Facility + 3 satellites into one big hex

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Ikissyourface, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. Ikissyourface

    Major facilities and its 3 satellite bases that shares its name to be encompassed into one big hex.

    Here is an example of what it would look like
    [IMG]

    Attackers can surround Sungrey AMP and capture all 3 satellites to gain multiple points of assault and vehicle terminals to pull AMS from.

    Attackers can surround Ikanam Biolab and capture all 3 satellites to gain all 3 teleporters that provide multiple points of assault from inside the biolab.

    Attackers cannot gain control of the entire big hex unless the main facility in the middle is captured.

    On Reddit : http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/285g5a/facility_3_satellites_into_one_big_hex/
  2. Necron

    That's how is used to be. Pre-lattice.
  3. Ikissyourface

    Yes, but it is different this time because we now have the lattice it will play differently.
  4. Pikachu

    Was it the case back then that taking the main base also changed owner of the satellites?
  5. Phyr

  6. FateJH

    No, it didn't work like that.
    It sounds like an idea that's somewhere between "rather unsatisfying in practice" to "trivial impact."
  7. Ken Photon

    It seems that all this would do is thin out the fight over a larger area, which is really not something this game needs right now.
  8. PieBringer

    It used to be like this, and the outer "bases" were just mini-points, acting as forward spawns as long as they remained in your control. It was terrible for the flow of combat, and it was changed to the current system for a very good reason.
  9. Llamar

    I preferred this more than separate bases, by far. This gave you something else to do other than shoving your dick into the meat grinder that is a biolab, amp station, tech plant.
    • Up x 1
  10. Ikissyourface

    You can still do the traditional (current) way of doing it by capturing 1 satellite and then capturing the main facility, it still can be done with the big hex if you prefer it that way.
  11. DFDelta

    Should have been that way ages ago, before a lot of people I knew left because fighting in bases here feels like trying to cram 100 people into a (badly designed) 12 player Unreal Tournament 1999 map.
    Doing it now with our relatively low player numbers might be a bad idea. I even have a .txt about this on my computer that I've refrained from posting because I think it would be a bad idea (now).


    To outline whats in there with a lot less words:
    - Return satellites to facilities
    - Give satellites actual control nodes instead of the old satellite points
    - Weight them differently, so that having all outer nodes starts a 20 minute cap timer (victory by siege, so to speak)*
    - Owning all satellites + facility nodes should end the battle in 3 minutes*
    - Put new generators in satellites that, when all of them are destroyed, open new paths for attackers (e.g. bind the TechPlant "back"-shield to them)


    *Biolabs are the exception to those 2 rules, as those are multi-control-node bases already. Instead make them equal to the Biolab nodes and upgrade every Biolab itself to a 4 node base itself.
    Also link the SCU shield to the new generators in the satellites and remove the SCU generator inside to prevent defenders from camping inside forever.
  12. Ikissyourface

    Might be a little too complicated. All I'm asking is the big hex and place the lattice on the main facility.
  13. Ikissyourface

    *mod request* transfer this to ideas & suggestions thread, thanks
  14. Scr1nRusher


    why? and also what gives you the power to summon the mods?
  15. Elrobochanco

    Interesting. I mean it was bad before since with hex you could just bypass the facility. But they could combine the whole clump, and then make each outer base behave the way the new amp stations do, cap a point at an outpost, get a spawn/vehicles there.

    On the upside attackers could hop between outposts more easily than they can now without having two lanes leading to the facility. On the downside defenders could more easily stamp them out if all it took was a single point flip to lose an outpost spawn (again like it was previously).

    Either way I doubt they are going to do much radical redos like this anytime soon, way too much work still needs completing on hossin, and then possibly the interlink, and whatever changes will be needed for cont locking, and then intercontinental lattice.
  16. Ikissyourface

    You cannot possibly consider this as a "radical redo" this doesn't even barely change the system its more of a tweak rather than a complete redo. The system is already there all that needs to be done is the big hex and its lattice, I bet if they start working on it now they could do this in one week and I am sure of it.
  17. Stanis

    This is similar to the pre-lattice model.

    The problem with this is : the satellites become meaningless.
    They are either a game of whack-a-mole. As the attackers can ignore any single point and ghost hack through them.
    OR. attacking population exceeds the attackers. they are forced to respond to the highest priority target - the main base/biolab itself - and being unable to practically divert any forces for defence the attacking force takes them unimpeded.

    Worse - these then provide a hard-spawn. No logisitc effort of resource invested in sunderer, driving over distance, protecting spawn.


    For the same reasons I dislike the 'new' amp station layouts. Capturing a point gives you a hard spawn inside the actual base.


    I think we can do many things better. Whack-a-mole multi-objectives is not the answer.
    Clear lines of battle and progression through an established defence is a better option than 'any one of these 3'
  18. Ikissyourface

    I highly disagree, specially in biolabs where gaining a satellite means having access to not only a jumppad towards the outside of the biolab but also grants you access to a teleporter towards the inside the biolab. Capturing multiple satellites isn't meaningless but means much more and even better having all three will greatly improve your chance of success.

