving away a recent conquest plucky ghost cappers and boring the hell out of enemy numbers larger than that. The one place we all know we have allies with the current indicators that we can fight beside is, as you've probably guessed by now, a cut off larger facility that hasn't yet flipped, most commonly a Bio Lab or The Crown / The Ascent - it seems to be common nomenclature to end up calling these cert farms as well, as large forces that quite possibly resemble zergs on both sides try to break each other with pushes of various kinds down various lanes of approach seeking usually to break a SCU or Sunderer.

FRONTLINES: Where Are We Fighting?

I am going to try my hand at MSPaint now to try to help us visualize the information we should already have, we know the enemy knows where we are, they are looking at similar Enemy Activity map to us, so Planetside 2 is calling on our location and knows how many there are of us in that location, so displaying that information for the purpose of finding a fight where we don't feel too farmed at the very least - given the above information I can create an image for the rough frontline for the TR:



The thicker lines represent where the TR have placed most of their share of Indar population, we can see where TR looking for allies could follow the lay of the land to reinforce and any territory adjacent to their own that has TR soldiers in it is an attack out from the frontlines into the frontlines of another faction. If given this information, the TR could realize quite quickly they are weak along the eastern front and very strong on the northern front, perhaps a TR looking for a more challenging fight would go to the eastern front or perhaps they would instead bolster their main forces at the risk of being back capped but they would rest assured they would have an ally by their side for good or ill.

But this example is based on vague information, what if a Frontline graphic was far more detailed in providing information about our allies beyond our immediate hexes? What if each of our faction's soldiers received a clear indication while on foot or in a vehicle of a path to where help fighting the enemy could be given and received beyond the haphazard friendly triangle above their heads? We already have some possible leadership cert tools but they are underwhelming, they simply don't get the point across "You will have a better fight here" because they aren't backed up by a soldier being there, thus ... the frontline would be defined by the population of a grid itself in relation to the last owned territory that one can spawn from, each soldier deciding where they are needed based on that metric if not being guided by Squad Leadership.

Having good fights as any Outfit member will tell you is not about how many enemy there are necessarily but far more based on if your fellow soldier is there to support each other in fighting the enemy. One might argue this would encourage zerging, so be it, they would have to do so then with the knowledge they are leaving themselves wide open to having their flanks rolled up and the enemy being victorious because they ignored where their lines were weak and gave the enemy a boring battle and easier certs while their resources were cut off from their warpgate.

ENTRENCHMENT: Giving The Enemy A Fight For Your Frontlines (Even If You Aren't A Zerg)

But now your faction knows where their lines are, they know they are concentrating too many or not enough forces to one of its many fronts, what are your soldiers and lone wolfs going to do about it? You need a Forward Operating Base. Currently, most people may think the mobile SCU, a AMS Sunderer, fulfills this role but really, its any place where you and one other soldier of your faction decide to draw a line in the scorched earth and declare "This is my piece of cover, I won't let them past me till I die (again)". Its you, even though you are attacking, deciding to defend yourself as well. But you know it can't last, once they know you are there, its only a matter of time till it gets flanked, your cover blown, and its back to respawn. But what if you could do more than just draw an imaginary line in the sand?

I propose those classes which the Devs can give the option of placing this in one of their slots, especially the Engineer, allow the placement of a upgradeable, modifiable nanite built Bunker. Have it be faction unique, have it be customizable. And give the power to the players to decide what is defensible by using their resources and ingenuity. We already place turrets, mines, C4, ammo, etc lets take it the step further to allow allies and enemy alike to personalize the terrain and then poor defenses will be the player's fault, not the fault of a level designer. Let us patch the holes, seize the high ground, surprise the enemy with crafty use of the terrain.

CONCLUSION: Desired Results Of Knowing Your Frontline And Entrenchment

My sincere hope is that this combination would be able to be implemented almost wholly with resources the Devs already have, provide them with yet another possible revenue stream, and result in epic battles where enemies and allies alike do not shrink from a fight but rather find creative ways to entertain each other with our battle ingenuity while allowing us the full breadth of battlefield at our disposal - essentially allowing small forces to feel they make a difference even against much larger forces. I firmly believe that Planetside 2's success lies not in following the and making the zerg the only tactical option but giving smaller bands of friends the chance to decide how they want to help their faction fighting its enemies opening up the tactical possibilities by allowing small forces to dig in against larger forces where they have decided they will not be over- or under-whelmed. To a degree they realized this when they improved the defenses of various facilities, especially the spawn rooms of smaller outposts, they just need to take it further in enabling a soldier to feel epic in the flow of battle because they held, advanced, or broke the line by their skill, ingenuity, and support of their fellow soldier.

Thank you for reading this presentation.

Any thoughts or questions regarding this?

I like the general idea of providing more information (w/out having to use numerous views/configurations) and incentives as opposed to limiting the probable flow of traffic.

yeah I'd like to see this before they do the drastic lane change thing.

Though I like the changes, it doesn't seem like it would really fix any bigger problems, it just seems like a neat addition.

I am certain this combination of would address the bigger problems without forcing us down micro lanes because let's face it, the root of the problems are how players currently seek out a conflict with the enemy in the current mechanics with the information available to them. We are chasing each other's tails most of the time due to two things:

1) We know we can't sustain a good fight when we face insurmountable odds, so we reinforce fights that don't need it just to have a chance - this makes a front line zerg while simultaneously depleting the flanks.
2) We know from hard experience that with the current layout of defenses, it requires near equal or greater numbers of allies to the number of attacking forces to consistently prevent objectives from falling to the enemy.

