2015 Update

Discussion in 'Official News and Announcements' started by PS2_Luke, Aug 19, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DeadlyPeanutt

    interesting idea. I suggest you test the concept with a bunch of real platoons in a test server. An engie main in a real battle situation can give you good feedback on the durability and usefulness of the ANT built structure. A defensible spawn point that is more durable than a sundie would be very nice. thanks!!
    • Up x 1
  2. SLK18

    JUST DO IT!!!
    • Up x 1
  3. Merchteen

    I'd love for the galaxy to get the ability to pick up allied vehicles along with this update

    It could be something as simple as:
    -Hit use-key with the "vehicle transport module" in the utility slot of your galaxy
    -It creates a notification prompt to allied vehicles within 15m of your belly
    -if they select No, the ability goes on a short cooldown (you can ignore the notification just like you can ignore any notification)
    -if they select Yes, they are teleported to your belly via magnetic nanite magic. doesn't need to be anything fancy, we're used to that by now
    -at any time the carried vehicle or the galaxy can hit their exit vehicle key or use key to release the carried vehicle, which will not take fall damage for that drop
  4. ElimirRo

    Maybe the ability to temporarily create a direct lattice connection between any two adjacent regions on the map. That would sure mix up the alerts too.
    • Up x 1
  5. Sandpants

    Welcome to the Planetside 2, where the mere thought of "griefing" is just plastered across anything asymmetric.
    This is why no strategy ever will make it to this game and PS2 will continue being a glorified TDM shooter that had a lobby screen ripped out.

    Defend what you own or don't own it. But collaborating with players to help you is obviously too hard, innit...
    • Up x 2
  6. TataLebuj

    While that video did show the specific mechanics of using an ant, what it failed to demonstrate was how AWESOME the concept became when the base that needed power was fully invested by an enemy force. You are in your base and keeping the enemy out of it, every tank/plane you pull and every corner turret that gets destroyed and repaired (automatically) takes away from the bases energy bank. Eventually your base will flip from your ownership to neutral, unless you get the base some power. That's where the strategy would come in. The enemy will start watching the Warpgates to see if there are any Ants inbound. And your team has to come up with a way to get the Ant in there, deployed for more than a few seconds - because refilling took at least 3 minutes if I remember correctly - and hope the enemy can't send in a death squad to blow it up. When it worked it was a HUGE morale boost for either side (destroying the ant before it could raise power levels or saving the base to continue the fight).
  7. TataLebuj

    Not sure which server you played on, but on Werner we used the Ant mechanism as a way of getting new continents unlocked/opened. Remember that if a base was fully repaired and the NTU was topped up, then the base would never lose any energy. So if you did see a base running low on power it meant one of two things - your own team had been lazy when the zerg pushed through and did not fix anything and top up the silo _OR_ (and the reason there were a **** ton of Rapid Reaction Force type outfits around who would fix/exploit this) someone was purposefully dropping the energy to get the base to flip and put on the hack. The first part sucked and was boring but did net a player some fine experience points. Players who only wanted to kill never worried about the base power level anyway. So if you were one of the players who got pissed off because you had to jump into an ANT occasionally and do a completely boring Ant run with zero enemies - well, I salute you. Players like that made the game better, in my opinion, because we took it from a COD/BF style FPS and made it a strategy game as well. And that's what's missing from PS2.
  8. MrJengles

    Reposting my comment on Reddit:

    The resource revamp meant reducing the amount of vehicles available to zergs/large forces and allowed vehicles to function as "force multipliers" to even out fights. This would be a huge benefit to game play as uneven battles are one of the fastest ways to deteriorate the experience and one of the most complained about (reviews and comments) part of the design.

    Compared to building stationary turrets that most people don't really find fun. Yeah, I'm extremely disappointed. It sounds entirely gimmicky. "You can build turrets now?", "Did you fix any of the core game play issues?", "nope".

    I don't understand that decision one bit. It also sets us down another path of starting a completely new "phase 1" feature with new buildings and turrets which may or may not be next on your list.

    I'd like to see DB go into more detail about why this is the new direction, for transparency. The players haven't weighed up the options so telling us more about how the construction system will function before explaining why we're not doing the alternatives, and why we should care about this new goal is missing out a major step.

