Is this game really 'Massive scale?'

I just wish we had more inter-facility holdouts. I saw that happen some times in old-amerish, where huge forces would fight between bases and not necessarily inside bases.

I like tech plant battles because those usually happen around it, and not necessarily inside the tech plant itself. Until its inside and everything gets boring.

That and more objectives in between bases. On strategic locations. So you don't just take hundreds of players, ball them up and hurl towards the next base (where the objectives are). Bridges are example of strategic bottlenecks through which entire empire has to funnel through. I too would like more of them.

Make vehicles spawn ONLY at the warpgate.

Then you'll have epic scale fighting all over the map.

And no spawning at a facility that has been cut off its warpgate.

Oh and lattice nodes that you could actually sabotage. I'd love this.

That would be pretty extreme. But I hell, I would pay to see it.

That along with objectives between bases, like some buildings and perhaps some artillery turrets in towers with AA/AP/AT weaponry as well as a new kind of heavy artillery turret that would help defend or attack some place, kind of like "checkpoints" between bases.

Yes, it's massive scale, in the sense that it's scale is massive compared to any other FPS game on the market.

They do not exist. As soon as there are ~50 players in one territory, render range gets reduced. Yesterday we had ~150 people in a biolab during a alert. Render range was like 5m. Whats the point of having battles with hundreds of players when the majority of them is not rendered? Not rendered means they do not exist on your client, so you dont see more players than on a 36 man server in a other FPS for example.

I'm not really understanding the illustrations that the OP is using. To me, you can't get rid of the rest of the map by whiting it out cause it's really still there. Is the OP yanking on the 'lattice is bad' string?

And lol *****

Many have said it and it is still true now. There are FAR FAR TOO MANY BASES in this game. This game is nothing more than a series of progressive spawn camps. All progress and fighting is ultimately in defense of or to try to contain an army into a spawn room.

If they removed 2/3 of of the bases in this game and made same real terrain this game would be 100x better.

I don't think they really need to remove the bases per se, but they do need to remove a lot of the spawn points and terminals.

You really don't need a spawn point for every single cap point.

This is pretty much more of a complaint against the strategic metagame than the population, which is what would make it "massive". I don't disagree with you, but your titles and such kind of point to you arguing that you want better apples because the oranges are bland and served with little variation, but it's more that you want the oranges to be better prepared. Even if PS2 had enough players per server to give you 5k troops a side for things like 500v500 battles, your complaint would still hold true. Just there'd be different numbers of folks at each base and a change in tactics to take said bases.

The "lattice" in whatever final form it takes just has to be softer and more variable, allowing for strategic decisions to require more depth. It seems like they're heading for at least a better way of doing it per the roadmap, but who knows when that will be. Til then, it's a combined arms shooter with a vague metagame and a predictably shifting set of available maps on which to play. We just horribly need a lattice rework/destruction, the resource revamp, bases changed to be more centered on the main facilities (I really like the suggestion of lattice for the big bases, hex for the smallers to make fights more area based than base based), spawn system changes (IMO spawns should be warpgate only with transportation options to owned, uncontested, and linked territories), and more people.

And once the strategic game is made more interesting, I imagine more people will play. I love the fights to an extent. I get the illusion of war, but the lack of strategy makes the tactical balance "problems" in the game more glaring.

It would be interesting to see them remove spawns at single point bases, while turning the base into a small fortress. "Flow" would completely change, and add a smidgen of meta.

Considering how prevalent Libs, battle gals, and esf's are now I don't think this is really possible.

At least tanks still need proper positioning and can be kept relatively in check by sneaky LA's and Rocket launchers.

But the lack of decent infantry held AA pretty much rules this out for me. I know, Bursters (require heavy infantry resource investment), lock-on's (need to purchase the damn things and even then when aiming you're a sitting duck), and skyguards (which nobody ever pulls and when they do get focussed into the ground). None of which will probably net you a kill with the exception aside from the occasional esf.

Maybe if they added an engi AA mana turret and the Lib nerfs go through it could happen.

If what you propose did become more common it would merely be a turkey shoot and over in a couple of minutes anyways, at least on our server.

As long as you can spawn anywhere and summon veicles anywhere and have to wait for a base to cap it will never be truely massive. Too mwny things disrupt the flow of a battle.

We lack those.

What I'm proposing is something along these lines:





These could support tanks with ammo towers and alternate infantry spawn points that would side with the faction present within the tower with a connected lattice around the lattice the tower is present. Once the faction left, the tower would turn "neutral" after a set period of time.

Each tower could have 4 AA turrets on top (4th floor), 2 AP turret on 3rd floor facing two sides (the more relevant for the area), and a total of 4 AT turrets facing one side each. The towers would be very vertical and provide enough protection to infantrymen inside repairing the turrets, so they wouldn't be easy preys in large fights.

Losing all nearby lattice connections surrounding to the tower hex would make it turn neutral instantly (no, infiltrators wouldn't be able to hack neutral turrets).

I do agree this amount of AA would severely affect air units around the map. These could be replaced by sky-shields (the domes you see at TPS) instead. So each tower would offer a sky-dome for the area around it (much larger than the tower itself) protecting tanks around it.

The difference between massive and big is the length of the front. Massive also implies (to me) that the area in which you can maneuver your zerg platoon/squad. Battlefield (to me) is a big battle style of play. Lots of people, but forced into a tiny area of combat with no real room to move around. Planetside 2 is the massive battle style of play simply because of how much freedom the combat has. I have never really felt too constrained for maneuvering forces around on a battle to battle basis.

That being said, I like the current model for battles. It is, quite simply, fun.

Not a PSA.

Not Reading.

So you read it to conclude its not a PSA? Or did you deduct it by the title and go ahead and reply anyways?

I skim PSA's first


Red title, read first words of paragraphs, read last sentence. Guesstimated that it was an opinion. Also too many question marks scattered around for a PSA. At least there was no "I beleive, I think, I x, SOE should, x should" that come up as instant red flags. Pictures almost made it pass at first.