How the fights are predictable and how it seems you have to zerg in this game is the result of intelligent gamers realizing what is optimal in the current mechanics given the stimuli they have to respond to. We know that in the meta-game, we need to more evenly spread our forces along the frontline to both hold and attack simultaneously, its why if you observed the movements of Outfits when they consist of multiple squads running operations, there will be multiple objectives that will be divided up among the squads, the number symbols (that are currently color broken) tell those who are looking where their immediate line is, how deep it is, the extent of its flanks even though it isn't represented all together as a geometric shape - by looking at the minimap, a individual player if shown how to read the situation with that stimuli can make a choice: reinforce where weak by protecting their squad's flank or bunch up and risk getting rolled.

This would be that but taken meta, if clear enough, would by the nature of all three sides operating on better information about themselves rather than just about how menacingly hot the enemy might be, human behavior in seeking its own faction's interests would result in more even fights overall or risky gambits whose flanks could be met at terrain's natural choke points and rolled up. No one likes committing too many forces to one area, we know this already, players find zergs boring and resent the 'sense' that they have to participate in them because by the very nature of being in a faceless mass of humanity, individual class feature contributions are devalued just simply by there being more supply than there is demand.

But better ally information in a clear, concise format that is readily available to individuals and small groups of a faction is not enough to convince friends to have some good team play, the entrenchment is key in having a more evenly distributed combined arms, mobile frontline have a sense that defending is fun because the more ingenuity, skillful application, and terrain awareness a player uses even if they are not in a massive group would reward them with epic moments, mini-'Remember The Alamo's all around the continent, where even if you lose you win because for one second, you know the attackers had to scratch their heads to come up with a just as ingenious plan of attack executed with skill and coordination because individuals on the other side surprised and amazed them, challenged them. As it currently stands, static defenses and uncontested terrain is predictable, the challenge one with a clear optimal path - this would change that up and in turn would shake up any frontline in its goal to conquer the continent.

The power of this game to be entertaining was always with the people playing it, we are a free to play game's greatest resource, and Frontline Display + Placeable Entrenchement would facilitate us putting on some epic gaming moments on a far more consistent basis. Mini-hex lanes would gaurantee us a zerg fight, I think we could do way better and go for a epic fight with this combo.

I like the ideas that you mention. I think they'd go a long way in changing the game for the better. Sadly, I think they've already put a lot of work into the lanes idea. I guess we'll have to gauge how the new system changes the game and go from there.

I am hoping they realize that making zergs "the thing" will hurt their bottom line and our enjoyment more than it will help it. I am certain that it was that in part how prominent the zerg has been since launch is a pretty significant factor among a host of other performance issues is why among my group of gamers the game has given a poor first impression and they need to steer away from "having significantly more units than the other guy" as such a determining factor of the perception of gamers as having influenced their enjoyment of the game. Its something that I think FPS and RTS gamers alike have enjoyed seeing left behind since PC gaming in the 1990s.

Did I hear them correctly on FNO? Are the Devs seriously considering going ahead with this Micro-Hex Zerg Lane approach? Look, I get it, they think they got something that will appease the PS1 veterans while sticking to their desire for huge fights because 1) It looks cool and 2) they see that as a selling point of their product to the gaming masses - but can't they see that large fights need to develop from smaller fights? Do you seriously think being artificially forced down lanes is going to be anything like the Lattice system from PS1? You're going to be just more meat for the grinder, a mob, a zerg, a tank rush, a number on a spread sheet.

Some great points, this thread could use some more attention!

****** duh! way to nail it on the head Wolvie.

Thanks r3su and WFH4

Long but may spike your creative juices and imagination for PS2.

The system of NTU needs to come into effect, like it was used in PS1 or something similar that actually has meaningful supply line.. Three needs to be logistics in this game, to start fights. Right now there is no logistics so its a giant mess.

Examples of how battles start in PS1, using the system of NTU

-A Enemy ANT (NTU cargo vehicle) could be camped at WG for any base needing a resupply of energy, therefore hindering a battle to be indefinite, changing the strategy of the armies, forcing them to rethink and more to another strategy, being challenged.
-A base could be drained at any point to be able to secure it in hostile territory. Creating a smalll battle then turning it into a larger one.
-PS1 we would mine a facility NTU to Stop enemy from refilling base.
-PS1 we would have friendlies patrol a area to make sure a galaxy would not drop a ANT near the base NTU Supple.
-PS1 we could drain enemy bases NTU to use at our owned facilities

In PS2 battles are started, in relation to supple/resources
-For resources to buy stuff or be able to purchase a tank/Gunship from anywhere.

Logistics and a sense of supply needs to be added to PS2, to be critical to the larger war going on, as of right now it isn't. Having the information to which to understand the enemies attack is needed too, but without a sense of logistic/supply in the game enemy movements it would be a zerg or going form one fight to the next.

I agree with everything else in the OP thought.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...acency-graph-for-indar-and-a-bit-more.103900/

After careful review, I am still not seeing how this won't limit our options such that defenders have little fun if they wait around to get rolled by zerg* coming down a lane while bottle necking attackers such that they must become a zerg* by the nature of the layout. While everyone seems to think this is Our Holy Saviour, Lattice Come Again - I am just not seeing the versatility of that connectivity in this artificially restrictive lane / corridor approach.

*Zerg - a disorganized group of players that prevail by being able to suffer more attrition than the other group. Can be attackers or defenders but more often than not under current mechanics is an attacker due to a lack of defenders in the first place.

I agree