    Although details are important too since other systems have had more public write ups than base building.
    • Up x 4
  9. TataLebuj

    Finished reading the entire thread - Here's my take:

    1.) Planetside 2 is a sequel. Those of you who continue to want this to be a "new" game, which seems to include the Dev team, should change the name to something else. You came to us while we were still playing PS1, though unpatched for many years, and gave us HOPE by telling us there would be a PS2. You sold us on the idea and concept that we would get an updated version of PS1. You "changed" your minds.

    2.) Many players from PS1 do not play this game. Because it lacks any of the core strategies required to play PS1. This game is a TF2, BF3/4, COD clone and most players (I assume) are happy with that. Those of us who are not have suffered and waited to see if anything will change. From the post of the Dev and the majority of the players posting here, I don't think it ever will.

    3.) You (the Devs)claim to have scrapped the previous roadmap back in Feb. Great, so why should I believe you now that you are giving me a new "roadmap" ? How do I know you'll stick with this one? I don't and it doesn't really matter either.

    Good luck people, and I guess I'll never understand why an upgraded version of PS1 isn't the best possible solution/fun. There was so much to that game, yet no one seems to like it. Doesn't COD/BF give you a better run and gun experience? So why are you here? If it's about the size, well what good is size if it's not strategically used? Zerg-fest is fun?
    • Up x 5
  10. Sandpants

    Ok, now imagine putting this into PS2 after the game has had, what, 3-4 years uptime? With players so used to simply dropping in and out of the fight, how will this ever get enough momentum from randoms? So the side which will be winning, is again, going to the be the one with the largest population content of these PS1 purists, who will be essentially the driving force behind every assault or fight and who will determine the outcome of the fight. Then the game will be advertised for how "epic and deep" it is. Except none of the casuals will ever experience it. All they will be part of is currently, and then, existing meat grinder.

    Also, you describe the methods of contesting and defending land assets. But there is still no established motivation to hold it and own it. You can add all kinds of mechanisms that will be the medium for strategies. But it will all mean jack-s*** when there is no reason for the typical line member to engage in those strategies. You are not giving anyone any hardons for ANTs leaving the warpgate. Couldn't care less if my base is running out of juice, honestly. We'll just move onto the next base, whether we win or lose.

    The important principle is that ownership of bases currently only acts as a "map" changing mechanic, as is present in typical lobby shooters, that is triggerable by a victory or loss of an encounter/conflict, which is a parallel to "matches".

    Is this what "we" want? Quotation marks, because the reality is, i'm playing EVE Online, and know from experience that as soon as mandatory "strategy" enters this game, forums will be full of whine thread about how this game is tedious. Carrots and sticks barely work these days, and when you offer just a stick, prepare to lose followers...

    How soon is really soon? It's been 5 days now and it's gonna take you a week or two you could just be specific about it.
  11. Maniaboo

    I would like to see one thing introduced form PS1.

    Vehicles deconed if they are on any type of base structure.
    And when blocking doorways.

    I think it was 5 seconds in PS1 maybe 10.
  12. Timithos

    It's called a Loadstar, yet another great feature/vehicle from Planetside 1.

    Bad video quality, but here:

    • Up x 2
  13. Crator

    I wouldn't say that base power would be that complicated where it would affect casual players. It's just a mechanism to allow an enemy force to drain base power so they can remove an entrenched defender. Think draining a Biolab cause it takes too long to get the enemy out. Those that want to participate in trying to keep the base power filled would be messing with the ANTs.

    Base power (NTUs) in PS1 lasted a long time. So did fights if they were contested and/or the type of base it was because some were more defensible then others. You could do different things at a base to drain the power quicker, but it still lasted a long time if the NTU silo was full all the way at the start. There was the Orbital Strike in PS1 as well (which I didn't like that much tbh) but it was used a lot to destroy ANTs as they parked at the NTU silo to fill it up at contested bases.

    The reason the game had the mechanic was two things:

    1. Allow enemy to go past lattice connections and drain a base in order to capture it behind the front lines or to deny base benefits to the enemy through the lattice.
    2. Allow enemy to drain an enemy base that is being defended. This made it so there was a way for the enemy players to shut down the base spawns so they could get in to the base and hack it for capture.
    The motivation to hold and own a base in PS2 should be for base benefits or to accomplish the overarching goal of capturing the entire continent.