    I'm confused could you clarify which point exactly are you talking about? attackers can ignore which point?

    This is highly subjective and depends from person to person. I personally prefer multiple ways to assault a base rather than just the one predefined highly predictable way. It doesn't mean you are wrong or I am wrong, it just means we have a difference in opinion and preference.
  19. Stanis

    Having multiple satellites should be as a product of progress made in other lanes of the lattice. The game suffers due to three way deathmatch and lack of any real intercontinental conflict or war.
    Teleporters and jump pads are essential to biolabs because of the way devs designed them. Which is a shame.

    Would you WANT a device that put troops 300m behind your defensive lines to exist?
    There is little to no way to STOP a force in the satellite appearing in the biolab.

    This is similar to all the problems with steel rain. And the reinforcements issue.
    Large forces can appear and/or instantly teleport into a fight with no means of interdiction or interception.



    Capture points.
    The problem with this model and hexes when PS2 launched is that any adjacency provided the attackers multiple routes.
    It was not possible to lose the connection to the south - and then mount a defence to the south.
    If you lost the connection to the south you had to defend the entire hex !

    It became a case of an attacking force could rock up at any of the three satellites, flip it. And enjoy the benefits of a nearby hard spawn providing equipment and vehicle terminals - with both a jump pad and teleporter into the biolab.

    So a force invested and prepared to defend would have a galaxy fly over their heads or an infiltrator bail out of a reaver and flip the other satellite instead.

    So many features negate distance. You can not 'prep for incoming' and defend three satellites simultaneously with an equal population.
    The capture points of three satellites are widely dispersed over an area >500m.
    A small force on a jump-pad mades it progressively more difficult for a defending force to REACH the satellites. Flanks from another satellite involved a run of hundreds of metres.
    This is where the whack-a-mole is introduced. Every base has an element of this in the sense of multiple generators and capture points. You would run around trying to take out enemy sunderers. protect your own. prevent capture of a satellite .. but this was futile BECAUSE

    The biolab is more important than the satellite itself. Without the ability to project force outside the biolab the satellites get ghost hacked. fast. by even a minimal population advantage.

    This is true. However I am firmly of the opinion that a defensive force should need to be eliminated first. Not stretched across a wide area or required to save multiple objectives - each of which deals a critical blow to mounting a succesful defence.

    I am for multiple tactical routes. But base design is generally a bit ****. With poor terrain.
    The new amp stations frustrate me. Sometimes - they can be a fun fight. In the classical FPS K/D shooter style.

    More often than not they annoy me. A very small enemy force captures a point. They have a hard spawn. Zerg appears inside our own walls.

    The base is not geared up to defend the exterior. With the enemy now rushing around inside the walls you can forget whatever minimal help the walls provided. Every flank you can achieve or secure so can they - in the DEFENDERS base.



    ---

    This would play out differently with lattice. The problem remains though that in general the game favours the brave. offense is the best defence. more objectives whether capture point, generator or simply a teleporter room allows exponentially more options to the attacking force to pulse their attack and hit targets of value.

    The more area this objectives are spread over the harder it is for a ground based infantry force to reach and defend them.

    if this objectives provide bonuses to the attacking forces as well (vehicle terminals, shields, teleporters, jump pads, SPAWN) its just stupidly harder.


    --

    There is a difference between war sim, tactical shooter, fps strategy and an FPS shooter.
    In isolation I think the OP suggestion would make for a fun FPS shooter with equal teams on a limited map.

    However PS2 is supposed to be an FPS strategy (that'd be intercontinental lattice which we havent got yet) so we're stuck at tactical shooter. The deathmatch mode we are stuck in (3 way on every continent) makes the lattice and continental strategy largely irrelevant.
  20. Ikissyourface

    I am still confused, how is this related to attackers ignoring capture points? which part are they ignoring and how is it possible to ignore such points? attackers cannot capture the base if they ignore the capture points. Still need clarification.

    I'm sorry but this is entirely false. The redeploy system exists, defenders can simply redeploy to the satellites without having to deal with the small force on the jumppad or run hundreds of meters to get from one satellite to the next. If they see the satellite being captured they can simply redeploy, is this not the case?

    Sounds exactly like the kind of fun I'm looking for, lots of fighting in a wide area that would require combined-arms and give armor something to do in biolab captures. Again this is highly subjective and depends from person to person, some people like the chaotic unpredictable fights and some love static step-by-step approach. Personally I lean more towards the epic massive fighting in a wide area, I think that is what separates this game from the other shooters.

    Ghost hacking the satellites can be negated by the redeploy system. Just as how you don't like it when attackers can flank you by using means that negate distance, defenders can do so as well. Although I can somewhat see your point, when attackers have pop advantage they may have an advantage in capturing the entire hex, but I do not see it as a bad thing. Having a pop advantage normally ends up in a win in this game in any scenario.

    You also have to consider that when the main facility switches sides the roles are reversed, the battle goes on and the previous defenders of the facility are now the attackers and the same rules apply, it really does not favor anyone in the long run.