[Suggestion] To: The Developers (IF you one day Planetside 2 Comes About)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Destroyer0370, Nov 19, 2019.

  1. Destroyer0370

    1. Make it 4 factions or something like that, because a faction can get double teamed even through important events such as continent capture alert. Still, saying that...the asymmetrical fighting, with 3 faction, can give more of a challenge at times amongst other things at times. Back to the option I am leading towards...having 4 factions, an even opposition situation, will probably help out with balance of forces spread across the continents.

    - Maybe the new faction could be further break aways from all 3 factions, that want peace and find a way home. They intend to fight first to dominate the others, so they can put together all their resources including their best minds, to get back home to planet Earth....OR just make them a faction that filled with all the crazy people that got rejected by each faction and want to murder everyone else :p

    2. Make territory matter, such as factories can be built to reduce cost of Maxes the more you have , etc.

    3. In conjunction with the above... Also, make control points that are built influence an area to allow Spawn point jamming of in spherical manner. Therefore, sunders with other deployable spawn systems will have to deploy outside that zone.

    4. Get rid of the Lattice system, it cause more swarming. You created the problem with the Lattice system, then try to fix it otherwise with spawn timer, whatever else you tried to do...rethink how to go about making the capturing of land, opposition facilities, more nicely.

    Edit:
    Sorry guys. It's late, was not paying much attention typing.. Title should have said " If one day Planetside 3 Comes about"
  2. AllRoundGoodGuy

    1: so getting triple teamed is better then double team?
    2: this was tried before, made defending incredibly difficult, if anything, it should be the other way around, the less territory you have, the cheaper maxes/vehicles/grenades become.
    3: no comment
    4: once again, tried before, the old hex system encouraged ghost capping. I'm not sold as to what option is the best. I've heard many different ones, just haven't made up my mind yet.
  3. Demigan

    1: I would go a step further. Split each faction in 2 groups (or more if pops are high!). It means that when 2 are double-teaming one group, the third group needs to fight through the other two to reach them. Since there are 6 groups to fight it is harder to achieve a high population and zerg the continent.
    Additionally rather than being put in a queue you can add another splinter faction, meaning that the TR for example could hold 60% of the total continent population but be split in so many splinter factions that the NC and VS are still able to find fair fights.

    2: territory matter directly is a bad idea. We had that in the early days when territory generated the resources for vehicles, aircraft and consumables. It allowed the team that got more territory to get territory faster and faster while becomming harder and harder to fight against. A warpgated faction could barely pull any vehicles or other force multipliers like something as simple as a Sunderer to spawn from and keep it safe long enough to deploy it.
    Territory should give its own local reason to be captured:
    Why did you take base A? Because it provides turrets and positions that make it hard to cross the local area if you dont, and provides a small safe vehicle spawn to flank enemies attacking the next base.
    Why did you attack base B? Because it offers the enemy or your team an artillery piece you can use by paying resources to strike the local bases and terrain (Sunderer Garages and deployable shields also more useful).
    Why did you attack base C? It provided a large shielded area where you can easily amass vehicles or aircraft unseen. It also holds an area where certain vehicles spawn for free for anyone to take.
    Why did you attack base D? Because its a supply base that allows you to quickspawn there with cheaper vehicles if its not under attack. Also if taken it stops base C from spawning free vehicles (or if you have base C it starts spawning them).

    Every time its the base you want and what it does for you NOW. Once you fight on a few bases over those bases dont provide an advantage for the faction and dont allow steamrolling. Once the enemy manages to fight back again those bases become relevant again.

    3: I would rather turn it around. Players can use a micro-PMB system to create exclusion zones but also semi-permanent spawnpoints (like faction-wide oversized spawnbeacons that work under Sunderer laws). This creates points of interests through the players themselves, secondary objectives to hunt down and destroy or secondary objects to create and maintain for their benefits.

    4: the lattice system isnt great, but far superior to the Hex system. I would allow the lattice system to be modifiable by the players for that strategy element. Lets say that a large share of the bases dont get a lattice connection at all. The warpgate lattice passes over the first base and connects to the one after. The next link passes over another one etc. Through PMB's and special generators (say a vehicle stationary at the right spot, or resource-bought generator) you can create lattice links to the remaining bases. An enemy wont be able to take the base inbetween and will have to deal with flanks from that base unless they create their own lattice link first. It could create the strategy and variability you need without going for the horrors of the Hex system.