    Denying enemy base benefits doesn't really work well with the lattice and bases we have in PS2. However the ability to drain an enemy base behind the front lines sounds intriguing! Again, base draining shouldn't be something you can do quickly. It should take time which allows the defending empire enough time to notice and respond before it happens.

    SIDE NOTE: The lattice along with the terrain and how the bases were placed on the map in PS1 was different from PS2. The bases took 15 minutes to capture using a hack timer. If the owning empire secures the base the enemy must hack it again and the timer starts again. That timer was too long imo and didn't need to be that long. They resolved that issue in PS2 with the capture system they implemented and that is something I like versus the way PS1 did it.
    • Up x 1
  14. Sandpants

    Ok fair enough, it's a mechanic that brings forth a hasty conclusion to a fight.
    However, the prereqs to trigger the continuation of the fight involve both sides fighting the resource->ANT war. "Those that want to participate in trying to keep the base power" or the opposite would need to be present on both sides. Since the only motivation to participate in this activity is to control how soon (if at ever) the base is flipped (map change mechanism), I repeat again, there is little to attract people to keep the fight going, set aside the folk from PS1 who like to see it work for the sakes of watching it happen. No one cares for small outposts and bases. Very few care major outposts even. Whilst lightnings are not MBTs, they are an adequate replacement to an MBT in the late cert farming meta.

    Also Biolabs are simply terrible; the reason it takes a long time to get the enemy out is because of the limited entrances that act horrible choke points and cert body funnels. Nobody goes to a biolab to capture a biolab. They go there to get access to the funnel and murder noobs en masse.
    Biolab bonuses have been somewhat condensed into the implant, even if they stack. MBTs are somewhat replaceable.
    The heat reduction from techs is cute. But these are all extremely meager in the grand scheme of things.
    Not only that, they are also a small percentage of all other available bases available on the continent.
    Which goes back to the problem - there is no demand for the majority of bases excluding the major facs. All they do is act as reserve spawn points and/or concentration camps where the steamrolling enemy can engage in the industrial extermination of the occupant.

    Capturing a continent is hardly an overarching goal. It's simply the conclusion of a steamroll effort. The discounts are nice but I never went to myself and said "I NEED THAT DISCOUNT".

    You are continuously missing the fundamental issue with this game.

    "Conquering" anything is just lip words. It doesn't mean anything. I'll gladly pass on any base to any faction provided they can keep throwing bodies at me to fund my addiction for opening implant boxes and raising cert capital to purchase any new toy DBG introduces into the game on the same day. THATs what people really play for. They might not agree, or admit or say that that's what they play for, but the reality is that's the form of slavery that we are engaged in.

    And that's hardly a bad strategy. You win the base. Cool, but did you end up buying all the new 1000 cert weps as soon as you wanted them with the oversaturated zerg you brought to cap the base with, hence diluting the cert source? I highly doubt it.
  15. Crator

    I do not disagree with you on the PS2 base types and the benefits they give. Even in PS1 you had some base benefits that weren't necessary to move forward. The difference between PS1 and PS2 in that regard is in how the bases are placed on the map, the things in between them, and the lattice that connects them.

    I'm of the mind that moving the fight across the map is essential to keep the game fresh. Fighting over the varied and beautiful terrain that the developers hand crafted is ideal for the players and a goal the devs wanted to achieve.

    I do agree that zergs are a problem and that something should be done to help balance the population between continents. I don't have any ideas off the top of my head atm on that though.

    Either the major bases need to give a much greater benefit or the entire map (terrain, lattice, base layouts) needs to be reworked. I believe the former would be easier to do for the devs. The question then becomes, what exactly can we give the bases that help the initiative of capturing continents. Maybe you get a sub-set of connecting hexes when you capture the major base? Some type of player controlled mechanic which dictates which connecting hexes, if any, get taken when the major base is captured. Something must be done about the redeploy mechanic for this to work properly too I think.
    • Up x 1
  16. Sandpants

    That is a brilliant ideal.

    Which, unfortunately, contradicts entirely with the motivation to capture bases. First, this motivation must be mutual. Both (or all three) sides of an encounter should want to capture/hold the base over which they are fighting. This causes map stagnation and we end up fighting in the same "map" for hours at a time. Which gets appalingly boring.

