infantry game play is essentially king of the hill. what if like in cs go we had a choice of which point to flip and hold? I suggest infiltrators are now required to flip a point via hacking a base control terminal. no new models would need to be integrated just use the awkward pole you are already using. bases by attackers hack out a point similar to bomb placement in csgo. if the "bomb" goes off the point stays flipped until defenders can place their own " bomb". multiple routes from both attackers and defenders adding in misc high ground would make this map fun. successful capture of all "bomb sites" would disable shields of the main spawn which would allow attackers to destroy the scu. destruction of scu signals the base flips. lattice: smaller bases closer to warpgate with choke points for attackers. larger 48 + bases with minimal choke points but elevation advantages and tons of turrets closer to the middle of maps. This is where players can farm using HE can meet both factions and auraxium their turrets. HIVE value is now dictated by the risk. the more players in adjacent hexes the more the hive is worth.
bump because this system was in ps1 and people actually liked it for infantry play. Compare that to the nonsense grenade capture points in the kwatee lane and subterranean wtf were they thinking did they analayze this? my system also discourages ghost capping and stops players from hiding in spawn. they only have a certain amount of time to stop the bomb. overpop would be handled by force multipliers e.g as mentioned choke points for attackers coupled with AI turrets/ av turrets. AA turrets need only be near the larger bases. Pilots are easily taken down when away from friendly warpgates. Bio labs need to be closest to warp gate. You keep medical logistics in the back. Extra bio labs can be positioned similar to eisa. this lets new players heal quickly and reduces the impact of medkits/resto kits. Bio lab effects stay for defenders. Tech plants need be a little far out. You don't produce your most valuable weapons near the enemy. Amp stations can be near the center. They are defensible and with my other suggestion of allowing amp stations repair all turrets faction wide they would be worth taking.( same rate as hossin continent bonus but turrets only, including unoccupied damaged/destroyed.) They are good hotspots because they allow new players to participate vs vehicles and once players are inside the amp it is still an infantry fight.( again assuming the amp station repairs turrets)
So only Infils can flip points? And they do it by doing a Hack with a DoT effect, that when it finishes it flips? Can only Infils stop the DoT effect?
Well now that I have your attention. Yes ordinarily when a base was hacked in in any other game with a similar mechanic it was only the bomb carrier that could flip it. Honestly protect the bomb carrier is good. It puts emphasis on variety and team play. Standing on a flipped point would still grant experience. The energy bridge bases on amerish are frustrating to attack but they create longevity of a fight which is a good thing because it means more time the players are immersed rather then waiting to travel to the next base via vehicle or spawn hop. Further while I'm commenting on the current lattice system. Alerts have become non important. I suggest that continent bonuses are only available during alerts. What this will do is make the other two factions attack the more powerful faction who has obtained the bonus rather then avoiding the zerg and attacking the weakest link. with both factions attacking at some point the most powerful will have to distribute forces or lose objectives.
Under this system there would be no more spawn camping. Shields would get lowered and scu would become disabled. defenders wouldn't be able to spawn and thus no camping. Defenders actually have to push and can't just stay for 2 minutes to fluff their kd/ SPM. This assumes proper bomb/virus placement.
This seems to create a gameplay bottleneck though 1 unit. In general, those have been negative for PS2, and for other games in general. I am fine with the energy bridges on Amerish. Why would this motivate players to attack the most powerful faction? I think many people misunderstand how zergs behave. I also think they underappreciate how important zergs are to the success of the game for most players. I can appreciate that many people don't like zergs. But consistently they underappreciate how much other people do need/use zergs, relative to the choices those other people have in the game.
Yes, in a way I'm trying to design a focal point for fighting, bases actually favor defenders. Which makes this ok. If implementation is done the way I have in mind it also lets attackers peel away at the defense of the base. A full bottleneck like andvari snowshear saerro subterranean kwatee mountain is not fun. system is something like this 4 points and to cap the base and shutdown spawn shields you need to get into the base's mainframe by hacking 3/4 of any combination. Defenders using their base advantages need to stave off the advance even if underpopulated to stop the swap aka bomb. zergs are fine when challenged with matching numbers. They are a mainstay of the game. Zergs need to be near the center of the map and players with a focal point on 1v1 or low fps can be on the faction against faction maps.(outskirts of the map) Still adding bomb placement to a point would increase longevity of the fight. Right now its stand on point with no interaction. Alerts giving bonuses allows the strongest faction incentive to push hard using the bonuses. Bonuses are generally given to server overpopulation. Normally what this does is make the two weaker factions attack each other in effort for fair competition. However with my map design the players would know that defending overpop is a good thing. They would have advantage since the bases closer to the warp gates are riddled with deathtraps for attackers meaning great exp and cert gain. In addition to quick directive advancement. Bases near the middle of map are large have the least chokes to accommodate large fights ( plus roleplay, if the area is fought over alot it would be decimated frequently) Armor and air can meet here where construction is the main way to achieve cover and player made bases actually interact with each other. cortium 35k spawns are near the center.
I think PS2 might be better when it avoids focal points. (bottlenecks) It often depends on the battle populations (how big the fight is), units, if the Attacker or Defender can setup, etc. That just seems so Infiltrator bottlenecked. Like it's arbitrarily making Infil a bottleneck. Zergs, by their nature, will extend to cover adjacent regions on their path on the Lattice. With patterns either toward enemy Warpgates or to go lateral to fill out gaps in the faction front line. Zergs typically will not struggle to get Infils on cap points. Zergs tend to have tons of different unit types, and often attract many Infils. This is because players use overkill to achieve formal objectives. The game does not either (adequately) reward or promote balanced fights in most cases. Players focus on Caps, K/D, progress, etc. All of which are most effectively addressed with overkill. This is a consistent problem faced by many games. It's why I stopped playing Total War Warhammer's Campaign. the most effective strategies to achieve the game's formal goals, push players into setting up and engaging in lopsided battles that don't make for interesting battles. Are you talking about keeping fights alive duration-wise? Or are you talking about making Caping involve more steps so that the process of Capping is more interactive: more time to execute, with the actual sitting and waiting reduced? Are you saying it's about the attacker completing a puzzle to Cap. And the defender disrupting that puzzle? Does it really need an Infil bottleneck for that puzzle? What kind of deathtraps? How would their Directive advance faster? I agree that giving bonuses to Overpop is bad for "interesting" fights. But PS2 has long struggled with how to give Victors rewards without unbalancing fights. PS2 has also typically failed to give players a reason not to attack he weakest (or most vulnerable) enemies. I would prefer PMB to be rewarded for being placed nearer the center and more toward the frontlines. Where they are available for easier access, easier attention, and more challenging interaction by the enemy. And where they can draw easier access, easier attention, and more support from allies. With subtypes of bases for: 1) in ally territory: placement within the ally safer areas (support bases for air units, bases designed to attract enemy strike teams to knock out/hack/steal some finesse objective, etc.) 2) in enemy territory: placement within the enemy area as either (1) advance support of units frontline ally moving into the area (placed close to frontlines), or (2) isolated base which can be made fun for coordinated groups to try to take/defend.