    But by your ideal, it's more desirable to compromisingly allow the enemy to capture your base, and take turns with pushing and pulling, in order to manifest the "map change".

    Which again begs the question, why capture and hold bases? If we want map change, we could lose the base. In fact it would be more efficient to simply have 2 buttons we can press that says "win base" - "lose base". Ironically making a full swing back to square one of the whole lobby shooter scheme and invalidating the need of an open world map that PS2 has.
    Flat global rewards spread evenly throughout the new occupying force that's on field - the more people you bring the less you get.
    Maybe, maybe not. There is no gray area in terms of power. It's either to weak to care, or overwhelmingly strong that people choose to boycott playing once they lose (unless there are broader prospects and opportunities available, so that people are less fixated on having THAT ONE particular asset - source: EVE:O)
    Yes, thats exactly the million dollar question that DBG needs to answer in order to keep this game out of the coffin.

    ...and back to square one again...
    There is a constant demand for obtaining guns, consumables and implants. Vehicle too, and their respective upgrades.
    There is no demand whatsoever for static real estate or land mass. Because it holds no value.

    People need to wake up and realise acquiring bases in PS2 is like if you are floating stranded in the vacuum of space, and suddenly, magically, a ceramic cup materialises in your hand. The spontaneity of the cup appearing is AMAZING. Mind blowing. But it doesn't help you. It's a ceramic cup and you are in space and soon will suffocate and die in the coldness of nothing. The ceramic cup is the last thing you need. Shortly after, more and more cups materialise out of nothing. But you are no longer entertained - it got old after the first few, and you are really desperate to survive instead.

    Thats what bases and continents are like in PS2.
  17. Crator

    Capture and hold bases to complete overarching goal of locking the continent. There is a battle between bases, not just a map change, that occurs in PS2. Although too many restraints exist with the current lattice. A more hybrid hex-lattice adjacency system would be nice but that probably requires maps changes.

    The constant 3-way fights help stagnate the entire map the most, along with redeploy mechanics and hex-lattice layout. *3-ways are promoted by the empire footholds on each continent. In PS1 there was an intercontinental lattice with empire home continents which allowed some breathing room from 3-way fights, but didn't prevent them from happening all the time.
    • Up x 2
  18. Sandpants

    This is just going round and round.

    I, and a lot of other people, simply do not need a continent to be unlocked.

    There is not much else to discuss on that topic.

    Although, here you go - make it so that an unlocked continent offers bonuses to all factions on any other continent, provided somebody is fighting on the said unlocked continent in question. Now there is a cut-off threat. A locked continent continues to offer the bonus to its owner alone. And the motivation to capture and lock a continent is to push out any other occupants and prevent them from enjoying the same bonus across all other maps.
  19. Crator

    Oh, I see. You don't want a continent locking mechanic at all.

    But yes, the concept is to give the empire with the locked continent benefits to any connecting base along the (intercontinental) lattice. This provides opportunities for the enemy to cut off benefits via the lattice.
  20. Sandpants

    No that's not it.
    I don't understand how you don't see it.

    There is virtually no difference whether the continent is locked or unlocked. To actually feel a difference, you need to lock a continent first, enjoy the bonuses (can't do that before the lock), then consider locking it again. All the whilst realising that it's a huge effort for a meager long term result. That option competes with the moment-to-moment opportunity of farming infantry and vehicles for certs, which occurs regardless of base ownership.

    Allowing people to capture my bases, regrouping at the next base and taking the fight there is simply more productive because it produces a continuous stream of the most valuable resource offered compared to any base, any continent or literally anything else in the WHOLE DAMN game. Certification points.

    I say you don't need bases
    You say you need bases to capture the continent
    I say there is no need for capping the continent
    You say you need to capture the continent to lock out the enemy
    I say there is no point in keeping the enemy out. THE VALUE IS IN FARMING YOUR ENEMY. Not preventing him playing the game.
    Conquering anything in PS2 is counterproductive unless you feel like you are really poor and need the continent discounts. Which is hardly the case.

    Also in the example presented, I mention no lattice. I get the impression lattice has become a buzzword that causes spontaneous hard ons.
    The point was: Non-locked continents provide a bonus to all factions. Now there is incentive to fight over them. Because if a content is locked, 2 factions are going to feel the loss.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.